Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 7 OCTOBER 1987

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

2860 7 October 1987 Papers

WEDNESDAY, 7 OCTOBER 1987

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. K. R. Lingard, Fassifem) read prayers and took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

PETITIONS The Deputy Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Bridge to North Stradbroke Island From Mr Clauson (904 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will abandon plans for constmction of a bridge from the mainland to North Stradbroke Island. Amendments to Education Act From Mr Gygar (73 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will desist from making amendments to the Education Act which will eliminate independent education boards. Fire Levy From Mr Comben (8 398 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will declare a moratorium on fire levy charges and establish a fair system. Declaration of National Park on South Stradbroke Island From Mr I. J. Gibbs (3 098 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will ensure the protection of all public land on South Stradbroke Island by declaring the area a national park. Warwick Dairy From Mr Booth (2 075 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will support the Warwick Dairy and resist all moves toward its closure or downgrading. Award System and Industrial Commission; Anti-strike Legislation From Mr McLean (23 646 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will ensure the support of the existing award system and the Industrial Commission and repeal anti-strike legislation. Petitions received. PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Reports— Intellectually Handicapped Citizens Council of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1987 Air PoUution Council of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1987 Noise Abatement Authority of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1987 Commissioner for RaUways for the year ended 30 June 1987. The following papers were laid on the table— Proclamation under Diseases in Plants Act 1929-1972 Orders in Council under— City of Brisbane Act 1924-1986 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 Papers 7 October 1987 2861

Health Act 1937-1987 Rural Training Schools Act 1965-1984 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 Irrigation Act 1922-1986, Water Act 1926-1987 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 Water Act 1926-1987 Water Act 1926-1987 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 Water Resources Administration Act 1978-1984 Harbours Act 1955-1982 Banana Industry Protection Act 1929-1972 Regulations under— Cremation Act 1913-1978 Food Act 1981-1984 Health Act 1937-1987 Radioactive Substances Act 1958-1978 Education Act 1984-1987 Farm Produce Marketing Act 1964-1986 By-laws under— Education Act 1964-1987 Harbours Act 1955-1982 Statutes under— Griffith University Act 1971-1987 James Cook University of North Queensland Act 1970-1987 University of Queensland Act 1965-1987 Reports— Rockhampton Jockey Club for the year ended 30 June 1987 The Totalisator Administration Board of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1987 Tmstees of the Local Authorities Debt Redemption Fund for the year ended 30 June 1987 Board of Nursing Studies for the year ended 30 June 1987 The Chiropractic Manipulative Therapists Board of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1987 The Chiropodists Board of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1987 Dental Board of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1987 The Nurses Registration Board of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1987 The Occupational Therapists Board of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1987 The Optometrists Board of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1987 The Pharmacy Board of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1987 The Physiotherapists Board of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1987 The Psychologists Board of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1987 The Speech Therapists Board of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1987. 2862 7 October 1987 Ministerial Statement

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Photographic Drivers' Licences Hon. D. F. LANE (Merthyr—Minister for Transport) (2.39 p.m.), by leave: The latest figures show that 437 000 Queenslanders now hold a photographic driver's licence foUowing their introduction httle more than a year ago. This is an outstanding achievement in terms of the logistics and public acceptance of such a system, underlining the unqualified success of the licences. As it is a matter which affects members and their constituents, it is an appropriate time to give a progress report on the system launched in July 1986. The Queensland photographic licence system, apart from its obvious convenience and durability, has some less-conspicuous but equally important benefits. For example, it is estimated that almost 150 000, or 30 per cent of licence-holders already have indicated on new licences their willingness to be organ-donors in the event of an accident. This innovation can mean that the tragedy of a fatal road accident can provide someone requiring a donor organ with a real chance of life. Another significant spin-off involves the release of more than 100 police officers, previously occupied with clerical work, to carry out much-needed police duties throughout Queensland. Queensland tax-payers would also be happy to hear that the licence fees, coupled with more efficient issuing procedures, have enabled the system to be self- funding. This is more significant considering that Queensland licences, when compared with annual renewal charges, are the lowest in Australia. The average annual renewal fees for Queensland are presently $4.70; Victoria, $10; Tasmania and South Australia, $12; Northem Territory, $13.15; Westem Australia, $16; New South Wales, $21; and the Australian Capital Territory, $22. The popularity of the new licences has been emphasised by the thousands of motorists who have surrendered old paper licences long before the required renewal date. In the near future, photographic licences and driver records wiU be co-ordinated through an on-line computer system with added advantages for the public and for the administration. The photographic licence system is a service of interest to all members and their constituents giving access to licence issuing facilities. The Transport Department's ongoing program for installation of photographic facilities now extends throughout the State to all 16 Transport Department offices and 200 police stations from Thursday Island to BirdsviUe. A fiirther $lm has been allocated towards the program in this year's State Budget, which is indicative of the high priority given to it by the Queensland Govemment. It is an important initiative, which has provided added convenience for the driving public, improved administrative procedures for the department, and a strong deterrent against counterfeiting and theft of hcences. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation. Mr LANE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. With 437 000 of these licences already in use, and with the public rapidly changing to the new system, it can only mean escalating benefits for motorists, pubhc administration and for the community at large.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

North Queensland Timber Resources Management Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying) (2.43 p.m.), by leave: On 15 September, the Leader of the Opposition implied in this House that the Queensland Govemment was guilty of mismanaging north Queensland timber resources since 1981, and thus was instmmental in causing a Ministerial Statement 7 October 1987 2863 subsequent loss in timber-related jobs in the area. Furthermore, he accused the Queensland Govemment of ignoring the plight of those supposedly displaced timber-workers, and of ignoring rainforest conservation in general. The facts do not substantiate his claims. In his attack on this Govemment, he cited employment figures taken from a 1981 Department of Forestry position paper titled Timber Production from North Queensland's Rainforests. That paper said that there were "about 600" people directly employed in the industry at that time—but, somehow, he came up with the figure of 800 jobs. Be that as it may, I can now—in late 1987—point to 765 people directly employed in the north Queensland timber industry. That is a gain of 165 real jobs during the six- year period. In fact, it may interest the Leader of the Opposition to know that the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported 56 operating sawmills in north Queensland in December 1981; but the latest ABS data available, current for December 1986, reports 55 operating sawmills in the same statistical area—hardly, one could say, a loss of any magnitude. Interestingly, the gain in north Queensland jobs directly related to the timber industry has been achieved during a period in which the annual harvest allocation for rainforest timbers on Crown lands has been substantially reduced. This would seem to indicate a higher end-use value for those beautifiil timbers—thus necessitating the use of more labour in their preparation for marketing. As I have stated many times in the past, the annual cut from our northem rainforests—now set at 60 000 cubic metres a year—can be maintained indefinitely. This is the sustainable yield level—the level at which the 18.7 per cent of the rainforest zoned for logging will replenish itself That is also the level of yield which will guarantee the jobs of those people now employed in the north Queensland timber industry. It is those jobs—and the related indirect employment—that the Queensland Govemment is concemed about in its total opposition to the Commonwealth Govemment's declared intention of nominating our northem rainforests for World Heritage listing. In his recent attack on this Govemment, and on my Department of Forestry, the Leader of the Opposition also dutifully wmng his hands in anguish over our supposed lack of concem for the conservation of our northem rainforests. Perhaps he might not know that it is only because of the Queensland Govemment's early concem—and that of leading foresters and sawmillers—that today we have any rainforest worth worrying about. From humble beginnings in 1900 Queensland's forest estate has now grown to over 4.5 million hectares, including plantation areas needed to ensure future timber supplies for Queensland's growing population. The Queensland Department of Forestry today employs highly trained scientists, technicians and administrators to manage these forests for the benefit of all Queenslanders. The ideals of forest conservation in Queensland laid down well over a century ago—in fact, in the 1870s—live on and form the comer- stone of multiple-use management to provide forest products, recreation, water catchment protection and preservation of environmental values for ever. The Leader of the Opposition should not cast aspersions on successive Queensland Govemments without first doing his homework. After all, it was a Labor Govemment which, in 1949, set up a commission of inquiry into the timber industry to determine future rainforest harvesting policy. The commission, although recognising that cutting at that time exceeded growth by a large margin, made no recommendation to reduce yield. In fact, the commission found that there were sufficient resources of mature and overmature timber to expand the timber industry, subject to the provision of suitable access. A similar inquiry in 1959 echoed the findings of the 1949 commission, thus setting the pattem for the cutting of rainforest timber until 1978, when the allowable cuts for the period to 1981 were established on the basis of a programmed reduction towards the rainforests' ultimate sustainable yield. Using inventory surveying and the modem 2864 7 October 1987 Ministerial Statement advantage of Landsat imagery to accurately calculate the total forest resource, the Department of Forestry then programmed a series of reductions in rainforest cuts to arrive at an annual cut based on sustainable yield, beginning in late 1986. The north Queensland timber industry, about which the Leader of the Opposition expresses a concem uncharacteristic of his Canberra mentors, has adjusted itself to successive yield reductions and a harmonious balance has been established after almost four decades of consistent management by the Department of Forestry. The only discordant note is the constant bleating of the armchair greenies who have neither the knowledge nor the first-handexperienc e to constmctively criticise Queensland's rainforest management. They resort, instead, to the well-used misinformation promoted by a smaU bank of militant greenies and repeatedly featured in newspaper headlines in recent years. Queensland's rainforests are already adequately protected. North of Townsville there are 856 000 700 hectares of rainforest, with just over 94 per cent in Crown ownership. Almost 76 per cent of the rainforest is held in virgin condition, and only 18.7 per cent is currently zoned for selective logging on a sustained yield basis. This 18.7 per cent is the basis of an industry worth over $3 3m a year, providing homes and livelihoods— directly and indirectly—for thousands of Queenslanders. The Commonwealth Govemment and the mihtant greenies, in their push for World Heritage listing, hold up the false promise of tourist industry jobs for displaced workers, but tourism and the multiple-use management of Queensland's tropical rainforests have co-existed for many years. In fact, recreation is a major consideration of multiple-use management. Forestry roads have helped to open up previously inaccessible areas to tourism. Judging from the increase in recreation visitation to north Queensland's rainforests in recent years, today tourism and logging are highly compatible and, in harmony, can both provide regional economic benefits well into the future. Shutting down a viable industry and creating instant ghost towns through World Heritage listing will not provide any incentive for tourists to visit the area more often than they do now. In fact, as the timber industry itself is a significant tourist attraction, as evidenced by the popularity of the Woodworks Timber Industry Museum at Gympie, there may actually be less reason for tourists to visit than at present. The Leader of the Opposition would also have us believe that no attempt has been made to provide altemative plantation timbers in north Queensland. Nothing could be further from the tmth. For over 60 years the department has vigorously researched plantation estabhshment in north Queensland. As a result, a softwood plantation program is being actively progressed, with significant plantings at Wongabel, Gadgarra, DanbuUa, Cardwell and Ingham. Unfortunately, as the Leader of the Opposition and his northem representatives are well aware, no economically viable system of producing rainforest hardwoods in open plantation has yet been devised. He castigates the Govemment for not instituting such a program and, in the next breath, deplores the magnitude of the forestry debt in Queensland. I ask: does he want to increase it further by throwing tens of milhons of dollars down the drain on hardwood plantings which, as our research has shown, will produce no economic retum on funds invested? The Opposition support of this proposed listing is a blatant, cynical betrayal of the people of north Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Queensland Luxury Pools Pty Ltd Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs—Minister for Employment, Small Business and Industrial Affairs) (2.52 p.m.), by leave: I urge Queensland consumers to think seriously before dealing with Queensland Luxury Pools Pty Ltd. (Queenslanders should realise that they take the risk of becoming another complaints statistic if they deal with this company. Rather than building trouble-free luxury pools for Queenslanders, this company has been building pools and spas the quality of which often falls far short of workable, let alone luxury. Ministerial Statement 7 October 1987 2865

The company manufactures and retails fibreglass swimming-pools and has its registered office at Lot 6, Industrial Avenue, Molendinar, Gold Coast. The Consumer Affairs Bureau has investigated more than 80 complaints against this company. Mr Davis: Eighty? Mr LESTER: Yes, that is correct. The honourable member should take note of that. Almost one-third of complaints conceming in-ground pools received by the bureau during the last financial year have been against Queensland Luxury Pools. The complaints refer to faulty product, faulty instaUation and the ineffectiveness of warranties because of inadequate after-sales service. The bureau has repeatedly brought these complaints to the attention of Mr Colin Harbrow, the managing director of Queensland Luxury Pools and, despite his promises to improve the situation, very little improvement is occurring and complaints keep buUding up. Mr Yewdale: Why don't you put him out of business? Mr LESTER: The bureau will continue to follow up these complaints, but I can only recommend to consumers not to deal with Queensland Luxury Pools. This company's reputation for professional workmanship is now shattered and consumers should seek other pool-manufacturers or builders. It is not often that I bring a matter of this nature to the House. I can assure honourable members it is serious. It amazes me that the Labor Party seems to be taking the matter so lightly.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Aquaculture Industry Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Minister for Primary Industries) (2.55 p.m.), by leave: Queensland is the centre for the growing aquaculture industry in Australia and the Govemment will continue to foster its development. While applauding the initiative and effort of those pioneering people who are translating overseas technology to develop this industry in Queensland, I must sound a note of caution about schemes being promoted both in fresh-water and salt-water aquaculture with extravagant claims as to their potential as an investment opportunity. The office of the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs exists to provide a protection to potential investors in such schemes, and I compliment my colleague the Minister for Justice for his action in this regard. Aquaculture development will take place that will involve major capital input such as that being undertaken by Eastem Marine Resources and Sea Hatcheries Pty Ltd, both of whom have obtained stock exchange hsting and both of whom, among others who are not listed, are developing in a responsible manner. I invite attention to the fact that although this industry has great potential, early profits are not necessarily assured. Some promoters have created expectations including an unreasonably rosy picture of likely retums and minimising the difficulties that this growing industry faces. For that reason, I urge caution. A Government member interjected. Mr HARPER: My ministerial colleague interjects that it is shades of jojoba. I certainly agree that the Govemment must have regard to schemes that Ministers have warned against. I am doing the same now and sounding a note of caution to people who may be interested in aquaculture and mariculture. 2866 7 October 1987 Questions Upon Notice

Sound programs of development are feasible and deserve support from the investing public. This has been apparent by the continued movement of some of the major development companies such as Ariadne into this industry. The successes that will be achieved will be on the basis of sound management of the enterprise as a unit. It is not likely that success will come from shares in ponds or parts of ponds with the inference that the owner of such a share can satisfactorily work his portion in isolation. Really, that is not feasible. In the main, this applies equally to development proposals in the fresh-water area. My predecessor in office, the Honourable Neil Turner, issued similar warnings about investment in this industry, and recent newspaper reports confirm that this waming was well made. Potential investors or investors who are interested in participating in this exciting industry should seek to have the claims of any program substantiated. Officers of my fisheries management branch are already providing this service on request. Their advice cannot include any recommendation one way or the other with respect to individual companies. However, it can provide input into the actual technical details of any claims made.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Green Paper on Amendments to Retail Shop Leases Act Hon. P. R. McKECHNIE (Camarvon—Minister for Industry and Technology) (2.58 p.m.), by leave: The Govemment is proposing to amend the Retail Shop Leases Act 1984-1985. However, before legislative changes are brought before this House, I am keen to obtain the views of as many people as possible involved in the retail shopping industry. A Green Paper has been prepared and will be released this Thursday. Those submissions should be in the hands of the registrar of the shop lease mediation panel and tribunal no later than 9 November. I therefore table a copy of the Green Paper for the information of all honourable members. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1. Alternative Crops for Grain-growers Mr ELLIOTT asked the Minister for Primary Industries— "With reference to considerable hardship in the traditional farming areas due to drought, high interest rates and disastrous prices for traditional grain crops— What action is he taking following discussions held between himself and the Members for Warwick, Condamine, Roma and myself seeking assistance in developing altemative crops for these areas?" Mr HARPER: Whilst there is a real need to search for ahemative crops, it would be unwise to regard such altematives as offering any short-term solution to the problems of farmers facing financial difficulties. I therefore remind the House of initiatives that have been taken already in the areas of— • provision of carry-on finance to assist with preparation and planting next summer's crop; and • additional economic and financial advice to be provided to producers by agricultural economists and consultants on an individual property or group basis. Questions Upon Notice 7 October 1987 2867

I mention that before leaving for Canberra, the Honourable the Premier had discussions with me in relation to issues in this regard that he would be raising with the Commonwealth. As far as altemative crops are concemed an obvious area for effort is to increase market opportunities for grain legumes, particularly chickpeas. The Govemment is committed to assisting industry with increased market research, including an overseas mission, if industry so elects. In the medium term, production research is focussed on extending the range of environments for the grain legumes—dryland soybean, chickpea, pigeon pea and mung beans—and improving their reliability and versatility in cropping systems. Two new directions are proposed for the longer term— (1) The possible creation of a new broad acre grain legume suitable for the coarse grain trade which will also contribute to the nitrogen status of cropping lands. Discussions have been held with CSIRO and that organisation is presently assessing the features required of such a crop with a view to initiation of a major program. (2) The identification of other new crops for dryland agriculture. In this connection a delegation from the United States Department of Agriculture—which recognises the same needs—is to visit Queensland from 2 to 6 November for discussions with my officers. Those discussions will cover new crops for semi-arid areas, low input production systems and commercialisation of new techniques and commodities. I am hopeful that this visit will establish ongoing relationships with American innovators and identify potential species that will broaden Queensland's production base and render Queensland's farm economy less dependent on the major traditional commodities. This is, of course, an area of intangibles and uncertainties, but I can assure the House that every effort will be made to ensure that Queensland is at the leading edge of whatever eventuates. Finally, I must say that it is still important to increase the productivity of major grains and there is substantial research and extension effort continuing in my department with this objective. Of course, no crop wiU be grown successfully without adequate moisture and in dryland farming that means stored moisture as the result of sound management practices, together with reasonable rainfaU during the growing period. Much of Queensland simply has not received a reasonable summer season for three, four or even five years. If reasonable rains allow summer plantings this year there will be large areas planted to sorghum. I suggest that farmers give consideration to shorter growing crops such as millet or early maturing sunflower so that they may still plant winter crops, being optimistic enough to expect winter planting rains.

2. Mainsel Investments Pty Ltd, Development of Railway Department Land Mr BEANLAND asked the Premier and Treasurer— "With reference to the allegations relating to the development of Railway Department land and the adjacent land on the comer of Turbot, Edward and Ann Streets, Brisbane, by Mainsel Investments Pty Ltd— (1) Will he deny that any contribution has been received from Mainsel Investments Pty Ltd or J. Minuzzo or one of the other shareholders over the last three years to (a) the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation, (b) the National Party or (c) any other organisation or company in which he has an interest? (2) What are the 'half a dozen things nearly as big as this' that he indicated in the press on 21 May 1986 that the developer had constmcted? (3) What are the names and addresses and shareholding of the shareholders of Mainsel Investments Pty Ltd? (4) What is the paid up capital of Mainsel Investments Pty Ltd?" 2868 7 October 1987 Questions Without Notice

Mr GUNN: On behalf of the Premier, the answer is as follows— (1)1 have no knowledge of any contributions made by Mainsel Investments or J. Minuzzo to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation, the National Party or any other organisations, including the Liberal Party or the Labor Party. Neither I nor any other member of my family personally have received any moneys from this company or J. Minuzzo. I might add that it appears to be routine for all members on the other side of this House to imply contributions of this nature whenever the Queensland Govemment announces a new development for the State. (2 to 4) I suggest the honourable member address these questions to Mainsel Investments.

3. Mainsel Investments Pty Ltd, Development of Railway Department Land Mr BEANLAND asked the Premier and Treasurer— "With reference to the development of Railway Department land and the adjacent land on the comer of Turbot, Edward and Ann Streets, Brisbane— (1) On what date did the Govemment accept the tender of Mainsel Invest­ ments Pty Ltd, a company with a capital of four $ 1 shares? (2) On what date did the Govemment receive a Bank or Insurance Certificate or Certificate of Undertakings of $5m from Mainsel Investments Pty Ltd which was a requirement of the conditions of tendering? (3) What is the term of lease and rental per year given by Mainsel Investments Pty Ltd to the State Govemment for the Railway Department land? (4) What is the area, number of floors, and cost of floor space that the Railway Department has agreed to lease from Mainsel Investments Pty Ltd in the building? (5) What is the area, number of floors, cost of floor space and the names of other State Govemment Departments that are proposing to lease space? (6) Is there any proposal by the State Govemment to freehold the Railway Department land to Mainsel Investments Pty Ltd? (7) What irrevocable guarantee of performance has the Govemment received from Mainsel Investments Pty Ltd that the projected 107-storey building wiU be constmcted?" Mr GUNN: On behalf of the Premier, the answer is as follows— (1 to 7) I remind the honourable member that at my press conference held in company with the developer and project partner, a Korean constmction company of high repute, on 6 August 1987,1 dealt extensively with this project and what it involved. In relation to (4) and (5), I draw the attention of the honourable member to the answer I provided to the House yesterday to a similar question.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Fitzgerald Inquiry; Appearance of Ministers Mr WARBURTON: My first question is directed to the Deputy Premier. In answer to a question yesterday, the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General, Mr Clauson, said— "It is up to Mr Fitzgerald whether or not he requires evidence from Ministers." That is something that every member of this House understood. My question today relates to the Govemment's official position regarding Ministers appearing before the inquiry. I ask: has Cabinet made any decision or has it adopted any attitude as to what a Minister will do if Mr Fitzgerald invites a Minister to give evidence? Questions Without Notice 7 October 1987 2869

Mr GUNN: The answer given yesterday by the Minister for Justice and Attomey- General was absolutely correct. The Govemment wiU examine that position if it ever arises. Mr WARBURTON: My second question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question may be placed on notice. Mr WARBURTON: I did not want to do that, Mr Speaker. With respect, I did not know that he was not in the Chamber. Mr SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition may ask another question if he wishes to do so. Mr WARBURTON: I will direct a question to the Deputy Premier. Fitzgerald Inquiry; Public Interest Immunity Mr WARBURTON: In directing a question to the Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police, I refer to what is known in law as public interest immunity, and I ask: is it not correct that, if a Cabinet Minister refuses to accept an invitation to appear before the Fitzgerald inquiry, that Minister can be subpoenaed to appear? Is it not also tme that there are absolutely no legal provisions under public interest immunity that allow Ministers or anyone else to be exempted from appearing if required to do so? If that is so, will the Deputy Premier admit that there is no legal opinion, and never was any legal opinion of any consequence, that enables Ministers to refuse to appear before the inquiry? Mr GUNN: The Queensland Govemment's solicitor is, of course, the Solicitor- General. It also has a lawyer involved in the inquiry who is one of the best in Australia. The Queensland Govemment will be guided at the appropriate time by their advice. Failure of Opposition Members to Comment on Problems of Labor Administrations Mr FITZGERALD: I ask the Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police: is he aware of the recent media reports which outline problem areas under the control of two Labor Govemments? Is it not rather strange that members of the Opposition have not uttered a word about ministerial resignations or accountability in those instances, which is in stark contrast to the self-righteous attitude that they have adopted towards events in this State? Mr GUNN: I thank the honourable member for the question. It is very, very important. Mr Vaughan: He's even got a speech written. Mr GUNN: It is absolutely necessary to show what hypocrites members of the Opposition are. I am very well aware of two reports that have come to my notice. They only serve to highlight the hypocritical attitude adopted by Labor members opposite on the question of ministerial accountability. The first was an article in the Times on Sunday—I have it here—which reported that, for bribes, some New South Wales police prosecutors had been unlawfully altering criminal records. It pointed out that a report by the New South Wales Ombudsman's Office had recommended that the Police Commissioner seek independent legal advice to determine whether prosecutions should follow. The other was a recent article in the Australian, which reported that 11 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officers had been convicted of offences involving the import and sale of cars under diplomatic privilege in Indonesia. It pointed out that the officers had been found guilty and demoted or fined. While I do not wish to elaborate on such reports, they do highlight the inconsistency and hyprocrisy of Labor members opposite and their colleagues in other States. 2870 7 October 1987 Questions Without Notice

If the Labor Party is as concemed about ministerial accountability as it pretends to be here, where are the calls for the New South Wales Police Minister or the Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr Hayden, to be held accountable for what has occurted in their departments? The deafening silence on such issues shows just how weak and inconsistent Labor members opposite are. While they have worked themselves into a virtual frenzy here trying to intimidate this Government—without success—as a result of a yet unfinished inquiry they have, quite conveniently, of course, ignored problems of cor­ mption and malpractice in Labor administrations elsewhere. To Mr Goss and Mr Warburton I say, "If you're fair dinkum, what about calling on Mr PaciuUo or Mr Hayden to stand aside as a result of what has occurted in their administrations? You have to, if you wish to maintain any semblance of credibility or consistency. If you're fair dinkum, you can tell Mr PaciuUo that I'll even let him have the terms of reference to the Fitzgerald inquiry if he wants to use them down there." The New South Wales Ombudsman's report indicates that he has already upheld complaints of cormption in sections of the police force there, so they may come in rather useful. I again chaUenge the New South Wales Government to hold a commission of inquiry similar to that being held in Queensland. Newstead House Mr FITZGERALD: I ask the Minister for Mines and Energy and Minister for the Arts: has he or his department received any cortespondence from the Brisbane City Council about Newstead House? Mr AUSTIN: I am concemed about this matter. Earlier this aftemoon I was advised that the Lord Mayor had called a press conference and had expressed a degree of shock and horror at the alleged land grab of the State Govemment. She also implied that neither she nor her council knew anything about it. As I mentioned yesterday in question-time, officers of my department had discussions with officers of the CouncU. On 3 September of this year the Town Clerk, Dr E. K. CampbeU, wrote to Mr Stan Wilcox, the Under Secretary of the Department of the Arts. For the information of honourable members, I wUl read out that letter. Mr Powell: How long ago was that? Mr AUSTIN: It was only about four weeks ago. That letter states— "Dear Mr Wilcox, I refer to your letter conceming the Govemment's intentions for the future of Newstead House. I have discussed your letter with the Lord Mayor and would advise as foUows. The CouncU sees some merit in Newstead House falling under the management of the Queensland Museum and would be willing to discuss that matter further if the State Govemment so wishes." An honourable member interjected. Mr AUSTIN: I thought I heard the honourable member for Toowong interject. All honourable members know that the Lord Mayor stacked Mr Beanland's selection councU. She wanted to get rid of him. The letter continues— "However, the Lord Mayor has advised that Council would be unwilling to surtender CouncU freehold land adjoining Newstead House. If you wish to pursue this matter fiirther I would suggest that officers of your department contact Mr John Wood, Manager, Recreation and Health Department Questions Without Notice 7 October 1987 2871 to arrange discussions. Unless there is some significant change in attitude as a result of these discussions, it would appear however that Council would require the parkland adjoining Newstead House to remain under Council tenure." That is exactly what has been done in the Bill. Appointment of Sir Terence Lewis as Assistant Police Commissioner Mr GOSS: In directing a question to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Police, I refer to events that occurted in 1976, prior to the period that is under examination by the Fitzgerald inquiry, and, in particular, to reported statements that were made by former Commissioner Whitrod that he posted Mr Lewis to CharleviUe in the interests of the police force and the public, and subsequently objected to his promotion to the position of assistant commissioner. Furthermore, he asked the then Minister why the Govemment had insisted on the Lewis promotion, and the Minister declined to answer. I ask: does the Minister know why the Govemment insisted on the Lewis promotion over 15 more-senior superintendents? If he does know, will the Minister inform this House as to the reason why the Govemment insisted on the Lewis promotion to assistant commissioner? Mr GUNN: This is not a Dorothy Dixer, but the statements that have been made by Mr Whitrod recently are an action replay of what he was saying 11 years ago. If Mr Whitrod had something to say at that particular time, why did he not come forward? During Whitrod's reign in 1975, the Govemment instituted an inquiry by Scotland Yard into allegations of police cormption and malpractice arising from the Southport betting case. Two superintendents flew out from Scotland Yard to conduct the investi­ gation as independent investigators. In their report they found that there was not sufficient evidence to justify any prosecution. In 1977, the person in charge of the Scotland Yard investigation—I think his name was O'Connell—was again flown to Queensland ta give any evidence he had to the Lucas inquiry into the administration of criminal law. That inquiry also did not recommend the laying of any charges for cormption in the police force. It is significant that Whitrod elected not to give evidence to the Lucas inquiry, and lost face in the media as a result. He had been promising much by innuendo, but delivered nothing to the inquiry. It is now 11 years since Whitrod resigned. There have been four State elections since then. If he had something to say on cormption, surely he would have gone to the inquiry or used parliamentarians and parliamentary privilege to air his views and harm the Govemment. Whitrod cannot escape the fact that during his reign, Lewis was promoted three times Mr Goss interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Logan! Mr GUNN: Whitrod cannot escape the fact that, during his reign, Lewis was promoted three times within the rank of inspector. If there was something wrong with Lewis, why did Whitrod allow those promotions to proceed? They were made on his recommendation. Why did he say nothing about any fears that he might have had? He was in charge at the time. He cannot escape responsibility. He had a duty to speak out at the Lucas inquiry. Mr Goss interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have asked the member for Logan at least once to refrain. I now wam him under Standing Order 123A. Mr GOSS: I rise to a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier will continue. 2872 7 October 1987 Questions Without Notice

Mr GOSS: I am seeking to take a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is the honourable member's point of order? Mr GOSS: My point of order relates simply to the matter of relevance under Standing Order 70. The question simply was: does the Minister know the reason? What he is saying has nothing to do with the answer. I ask you to mle, Mr Speaker, in relation to relevance. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I call the Deputy Premier. Mr GUNN: Lewis was first appointed as assistant commissioner from his position of inspector-in-charge at Charleville on the recommendation of Mr Newbery, the Minister at that particular time. He was not recommended by Whitrod. He objected to the appointment, and I have said that. Whitrod asked to address Cabinet on the subject. Newbery passed on the request to the Premier's office, but permission was denied because such action was unprecedented. Lewis was well regarded in the force and came with high qualifications and practical experience blended with academic ability. He had been awarded the George Medal for bravery after disarming a man at Wynnum. He was a Churchill Fellow and had spent three months studying police methods in the United Kingdom and the USA. At the time of his appointment, he held a Diploma of Public Administration from the University of Queensland and was studying for a Bachelor of Arts degree, which he subsequently completed. He had won acclaim by establishing the juvenile aid bureau to assist and counsel youngsters in trouble with the law and he pioneered these methods for Australia. Up to the time of his appointment as assistant commissioner, Lewis had been awarded six favourable records and seven commendations for his police service, which began in 1949. A few days after the Lewis appointment, Whitrod elected to retire from the force, voicing objections about Govemment interference in his job, with the Lewis appointment being the last straw, so he said. Lewis was then appointed to replace Whitrod as commissioner, once again on the recommendation of the Police Minister of the day, Mr Newbery. I believe that Sir William Knox has said that the appointment had the unanimous support of Cabinet at that time, and that is correct.

Fitzgerald Inquiry; Extension of Terms of Reference Mr GOSS: I ask the Deputy Premier and Minister for Pohce: is he prepared to extend the terms of reference of the Fitzgerald inquiry to specifically cover certain events prior to the present 10-year time-frame of the Fitzgerald inquiry's terms of reference and to go back to the previous year to cover— (a) the reasons for the posting of Inspector Lewis to Charleville; (b) the circumstances of his promotion to assistant commissioner, despite the objections of the then commissioner, Mr Whitrod; (c) the circumstances surrounding the promotion to commissioner? Mr GUNN: What saddens me greatiy is the continual knocking by the Labor Party of this very successful commission of inquiry. Mr Goss: Will you extend them? Mr GUNN: The honourable member has done his utmost to knock it. I might say that it has been the most successful inquiry ever held in Australia. That has been acknowledged throughout Australia. I have challenged other States to do likewise. As far as the terms of reference are concemed—they were shown to Mr Fitzgerald at the time. Subsequently, he asked for an extension of the terms of reference Mr Mackenroth: Why don't you extend them? Questions Without Notice 7 October 1987 2873

Mr GUNN: We did. Mr Mackenroth: Extend them further. Mr GUNN: We did, you silly fool! What am I going to do with an interjection like that? The terms of reference were extended. Mr Mackenroth: No; further. Mr GUNN: It is hypothetical. Mr Fitzgerald has never made another request. When the Govemment receives a request, it will deal with it at the appropriate time. Pressure Applied to Government Members by National Party Hierarchy Sir WILLIAM KNOX: In directing a question to the Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police, I refer to pressure being applied to Govemment members by the hierachy of the National Party, and I ask: is he examining, or will he examine, those pressures—in relation to the Constitution Act, the Officials in Parliament Act and any other Act—which prejudice the working of this Parliament and individual members of it? Mr GUNN: I am not familiar with any pressure being applied to National Party members. One thing is certain: we will not make the same mistake as the Liberal Party has made. Amendments to Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act Sir WILLIAM KNOX: In directing a question to the Minister for Employment, Small Business and Industrial Affairs, I refer to the advertisement that he had placed in the newspapers calling for submissions on amendments to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and I ask: is it his intention to postpone discussion in this House of amendments to that Act because of the inquiry that is currently taking place? Mr LESTER: I am sorry, I did not quite hear what the honourable member was saying. There was a lot of noise. I ask the honourable member to ask the question again. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: In view of the advertisements placed by the Minister in the newspapers regarding submissions on changes to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, is he prepared to postpone debate on amendments to that Act, which are currently on the business paper of this House? Mr LESTER: For goodness sake! Obviously, the honourable member is talking about the voluntary employment agreements. I point out to him that the agreements are voluntary. Officers of my department have gone to an enormous amount of trouble to make sure that they are right. Surely there is no chance of the Liberal Party sitting on the fence on this issue. After all, members of the Liberal Party were most vociferous in the lead-up to the Federal election when they spoke about the Liberal Party's policy and how good it was. The National Party is the party that has actually done something. It has been working on this issue and legislation has been introduced to the Parliament. That legislation will go through, with or without the support of the Liberal Party. It will not make any difference.

Maintenance Services on Housing Commission Homes Mr SHERRIN: In directing a question to the Minister for Works and Housing, I refer to the claim made by the honourable member for Archerfield, Mr Palaszczuk, that dismissal of State Works Department employees will lead to further deterioration of maintenance services for 4 000 Housing (Commission homes in the Inala, Archerfield and Darta areas, and I ask: will the Minister inform the House whether this accusation is cortect, as many people who are living in Housing Commission homes must be concemed about that statement—irresponsible as it is—made by the honourable member? 2874 7 October 1987 Questions Without Notice

Mr I. J. GIBBS: My attention has been drawn to the statement made by the member for Archerfield, Mr Palaszczuk, that refers to the unfortunate finishing-up by the Department of Works of 250 men. The honourable member related that matter to the Housing Commission and said that approximately 4 000 houses would not be serviced by the Housing Commission, and that the people occupying those houses would have to wait for maintenance. That statement has put a lot of fear into many people. I wish to inform the House of the reason why the Works Department had to finish up approximately 250 men. Those men worked out in the field and they had loyally performed work for the department for many years. The termination of their employment was based on the fact that the Federal Govemment in Canberta cut revenue to the Queensland Govemment by $464m. That is the basis for the decision. The reason why those men had to be put off was that the Department of Works is $10m down on its budget allocations. That money had to be put to other uses, such as education. The whole situation with education has meant that the Queensland Govem­ ment will be forced to build fewer buildings—because of a reduction to the tune of $10m. It is not a matter of privatisation; it is a matter of not having enough money. There are insufficient funds to enable the Works Department to employ its own people or to engage private enterprise. Having established that point, I inform the House that that matter bears no relationship whatsoever to the Housing Commission. I would have thought that the honourable member for Archerfield has been a member of Parliament long enough to know the difference between the Works Department and the Housing Commission. The Housing Commission is quite separate from the Works Department. It operates entirely within its own bounds. It has its own management. Its officers who work in the field look after maintenance and perform similar tasks. I am very surprised that the honourable member for Archerfield made the statement that was attributed to him. No doubt his constituents and those people he has misled and put some fear into were rather surprised at his actions and, although he has been a member of this House for a long time, at his lack of understanding of the Works Department and the Housing Commission. He should know that the Housing Commission is quite separate from the Works Department. I am quite surprised at the honourable member, and I am sure that his constituents will be very anxious to know that he has misled them.

Tertiary Education Places Mr SHERRIN: In directing a question to the Minister for Education, I refer him to the announcement in the recent Federal Budget of an additional 5 800 tertiary places for Australian students. I ask the Minister: in the light of the blatant discrimination against Queensland students by successive Commonwealth Labor and Liberal Govemments since 1972, in the light of Queensland's outstanding school retention rates and in the light of recently announced Commonwealth changes to the dole for 16 and 17-year-olds that will force many of them to retum to school, could he inform the House how many additional tertiary places should Queensland be entitled to? Mr POWELL: If I understand the question completely—and I had some difficulty hearing it because of the rabble at the back of the Chamber, and unlike Mr Vaughan: Go and see an optometrist. Mr POWELL: In case the honourable member for Nudgee is not aware, I point out to him that an optometrist does not fix up hearing. If in fact Queensland was to receive a fair share of tertiary places, the Federal Govemment would grant to the State the entire 5 800 extra places that have been allocated for this financial year. As I understand the situation, Queensland has not received the whole 5 800, and I guess it is fair to say that I am not surprised at that. Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2875

As the honourable member indicated, untU 1972 Queensland had the highest participation rate in higher education of any Australian State. That has now shpped to the position that we are in at the moment. (Queensland has the highest participation rate in Australia, in the Years 11 and 12, except for the ACT, which has special conditions. It is grossly unfair that Queensland's claim for an amount of equality in tertiary or higher-education places is ignored by the Commonwealth Govemment. I might add that it is my understanding that it is not ignored by (CTEC—the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission—which is the commission that makes recommendations to the Commonwealth Govemment. I am considerably alarmed—and I think all members of the Parliament and anybody who has students who are about to go into tertiary education should also be alarmed— by some of the Federal Minister's statements in which he is consistently moving towards fee-paying students. I can see the time coming fairly quickly when the Federal Govemment wiU say to institutions, "As far as we are concemed, there are X number of places available. You can fill the rest with fee-paying students." It will be found that States such as Queensland will be further disadvantaged, because the number of free places offered by the Commonwealth Govemment is less than our population would dictate and it is less than our diligent students would want it to be. As a result of that, there will be a call on Queensland parents in this State to make up for the shortfall in Commonwealth funding in the higher-education field. All Queensland parents, particularly those with students in Years 10 and above, ought to be taking an active interest in this regard and speaking regularly with their Federal members of Parliament, no matter which side they are on, because, as the honourable member pointed out in his question, not only the Labor Party but also the Liberal Party has let us down. There needs to be an absolute acknowledgment by those Federal members of what the situation is so that they can acquaint their Govemment with it. At 3.30 p.m., In accordance with the provisions of the Sessional Order, the House went into Committee of Supply.

SUPPLY

Estimates—First Allotted Day

Estimates-in-Chief, 1987-88

Local Government, Main Roads and Racing

Department of Local Government Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast—Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing) (3.31 p.m.): I move— "That $13,763,000 be granted for 'Department of Local Govemment'." I made the comment in this Chamber on 11 October 1984, the last time the Estimates for my departments were debated, that I was the longest-serving Minister for Local Govemment and Main Roads on record in this State. I have since added three years to that record and, let me assure honourable members, I intend to add a further substantial period to ensure that it will be some considerable time before it is surpassed, if ever. It is obvious that I enjoy my portfolio and it is obvious why I enjoy it. Firstly, I have responsibility for administering the third sphere of govemment in this State, a responsibility which I do not take lightly. There is no doubt that Queensland has the most advanced system of local govemment in Australia. It is a system that is the envy of other States, which are constantly seeking advice on the operation for consideration for adoption in their own areas. 2876 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates)

Local govemment has had its difficulties in recent times, particularly in relation to financial matters. The heavy intmsion by the Commonwealth Govemment into the area has added to these difficulties. Nevertheless, because of the close ties which exist between the State Govemment and local authorities, we have been able to work together to the betterment of all. I would like to pay tribute to the part which the Local Govemment Association of Queensland, under the presidency of Sir Albert Abbott, has played in this process. While there are, at times, matters on which we disagree, the lines of communication are always open between the association, the department and the Govemment and we have built up a close liaison which allows rational discussion to take place. The Department of Local Govemment plays a very important role and I would like to place on record my appreciation to all departmental officers who have so loyally assisted me in the administration of the system of local govemment in this State. It is not an easy task, because departmental staff are expected to be advisors on the whole range of functions performed by local authorities from dog licences to building major sewerage schemes and, in a recent example, the piloting through to approval of a new town-planning scheme for the city of Brisbane. The co-ordination of these activities is an art all on its own and I sincerely thank those senior executive officers of my department who have fully supported both myself and the Director of Local Govemment in providing an excellent service to local authorities, to the development industry of this State and to the many other important clients of the department. I might say at this stage that the Department of Local Govemment is presently in the throes of a complete intemal reorganisation of the method of delivering its services. I am confident that what will emerge AVUI be an organisation capable of carrying out those tasks which its clients wish it to perform in an even more efficient and effective way. It would be remiss of me in this context if I did not make some mention of the outstanding work being done in north Queensland by Mr Norm Gampe, who administers the Shires of Cook and Torres on behalf of the Govemment and who also acts in an advisory capacity to the Aboriginal Councils of Aumkun and Momington Island. Mr Scott: Will he retire? Mr HINZE: I am sure that the member for Cook would like to make a complimentary remark about him, also. Mr Scott: Absolutely. WiU he be retiring? Mr HINZE: I do not believe that his retirement is too long away. However, I know that he has the support of the honourable member for any time that he spends in north Queensland. The residents of these remote communities respect and admire Mr Gampe and are most appreciative of his effort. I can assure honourable members that I also am appreciative of Mr Gampe's work and I have no hesitation in acknowledging that his ability to perform his duties in an efficient and humane manner has contributed substantially to the continuation of local govemment services in these areas. Mr Scott: Is he an old mate of yours? Mr HINZE: Well, I was the chairman of the Albert Shire and I appointed him as Town Clerk many, many years ago. Mr Scott: When Mr Brown passed away Mr Gampe became the administrator of the Torres Shire? Mr HINZE: That is correct. He has been of great assistance to local govemment in this State of Queensland. Mr Scott: What about Mr Gallop; was he a good administrator? Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2877

Mr HINZE: That was before my time. Mr Shaw: Why not have a cup of coffee? Mr HINZE: What is wrong with that? If the honourable member would like to go and get a hip-flask now, we could have a coffee and a mm. I am easy. If the honourable member wants to make this a social gathering, that is okay with me. As announced, the Govemment has decided that the time is ripe to discontinue the administration of the Shire of Cook and for the shire to retum to a system of elected representation. There will be local govemment elections in that shire in March 1988, in conjunction with other local govemment elections, and I am confident that the first elected council in the area for more than 30 years will meet the challenge and adequately perform the tasks that it will be required to perform as a fully functioning local authority. I wish the incoming Cook Shire Council well. Retuming to the operations of the Department of Local Govemment, it could be said that the department is divided into three primary function areas, each with a head reporting to the Director of Local Govemment. There is the Local Authority Administration Division, headed by Mr Maurie Tucker, which is concemed with the day-to-day administration of the Local Govemment Act and the many other Acts and regulations placed under my control and which impinge upon the operations of local authorities. The Division also embraces the Racing Branch, which oversees the administration of racing in this State pursuant to the provisions of the Racing and Betting Act. The Division acts in an advisory capacity to local authorities and others in relation to legal, financial and general administration matters, as well as providing the servicing operations for the whole of the department. Officers of the Division are in constant personal contact with local authorities and an excellent working relationship has been developed. It is my intention that this close relationship be further developed in the future, as resources permit. I believe that local authorities appreciate attendance by departmental officers at various conferences and the ready availability of those officers to give on-the-spot advice and assistance when required. I will retum later to the matter of the administration of racing. The Planning and Building Division of the department, headed by Mr Arthur Muhl, is responsible for the administration of the town-planning and building control laws of the State, while the Engineering and Technical Services Division, headed by Mr Bill Webber, provides advice to local authorities and to the State Government on the provision of town water supply, sewerage, storm-water drainage, municipal swimming- pools and like engineering works, and associated matters. This latter Division also includes the Water Quality Section, which provides support to the Water Quality Council in the administration of the Clean Waters Act. As honourable members are no doubt aware, the Local Govemment Act provides local authorities with wide powers and responsibilities, and is one of our most far- reaching statutes. It has been subject to constant amendment over the years to keep abreast of ever-changing trends and demands. The frequency of such amendments is, I believe, a clear indication of the dedication of the Department of Local Govemment and of this Govemment to ensure that the necessary legislative framework under which local authorities in the State operate is kept up to date. I might mention here that a total review of the Local Govemment Act is presently being undertaken and work in this area is progressing at a satisfactory rate. It is a huge task, as the Act has not been totally revised since its introduction in 1936, but I am confident that, when it is completed, local govemment in Queensland will still be in the prime position in relation to other States which it has occupied for so long. 2878 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) The first stage of that review addressed the law dealing with town-planning, the subdivision of land and associated matters. A Green Paper outlining possible changes to the present law in this area was released some time ago and the Department of Local Government conducted seminars throughout the State to discuss the proposals with representatives of local authorities and those involved in the development industry. It is anticipated that draft legislative amendments in this area will be available in the not-too-distant future and, when implemented, will provide for a speedier and cheaper planning process while at the same time retaining the controls and objection and appeal processes which presently apply. In addition to those Acts which I have already mentioned, other major statutes which the department administers include the City of Brisbane Act, the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act, the Building Act and the Sewerage and Water Supply Act. All of these Acts are also under constant review so as to keep pace with the ever-changing local govemment service. In order to iUustrate the extensive activity of the department in this area, I will make brief mention of some of the more important enactments which have become law during the past three years. Firstly, the following major amendments were made during the period in question to Acts administered by the department— (a) Local authorities were authorised to make and levy differential general rates and, for this initiative, were given power to categorise rateable land on a land-use basis, with the Valuer-General dividing all the lands in the area into those categories. It is an altemative method of rating for those local authorities who see a need for greater flexibility in the rating process and it is being used by a number of local authorities for the current financial year. (b) Provision was made for local authorities to fix a minimum rate in respect of building units where a building is erected and occupied on a time-share basis. There was previously no provision in the law in relation to this matter and this created a differential rating situation between similar buildings, one of which was time-shared and the other which was not. (c) Provision was made to extend insurance cover for a member of a local authority when carrying out his official duties. The previous law limited insurance cover to attendance at meetings or conferences or the carrying out of inspections. (d) Local authorities were empowered to develop and sell for residential purposes, without the necessity for calling tenders, land which had been acquired for arrears of rates. The new provisions permit developed lands to be sold to first home buyers only at a price to cover the cost of development, with the condition that the purchaser build a house thereon and live in it for a specified period. (e) A previous provision of the law which fixed at $100 per allotment the maximum contribution to be made by a subdivider towards the provision of public garden or recreation space to serve his subdivision was removed. Contributions may now be fixedb y the particular local authority by by-law and, because the value of land varies from one local authority to another, it aUows greater flexibility. (f) The Building Act was amended to include new provisions dealing with circumstances in which an application is made to a local authority for approval to carry out building work and it is found that town-planning approval is first required. In effect, a decision of the building application is deferted until such time as the town-planning matters have been resolved. (g) An amendment was made to the Local Govemment (Queen Street Mall) Act to provide the framework for extension of the Queen Street Mall, including the constmction of the underground tunnel for buses. Extensive work in relation to this project is under constmction. (h) An amendment was made to the Local Govemment Act to provide that, where a local authority has been unable to obtain, after reasonable attempts, the Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2879

services of a suitably qualified person, the Minister may approve that the local authority appoint as clerk a particular person, notwithstanding that the person is not qualified. Experience has shown that, in some of the more remote areas of the State, it is not always possible for the local authority to arrange for the services of a suitable, qualified clerk and this amendment has assisted in providing a better service in these areas. (i) The Local Govemment Act was amended to provide, in effect, that local authorities may apply for and hold any form of licence which any other person may apply for and hold under the Liquor Act. This was to avoid the necessity for the Local Govemment Act to be amended each time the Liquor Act was amended to provide for some new or altered form of hcence which might be applicable to local authorities. Prior approval of the Govemor in CouncU to the making of an application for any such licence gives control over local authority activities in this area. (j) The City of Brisbane Act was amended to enable the Brisbane City Council to implement many of the recommendations of a report of an investigation which had been carried out into the organisation and stmcture of the administration of the council. The main feature of this amendment was to provide that where units of administration for example are referred to in the various laws and documents relating to the administration of the council, suitable adjustments may be made to provide for any variations to that stmcture. (k) An amendment was made to the Local Govemment Act to provide that the clerk of a local authority will be the chief administrative officer of that local authority and be charged with responsibility for the administration and co-ordination of the business of the local authority. It was further provided that all business of the local authority must pass through the clerk to the chairman before being placed before the local authority. (1) The Local Govemment Act was further amended to provide that a local authority, including the Brisbane City Council, with the prior approval of the Govemor in Council, may enter into a contract for major development works to be carried out on land owned by it or under its control, without calling tenders. This amendment was designed to cover major development works, such as the Cathedral Square development in the city of Brisbane where there was a mixture of land tenures between the local authority, the developer and/or the Crown. (m) With the new Aussat telecommunications system being made available to many outback communities, television facilities were made available to many country centres for the first time, provided that there was in the area concemed suitable technical facilities to receive and relay signals to people with television receivers. Provision was accordingly made in the Local Govemment Act for a local authority, at its discretion, to provide or contribute towards the cost of providing the facilities to receive and broadcast to its area radio and television signals from satellites. (n) To assist in preventing recurring breaches of town-planning schemes, provision was made that, when a successful prosecution is launched by a local authority in these circumstances, a restraining order may be issued by the Magistrates Court directing the defendant to cease any activity that is in contravention of the town-planning scheme. (o) Action was taken to assist local authorities to deal with the practice of persons purchasing a number of smaU-sized allotments which had been created by subdivision many years ago but which had never been developed, and then reselling them for residential purposes without any development works being carried out to service them. The amendment allowed a local authority to initiate a rezoning within a specified time which would operate so as to prohibit the use of such lands for residential purposes without the local authority's having to face a claim for compensation for injurious affection by virtue of the rezoning. 2880 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) In addition to the foregoing legislative amendments, the following major new Acts which complement the activities of local govemment were introduced— (a) The Integrated Resort Development Act, which provides a code for the development of tme, fully serviced and self-contained destination resorts, was introduced earlier this year. This legislation provides, in effect, a new system for the subdivision of land in relation to this type of resort development, which, if applied to a particular site, recognises a need to maintain security and privacy for those wishing to make use of the facilities. It also establishes appropriate management stmctures to ensure that the rights of all of the parties involved are adequately protected. (b) A new Local Govemment Superannuation Act was enacted to provide for an updated scheme of superannuation for aU permanent employees of local authorities. The Local Govemment Association of Queensland and the major unions involved in local govemment employment supported this measure. The main features of the new scheme were to replace the old insurance-type scheme with a scheme where end-benefit payments bear direct relationship to the salary or wages payable to the employee at the date of his retirement. Provision was also made for the payment of disability benefits in the event of an employee's becoming permanently or temporarily disabled. (c) A special Act was introduced to provide for the estabhshment of a pedestrian mall in Duncan Street, Fortitude Valley, between Ann Street and Wickham Street. The prime purpose for establishing a pedestrian mall in this area was to support the growing Chinese business community in Fortitude Valley and the legislation accordingly provided for the mall to be known as the Chinatown Mall. The basic provisions relating to the constmction, operation and management of the mall followed closely the provisions of the Local Govemment (Queen Street) Mall Act. (d) In 1984, an Act was introduced to give statutory recognition to the Gladstone and Area Water Board, which had been set up in 1973 as a project board under other legislation. Provision was made in the legislation for the board to be responsible for the planning, further development, administration and operational control of the bulk supply of water to local authorities, major consumers and electricity- generating authorities. The board consists of a Govemment representative, as chairman, and representatives of the Gladstone City Council and the Calliope Shire Council. The board has been eminently successful in ensuring that adequate supplies of urban water are available to this major industrial centre. Another current activity of the Department of Local Govemment that I feel is worthy of comment is the initial development by the department, in conjunction with the University of Queensland, of a computer-based financial model for local govemment, assisted by funds received under the Commonwealth Government's 1985-86 Local Govemment Development Program. The financial model is presently being trialled by selected Queensland local authorities and should be available to all local authorities in early 1988. The model will offer an extensive, easily accessed yet sophisticated financial- management tool not presently available and will assist local authorities to achieve optimum resource use and anticipate potential adverse financial situations by offering forward-planning capabilities. It will also enhance the department's consultative role by enabling it to offer constmctive and tailored financial advice to local authorities, A great deal of interest has been shown in the model right throughout Australia, and arrangements have been made for an extensive demonstration to other State departments of local govemment in Sydney at the end of November. This is an achievement of which Queensland should be justly proud, as I believe that what has been produced is a world first in this area. I compliment the members of the steering committee who oversaw the project, Dr Trevor Grigg of Queensland University, the project-leaders and all those officers of the Department of Local Govemment who have put so much effort into the production of the model. Further work is planned to extend the capabilities of the model. Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2881

I tum now to the town-planning and building activities of the department. I am sure that all honourable members will agree that town-planning is a very significant function of local govemment. In my view, effective town-planning is very necessary to ensure that, as far as possible, there is minimal conflict between residential and industrial areas that will lead to expensive pollution-abatement measures in the future; that valuable mral lands are not utilised for urban development; that valuable mineral resources are preserved; and that urban development is planned in a logical and progressive manner to minimise the costs of providing essential services. Amendments that were made to the Local Govemment Act in 1980 in relation to strategic planning and development-control planning created the complete framework to enable the objectives of good town-planning to be attained over a period of time. There are now numerous instances of these forward-looking plans being applied to good effect. There is no doubt that we are fortunate that the local authority is the body charged with the provision of essential services such as town water supply, sewerage, roads and storm-water drainage and is also the planning authority. By good planning, the work of providing essential services can be properly co-ordinated. Other States, which do not enjoy this position, are envious of our situation. As evidence of the development taking place in Queensland, and of the volume of work being handled within the town-planning area of the Local Govemment Department, I intend to quote a few statistics. During the last financial year, 988 rezoning applications were processed by my department. Because it has been estimated that an average rezoning application represents an investment of over $lm, it wUl be seen that the development works created as a result of these rezoning approvals have a very important impact on the State's economy, and particularly the affected community. The average figure of $lm to which I refer does not take into account the very large developmental projects requiring an investment far in excess of this amount. Large-scale employment is also created by these projects, so it is important that the processes leading to their implementation are geared towards determination of applications within a reasonable time-frame while having regard to the interests of all parties. Honourable members will be aware of the high interest charges that are now applicable to borrowed funds. This means that delays in establishing development projects can be very costly for developers and, in fact, can mean that some projects may not even proceed. It must not be overlooked that added costs for the developer are passed on to the end user, which inevitably is the community. The community is, of course, concemed with keeping land development and housing costs as low as possible. Local authorities play a most important role in this because they are responsible for processing town-planning applications and granting approval for developmental works. For its part, my department has taken action to reduce, as far as possible, the time taken to obtain approval by the Govemor in Council of rezoning applications once the necessary preliminary procedures have been completed. The Integrated Resort Development Act, which came into force on 23 April 1987 and to which I have previously referted, has been the subject of some public comment. This legislation was formulated in response to a very substantial demand from within the tourism industry for fully serviced, self-contained destination resort communities where the use of land and facilities is shared and where provision is made on site for all of the day-to-day living requirements, including shops, restaurants, entertainment facilities and recreational facUities. The Act provides for the subdivision of land in a way that facilitates developments of this nature. There are already several planned projects which, it is anticipated, wUl take advantage of these new provisions. Once again, Queensland is the first State in Australia to provide for this type of development, and this reinforces the fact that we have the initiative and the foresight to be, once again, the leaders in many aspects of development associated with local govemment. There is one very topical matter which is related to town-planning and which has been the subject of a great deal of misinformed comment in recent times. I refer to what 2882 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) is quite often loosely termed "ministerial rezonings". There is, of course, no such thing, as all amendments of a town-planning scheme to effect the rezoning of land are subject to approval by the Govemor in Council. Application for amendments of this nature may be initiated by an applicant, by the local authority concemed or by the Minister. In the latter two cases, the procedures vary somewhat from those provided in the case where an applicant initiates the rezoning procedures, although in all cases there is public notification of the proposal with rights for any concemed person to lodge an objection. Some of the comments which have been made in recent times have been so far from the mark and have displayed such a deplorable lack of knowledge of the actual situation that I feel I have an obligation to answer them in detail for the benefit of the public who are being misled, for obviously political reasons, by these statements. I should state initially that, in all cases where the Minister initiates rezoning procedures, the provisions of the relevant law, be it the Local Govemment Act or the (City of Brisbane Town Planning Act, are strictly followed. To suggest that in many instances ministerial rezoning procedures are carried out against the wishes of the local authority concemed is, generally, a misstatement of the facts. The facts are that the great majority of these rezonings are in respect of Crown land when it is proposed to sell or lease the subject land. Predominantly, these rezonings concem minor road closures, where the land is being added to adjoining lands, or in relation to residential or industrial estates being developed by the Crown. In practicaUy all such instances, there is complete agreement with the local authority concemed and, in many instances, there is even a request from the local authority for the Govemment to initiate procedures. It is the considered view of the Government that it should not be required to subject itself to third-party appeal procedures once a govemmental decision has been taken as to the future use of Crown land. I fully support this view and I will continue to initiate rezoning procedures in such cases in order to properly provide for the speedy and effective use of Crown lands. In those cases in which other than Crown land is involved, rezoning procedures are initiated either at the request of the local authority concemed or because of the religious, charitable or other special purpose, because of the nature of the proposed use or because of special circumstances that exist which warrant this action. It is invariably my practice, where there is a proposal for the Minister to initiate a rezoning in this category, to seek the approval of Cabinet before commencing the necessary procedures. It is not tme, therefore, to allege, as has been done in some quarters, that my department or I, as Minister, arbitrarily take this action. In all of these cases, it is the practice of the Govemment to defer formal approval of the rezoning proposal until such time as a satisfactory development agreement has been entered into between the applicant and the local authority concerned. Both the Local Govemment Act and the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act provide, in effect, that the provisions of a town-planning scheme do not apply to Crown land. When that land ceases to be Crown land, the town-planning scheme shall operate in relation thereto and shaU bind a purchaser, lessee or occupier thereof as if the same had never been Crown land but subject to such directions, modifications or exceptions as may be declared by the Govemor in Council by Order in Council. In certain instances, where it has been deemed necessary as a matter of urgency to property provide for the future use of Crown land which the Crown proposes to alienate, these provisions have been implemented to provide for the future use of the land as proposed. There is usually, however, general agreement between the local authority concemed and an intending developer as to the conditions which will apply in relation to the future use of such land. As I have said previously—and I repeat—in the development industry, time is money: and, in many instances, substantial amounts of money are involved. It is Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2883 therefore imperative that delays be kept to a minimum and if, by the exercise of the powers available under the relevant town-planning laws, this can be achieved where particular circumstances apply, I feel that it is a reasonable procedure to adopt. I emphasise, however, that the wishes of the local authority should be taken into account, and the views of any objectors to a proposal should be fully considered before a final recommendation is made to the Govemor in Council in any particular instance. As already indicated, these are the criteria which have been applied in the past and this practice will continue. In the period from 1 July 1984 to 1 October this year, there have been a total of 151 such rezonings. The honourable member for Toowong, who has made wild allegations about these provisions, might like to reflect on the fact that they have existed in law since 1980, when his party was part of the coalition Govemment. They were introduced with the enthusiastic endorsement and support of the party he now represents. If these provisions, introduced by me several years ago and administered by me ever since, were splendid in concept and practice for the Liberal Party while in Govemment, I can only wonder why the continuation of established practice now that the Liberal Party is out of Govemment now attracts such terrible condemnation from them—or, should I say, from one person in particular. On the general subject of my administration of the local govemment law and the criticism it has attracted from the Liberal Party since it was consigned by the electorate to the cross-benches—I would make the observation that, when Queensland had a coalition Govemment and a Labor Party Brisbane City CouncU, the Liberal Party was almost desperate in its endeavours to persuade me to take all sorts of actions and decisions which would have put severe constraints on the stmcture and operations of the Brisbane City Council. I think the appropriate word for that abmpt change of view is "hypocrisy". I often reflect on the fact that the Liberal Party, in this instance at least, is giving pohtical opportunism a bad name. The Labor Party cannot be accused in this instance of a double standard because nothing ever happened in Queensland prior to 1957, when we came to office. Mr Scott: Oh, go on! Mr HINZE: I knew that that would wake some of them up. Was the member for Cook having a little slumber there? Mr Prest: Well, this hasn't been a real eye-opener so far. Mr HINZE: I know, but I have talked you to sleep, haven't I? Mr Prest: No, you haven't. Mr HINZE: Well, I heard you snoring. The building branch of my department was established principally to assist in the implementation of the Building Act and the Standard Building By-laws when first introduced in 1975. The prime purpose of the Act and by-laws is to provide a uniform building code throughout the State. The implementation and administration of the standard by-laws made under the Act is the responsibility of each local authority, and the building branch of the department, in conjunction with the Building Advisory Committee established under the Act, provides overall supervision and technical advice in this area. Provision is also made for an objection and appeal system in respect of local authority decisions under the Act and by-laws. A subcommittee has also been established to consider circumstances where a proposal does not comply with the Standard Building By-laws but where it can be demonstrated to have, at least, an equivalent level of safety. This subcommittee, known as the by­ laws variation subcommittee, may approve such a proposal and this has the effect of 2884 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) freeing up the building application process to quickly take account of new building materials and processes. The Building Code of Australia, which is a national code being prepared as a joint effort between all States and Territories, is likely to be available for adoption in July, 1988. It is planned that, by December 1988, Queensland will adopt this new national code in lieu of the technical provisions of the existing Standard Building By-laws. As part of the process of reviewing the Building Code of Australia, the Building Branch of the department is involved in co-ordinating a Statewide review of building- related legislation in order to rationalise and consolidate all matters affecting the design and approval of buildings. This review is planned to be completed before the coming into effect of the new national code and I would like to take this opportunity to thank those many other State departments which are involved for their co-operation in progressing the necessary adjustment to this stage. The special Expo 88 Building Control Office, established as part of the Building Branch on the site of Expo 88 to provide applicants for building approval with a single contact point for access to all related Govemment departments and Crown authorities, wUl be terminated on the commencement of Expo 88 in April 1988, and I place on record my appreciation of the work done by those departmental officers assigned to these duties. The Engineering and Technical Services Division of my department deals with a wide variety of engineering and technical subjects which concem local authorities. These matters cover such subjects as town water supply, sewerage, storm-water drainage, household sewage, treatment plant installations, municipal swimming-pools, flood mitigation, land subdivision, artificial lakes, land and water resources planning, industrial waste disposal, water pollution control, water refuse, and plumbing and drainage. The division's principal function ensures that a satisfactory standard of planning, investigation, design, constmction and operation and maintenance of local authority works is maintained. The division is proceeding with the development of a computerised technical records database to allow access to information on the State's water supplies, sewerage systems and municipal swimming-pools. Information from the database will allow deficiencies and trends to be readily identified and will permit more cost-effective design and more efficient operation and maintenance. It will be of great benefit to all local authorities as well as to the department. With increasing development throughout the State, the division is becoming more involved in studies conceming the planning and development of regional water supply, sewerage and waste disposal facilities. There is also a very important role for the division to play in supporting investigations into matters which concem a large number of local authorities. I cite, for example, a recent study into manganese- related dirty water problems in which the division played an active role in co-ordinating the investigations and research. Apart from its support role for local authorities, the division is looking closely at techniques for asset management, demand management, water reuse, and the development of low cost-efficient methods for treatment of water and sewage. These matters are ones that will assume greater and greater importance in the future as the availability of funds for capital works in these areas becomes more difficult. Through its representation on advisory committees of the Australian Water Resources Council, the division plans to continue to relay to local authorities and other bodies within Queensland, interstate experience in water technology and management. The division's Water Quality Section, which provides support services to the Water Quality Council in administering the Clean Waters Act, has continued its programs of controlling waste discharges and monitoring the quality of the State's waters. The recent major upsurge of interest in aquaculture developments has severely taxed the resources of the Water Quality Council and this has dictated some adjustment of other programs. One significant initiative recently embarked upon is the preparation of a strategic plan for the Water Quality Council, to guide its future direction and priorities Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2885 over the next 10 years. This involves not only a review of the council's past achievements, but also a consideration of what the major water pollution issues are likely to be in the future. I tum now to racing, the administration of which is a very important part of my portfolio. While it might he argued that there is little affinity between local govemment and racing, the Racing Branch has been absorbed very satisfactorily into the activities of the Local Govemment Department. There are, in fact, some distinct advantages. For example, the Racing Branch has ready access to the Building Branch of the department to advise on building projects which may be under consideration at racing venues. Since the last occasion on which this department's estimates were debated in this Chamber, some three years ago, the expansion and advancement of the racing industry has continued apace and has been consolidated. The progress in Queensland racing continues to be the envy of the other States, the Territories and New Zealand. My recent visit to North America convinced me that we have one of the most successful racing industries anywhere in the world and that there is little the racing fratemity beyond our shores can teach us. The Govemment's policy of advancing funds for capital works on a non-repayable basis has meant resources are able to be channelled back into the industry itself in order to provide enhanced prize-money. This has meant the creation of such initiatives as the Magic Million in the thoroughbred racing industry—Queensland's first million dollar race—and, in the greyhound industry, the Gabba Greyhound Racing Club continues to offer over a million dollars prize-money a year. The hamess racing industry, whilst experiencing some problems in certain centres, continues to hold its own in the south-east comer of the State and in Townsville. Prize- money paid last year totalled $33.4m for the three codes. That was an increase of $3.4m on the previous year's figure of $30m. In 1985-86, the TAB distributed back to clubs in the three racing codes $20.8m. This figure increased to $23.5m last year. As honourable members may be aware, this year is the TAB's 25th year of operation. In that period the TAB has distributed back to clubs in the three racing codes a total of $167m. In addition, in that same period, the TAB has paid to consolidated revenue and to the Racing Development Fund a total of $304m. I reiterate the statement I have made on several occasions in this Chamber and elsewhere that the racing industry's massive contribution to consolidated revenue over the years has assisted in the provision of schools, hospitals, police stations and the like and, indeed, provided financial assistance to other sports from the State's general pool of funds. Last year's TAB tum-over of $617m—up from $564m the previous year—was another record, and the Chairman and members of the Totalisator Administration Board and its executive and staff are to be congratulated on their continuing commercial successes. As a result of the TAB's achievements, clubs in all three codes of racing have received a TAB profit distribution in excess of 74 per cent of allowable prize-money. During the year, the TAB operated on a total of 2 088 meetings in the three codes and issued just under 90 million tickets. Advances in computer technology to provide a better service for the investing public will continue to be at the forefront of our efforts to stamp out iUegal SP book-makers. For the interest of members present, I make the point that, since the commencement of the Fitzgerald commission of inquiry, tum-over has increased by 28 per cent. That is deserving of some consideration. Mr Prest: Russ, has your fellow gone interstate? Mr HINZE: My SP merchant—I didn't think you knew I had one. An Opposition member: You have. Mr HINZE: I have never had an SP bet in my life. 2886 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) Opposition members interjected. Mr HINZE: Why is it that that last statement of mine caused such derision and laughter? Mr Davis: What about old Johnno Mann? Mr HINZE: The late Johnno Mann was a famous representative. I think honourable members opposite should leave him in peace. He was a great bloke and a hell of a good Speaker. An Opposition member: Did he not use them? Mr HINZE: When I first came here he welcomed me into this Chamber. If honourable members want me to, I could repeat his words. Mr Mackenroth: Go on. Mr HINZE: He was a good bloke. He used to have an SP bet. It would pay some of you blokes to try to emulate his ability. The TAB now has over 45 000 telephone betting account-holders, with 385 agencies spread throughout the State. By my continued efforts on behalf of the racing industry, a further $20m funding was made available last October for capital works at racecourses, paceways and greyhound courses throughout the State. This has meant that, since taking on the task of administering racing in December 1980, I have overseen the expenditure of over $100m for the benefit of the race-going public and the three codes of racing. The chairman and all members of the TAB were reappointed for a further period from 1 August 1987 and, once again, I pay tribute to their administration, in such a capable way, of an organisation which provides so much revenue for both the Govemment and the racing industry, while at the same time providing an excellent service to the public. The Queensland Hamess Racing Board and the Greyhound Racing Control Board of Queensland were recently reduced in numbers from seven to four to save industry costs and to create greater efficiencies. The major factor in this decision was that the boards, upon the constitution of the Racing Appeals Tribunal, were no longer involved in determining appeals within their respective industries. To those members who were not reappointed, I extend the Govemment's sincere appreciation for the work that they did for the hamess racing and greyhound racing industries during their terms of office. In this regard I make particular reference to Mr Carl Robertson, who retired as Chairman of the Queensland Hamess Racing Board after 13 years of service, and to Sir Abraham Fryberg, who retired as a foundation tmstee of the Albion Park Raceway. Their services to the harness racing industry are greatly appreciated and will be long remembered. Provision has been made, in accordance with the provisions of the Racing and Betting Act, to ensure continuing financial assistance to control bodies to ease the forever rising costs of operating each of the three codes. The amounts made available include $150,000 to the Queensland Turf Club Principal Club Committee and $50,000 each to the Rockhampton Jockey Club Principal Club Committee, the Downs and South Westem Queensland Racing Association, the North Queensland Racing Association, the Central Queensland Racing Association, the Queensland Hamess Racing Board and the Greyhound Racing Control Board of Queensland, to defray the costs of administration of the racing industry. In addition, a sum of $150,000 has been made available to the Brisbane Amateur Turf Club towards the operating costs of the club's training complex at Deagon. It is my present expectation that assistance of this nature will be forthcoming in future years also. Another recent major initiative was the decision to establish the Govemment's racing dmg-testing laboratory within the confines of the Albion Park Raceway. Provision for this was contained in recent amendments to the Racing and Betting Act and, once this laboratory is established, the supervision and control of the dmg-testing of horses Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2887 and greyhounds in the three codes of racing will be supervised by the Racing Codes Advisory Board established under the Act to advise the Minister on such matters. All in all, the decision of this Govemment more than six years ago to give racing the independent administration it so justly deserved has been vindicated many times over. I turn now to the Main Roads Department. The amounts required for the various funds administered by the Main Roads Department, compared with the expenditure from the same funds during the previous financial year, are as follows— 1986-87 1987-88 $ $ Main Roads Fund 545,564,000 595,754,000 Commonwealth Aid, Local Authority Roads, Fund 30,758,000 46,300,000 Roads Maintenance Account 130,000 19,000 Main Roads Department Special Standing Fund 24,760,000 26,100,000 Gateway Bridge Tmst Fund NU 2,100,000 Logan Motorway Tmst Fund Nil 17,800,000 Funds for capital works were derived from various sources, as follows—

$ Australian Land Transport Program 65.7m Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program 93.4m Mr Scott: You couldn't do without it either, could you? It is of great benefit to Queensland. Mr HINZE: It is not a matter of doing without it. I had a very good personal relationship with our colleague Peter Morris. I do not know why Bob Hawke sacked him and put him in Resources. I thought that he was a pretty good little Minister. I got on very well with him. Of course, now and again I had to give him a bit of a dust-up, but in the main I got on pretty well with Peter Morris. Mr Scott: Do you remember that night you spent on the Archer River together? Mr HINZE: That was quite an interesting evening, and it brings back happy memories when the honourable member talks to me about the Archer River. I know that he was present and that he enjoyed it also. The other sources were— $ Special Major Capital Works Program Fund 35.8m State Funds— Motor Vehicle Registration Fees 77m Debentures and Special Financial Arrangements 31.2m Other 8.7m Total of all sources $311.8m

Of this total, $1.9m is allocated for the Traffic Engineering Tmst Fund which, for Estimates purposes, appears under the Department of Transport. Included in the 1987- 88 requirement of some $595.8m for the Main Roads Fund is $309.9m for permanent works on declared roads compared with $302.7m last financial year. This is required to further upgrade the network of 33 945 kilometres of road declared under the Main Roads Act. 2888 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) The Main Roads Department works program is largely influenced by the provisions of the Commonwealth Govemment's Australian Land Transport Act (ALTP) and the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Tmst Fund Act (ABRD), both of which make separate and distinct allocations for national roads, mral arterial roads, urban arterial roads and local roads. In drawing up the works programs, the Commonwealth funds, together with State funds, are aUocated to the categories of works laid down in the Commonwealth legislation. Despite the impetus from the ALTP and ABRD funding, the program still relies heavily on State funds. Registration fees are the major source of State funding of roads in Queensland and totalled $ 190.2m in 1986-87. Keeping in mind the other cost factors in vehicle ownership, the Queensland Govemment has endeavoured always to maintain registration charges at a realistic and acceptable level. Mr Davis: I am thinking of selling my vehicle. Mr HINZE: Is the honourable member for Brisbane Central going to get a push- bike? Also, it is a requirement of Commonwealth legislation that the State maintains its expenditure on roads in real terms. However, growth in State activity means increasing demands for a better, more reliable road network, and consequently a 20 per cent registration fee rise from 13 April 1987 was necessary—the first since May 1984. I would add that, unlike the Commonwealth, where only 20 per cent of motoring-related taxation revenue is retumed for roadworks, all registration fees levied in this State are used to finance roadworks and there is no State fuel tax in Queensland. The permanent works component of the proposed Main Roads Fund expenditure includes the following allocations to these categories of works on roads declared under the Main Roads Act— $ National Roads 70.8m Urban Arterial 64.8m Rural Arterial 98.1m Local Roads .. 33.3m Total $267m The allocations to the State for roadworks from the ABRD and ALTP funds were expected to total $251.5m. However, the Federal Budget released only $250. Im to Queensland roads from these funds. Also provided in the Main Roads Fund for 1987- 1988 is $ 145.1m for declared road maintenance, compared with $ 140.7m spent last financial year. The principal proposed maintenance expenditure, including natural disaster relief restoration works as per road category are—

$ National 42.2m Urban Arterial 12.8m Rural Arterial 58.1m Local 18.4m Other items of proposed expenditure from the Main Roads Fund include—

$ Salaries 35.3m General Administration Expenses 70.8m This is a net expenditure covering costs such as motor vehicle costs of collection, surveys, planning and research and interest and redemption, offset by recoveries for engineering and general administration which have been charged to works. Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2889

$ Purchase of stores 12.2m Purchase of plant 11.4m Maintenance of plant 10.1m These latter three items are self-financing, as the earnings from hire of plant charged to constmction and maintenance works, together with the proceeds from the sale of plant, are re-invested in the purchase of new plant or expended on plant maintenance. Similarly, the income derived from the issue of stores provides the finance to purchase replacement stocks. Local councils have been allocated a share of the Commonwealth road-funding to the State again this year for works on their roads, in accordance with the agreed principles of both the State and Commonwealth Govemments. The amount to be disbursed in 1987-88 is programmed at $46.3m, compared with last year's expenditure of $30.8m. This increase of $15.5m is largely as a result of the responsibUity of approximately 7 000 kilometres of declared secondary roads being transferred to the control of local authorities from 1 July 1987 following a review of secondary roads funding arrangements. Considerable negotiations were undertaken with the Local Government Association of Queensland throughout the review process, resulting in the introduction of an equitable system to the benefit of all concemed. Local authorities will no longer be required to make repayments on account of Main Roads works carried out on declared roads after 1 July 1987. This will serve to reduce the amount of unproductive overhead in Main Roads involving general record­ keeping and administration of a set of roads in which the State level of Govemment has no real need for involvement. The maximum value for works expenditure will be obtained by allowing local authorities to choose design standards and road-building materials which meet their local needs at the optimum cost. The amounts required to be provided under CALAR funding this financial year may be summarised under the following categories of works— ALTP ABRD $ $ Urban arterial roads Im 1.3m Local roads 37m 7m Total $38m $8.3m

Grand Total $46.3m The provision for the 1987-88 Road Maintenance Account relates to payments to local authorities from the small collections received by way of payments of arrears of taxes outstanding at the time of abolition of the roads maintenance tax in 1979. There is also an amount of $26.1 m shown in the Estimates as required for expenditure from the Main Roads Department Special Standing Fund. This fund records transactions relative to joint works undertaken by Main Roads and other authorities and works undertaken by Main Roads wholly on behalf of other authorities. In addition, various reserve accounts, such as annual-leave reserve, workers' compensation insurance reserve and pay-roll tax reserve, are contained in this fund. Expenditure from the Special Standing Fund is recoverable either from other authorities or from other departmental funds or relate to reserves established for payment at certain times under certain conditions funded from recoveries throughout the year. On a financial year basis, the fund reflects a suspense account nature with approximately corresponding expenditure and receipts. The Gateway Bridge Company, as a direct beneficiary of the Gateway Bridge approach roads (Stage 1), will contribute an annual franchise fee to the Main Roads

76384—95 2890 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) Department in relation to these works. Under the Gateway Bridge Agreement Act, such fees are to be paid quarterly from 12 January 1988 and have been estimated at a total of$2.1m for 1987-88. With respect to the work on the Gateway Arterial Road (Stage 2), negotiations are continuing with regard to the level of contributions to be paid to the Main Roads Department by the Gateway Bridge Company. The 1987-88 Main Roads Fund Estimates include an amount of $4.3m—representing half of a full year's contributions—to be paid directly to the Main Roads Fund under a proposed special agreement. Consequently, these fiinds wiU not pass through the Gateway Bridge Tmst Fund. In November 1986, Cabinet gave approval for the Commissioner of Main Roads to proceed with the constmction of the Goodna-Loganholme toll facility. The Logan Motorway Company has been established in accordance with the Logan Motorway Agreement Act 1987 to constmct, own and operate the toUway. Certain moneys wUl be payable by the company to the Main Roads Department for expenditure related to land resumptions, project management fees, relocation of services and certain design and geotechnical consultant work. These moneys are required to be paid into the Logan Motorway Tmst Fund in accordance with the Act, and thereafter transferted to the Main Roads Fund. A total of $17.8m is anticipated in 1987-88. A substantial component of this amount relates to reimbursement of expenditure incurred by the Main Roads Department prior to the completion of funding arrangements for the Logan Motorway Company. The Special Major (Capital Works Program Fund is controlled by the Treasurer, and certain loan allocations have been made for road projects during 1987-88— (a) Special roads projects—$31.7m has been provided in the Main Roads Fund for the constmction of a number of specific road projects. (b) Logan Motorway—funds wiU be provided directly to the company over the total life of the project. However, certain funds—estimated at $4.1m—wiU be paid this year to the Main Roads Department prior to funding of the Logan Motorway Company. Some of the major projects included in the program this financial year are— • Bmce Highway (Brisbane to (Caims)—programmed work over 153.4 kUometres is estimated to cost $43.Im in 1986-87. The work includes replacement of ten narrow bridges between St Lawrence and Townsville. • Wartego Highway (Ipswich to Morven)—some $7.9m is programmed for expenditure over 22 kilometres, including the Gatton by-pass. • Landsborough Highway (Tambo to Cloncurry)—works are on target to complete the bitumen link from Brisbane to the Northem Territory border during the bicentennial year. • Hinders Highway—the Toonpan deviation^ which is part of the Ross River Dam project, wiU be completed. • Capricom Highway—work is continuing on 14.1 kilometres between Rockhampton and Barcaldine with programmed expenditure of $3.3m in 1987-88. • Caims to Coen (via Mareeba)—programmed works along this route total 53.5 kilometres and include five new bridges. • Cunningham arterial (Ipswich Road)—major works include the interchange at Oxley and Blunder Roads, which should be completed this financial year. • Logan Motorway—this major toll-road project being undertaken by the Logan Motorway Company will make major advances towards its completion by the end of 1988. Its commencement was marked by a ceremony last Thursday. The total capital works program for 1987-88 should provide approximately 158 000 man-weeks of employment throughout the State. Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2891

The Department of Main Roads is particularly conscious of its links with private enterprise and has made increasing use of contractors in recent years. In 1986-87, 61.2 per cent of expenditure on permanent works represented payments to prime contractors, and overall 78.9 per cent of expenditure on permanent works went to the private sector. On the other hand. Main Roads is proud of its association with local authority work-forces and its own day-labour gangs, which do such excellent work. The department is also taking major steps to commercialise some of its products and to market its skills at home and abroad. Through its core goals of value, service and progress, the department has embarked on a corporate plan, which wiU ensure continuing efficiency and effectiveness not only for 1987-88 but on a continuing basis. I take this opportunity to again place on record my continuing appreciation of the splendid service given to Queensland by the staff of my department. Their contribution, at all levels, has been tremendous and I thank them for their loyalty, dedication and professionalism. I also place on record my deep appreciation of the excellent co-operation of all local authorities and private industry. I commend the Estimates to the Committee. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Booth): Order! I desire to inform honourable members that, on the Vote proposed, I will allow a full discussion on all of the Minister's departmental Estimates, Consolidated Revenue, Tmst and Special Funds, and Loan Fund. For the information of honourable members, I point out that the administrative acts of the department are open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. Mr SHAW (Manly) (4.35 p.m.): Mr Temporary Chairman Mr Milliner: Do you think it was the Minister's swan-song? Do you think it is his last Estimates? Mr SHAW: Well, apparently not. I will come to that later. Mr Hinze: Could have been a slip of the lip. Mr SHAW: I begin by congratulating the Minister on his record term, to which he proudly referted. As the member for Everton just pointed out, if he intends to stay in that portfolio for some time, he obviously does not intend to move into the Premier's chair. I note the pride of the Minister in his portfolio. I understand that it is a very interesting one. I might say that I share the Minister's affection for the subject. It is a very complicated field, yet it provides the opportunity to use some common sense. I find it a very interesting field indeed. I wish to acknowledge the very good work that is performed by the staff of the Local Govemment and Main Roads Departments. In my dealings with them, I have always found them to be very professional. They go about their work as efficiently as possible. The Minister claims that local govemment in Queensland is the best in Australia. I do not know whether that statement is entirely tme, but it is certairUy tme that there are many good things about local govemment in Queensland. However, it also has its problems. Having dealt so far in my speech with aU the nice things about local govemment, I will now deal with some of the problems, because there are problems. Yesterday, I placed on the notice paper a motion about the establishment of a parliamentary inquiry into local govemment reform. It is time that such an inquiry took place. I stress that in moving for such an inquiry the Opposition is not seeking quick answers. It recognises that it would take some time and that the problems will not be solved ovemight. However, at the same time, we should begin to review the situation as soon as possible. 2892 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates)

The Govemment has been in office for over 30 years. During that period, it has never reviewed in a serious manner the way in which local govemment operates. The Minister for Valuation said that there has been a review of that section that comes within his prerogative—that is, valuations—and he stated in the Chamber that his committee had recommended that there should be no change from the unimproved capital value system. I found that rather strange. I hope that the hearings and recom­ mendations of that committee, about which I have heard absolutely nothing, will be tabled as soon as possible. As for the remainder of the field of local govemment—no serious review has been carried out. I mentioned the unimproved capital value section first, because that is the very basis upon which all local govemment finance is founded. There are tremendous anomalies in that area. I cite the case of an ex-pubhc servant who has retired in Brisbane on a superannuation pension of $8,000 a year. Since the adjustments to the previous Brisbane City Council rating system—not the ones before the public at present—that person receiving $8,000 a year now finds himself paying $2,500 a year in rates. Quite obviously, that is an unfair situation. I find it very strange that the committee that the Minister for Valuation spoke about could say that the system is without fault and is the best available. The most important thing that needs urgent review is the local govemment boundaries. The last major changes took place in about 1928. One only has to think of the number of changes that have occurred in cities and towns round Queensland, the shifts in population and the amount of development that is taking place to realise that in many cases those boundaries are quite anomalous. In fact, when they were first formed, shire boundaries were drawn along survey lines, which were probably set by taking a line down a barbed wire fence alongside a vacant paddock. Now one finds that they are mnning right through the middle of communities and through the middle of shopping centres. In some cases, they are dividing communities. Mr Scott: The Minister did his little bit; he made a city of Thuringowa. God only knows why. Mr SHAW: I do not know whether I would regard that as a giant step for mankind. However, the indications now are that, for many reasons, residents in some shires are paying much more than they should. I am not saying that the factor of revenue derived is the only factor to be taken into consideration, but it is a major one. Honourable members may have seen public statements that I have made to the effect that if one examines the revenue raised by a local authority in proportion to the population living in that area, those local authorities with the smaller populations are levying the highest rates. Although it is often said that small councils have the advantage of being more personal in their approach to local govemment problems, I have found that that is not always tme. Quite often, small councils can be just as remote and just as distant from the people—in fact, in some cases more so—as some of the larger city councils. Although a more personal approach is a factor that should be taken into consideration, it is not the only factor, and I do not think that it can be said to be the major factor. In many cases, the argument is self-defeating because some councils actually share the same headquarters. One must ask why it is that people should have to belong to different shires councils, because of the need for local contact, when both councils are not only to be found in the same town but are also housed in the same building, or certainly in the same block within a few hundred yards of one another. Many cases exist in which amalgamation should be investigated. The situation should be reviewed to see whether it would be in the best interests of rate-payers to make some changes. An alderman on the Gold Coast estimated that savings on rates in the vicinity of 25 per cent could be made if an amalgamation were to take place. I have not seen the figures upon which that estimation is based, but I certainly think it would be tme that at least in some cases considerable savings could be made. Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2893

The Minister has said that he will not contemplate amalgamation unless both councils agree. Although I see that as a very easy way out for the Minister, there would also be many reasons for not incurring the wrath of some of the local authorities by acting on his own initiative. If the Minister intends to wait for the councils to take the initiative Mr Hinze: What about that other request that I get—to break up the Brisbane City area into a whole lot of local authorities? Mr SHAW: I think that the same argument applies. Mr Hinze: I don't like the idea. What do you think about it? Mr SHAW: My immediate reaction would be similar to the Minister's. However, if the kind of review that the Minister is talking about is to be undertaken, and if as part of that review it was found that the boundaries of the city of Brisbane should be changed in some way or that the intemal ward system should be changed, I would be quite happy to see some of those changes incorporated. That would certainly be an improvement on some of the changes that have been made in the past to the City of Brisbane Act. Today, the Minister indicated in his speech that those changes were probably made after very strong urging by members of the Liberal Party who were seeking some sort of political advantage. I think that that is probably something that the Minister is ashamed of now. Everyone knows that amalgamations should take place and that changes should be made. There is a great need for change, and the time has passed when those questions should have been looked at. Madam Chairman, it is also disgraceful that the Federal Government does not allow a full tax rebate on rates paid by people to their local council. It is a form of double taxation. I am critical of my colleagues in the Federal Government in Canberra on that basis. In my view, all rates paid on the family home should be entirely deductible from income; otherwise, as I have said, it is a form of double taxation. Having been critical of the Govemment in Canberra, I think it is timely to give some credit to it for the way in which it has handled the problem of sharing among local authorities throughout (Queensland by way of subsidies money that it has collected in taxes. No doubt, throughout this debate some criticism will be heard from members on the Government side who will try to make political capital, as the Premier has requested them to do, out of the way in which that issue is handled. In all faimess, great credit must be paid to the Federal Govemment for the way in which it has resisted the temptation to allow that matter to become a political issue, seen that councils throughout Queensland would be disadvantaged if it became a political debate, and ensured that subsidies are distributed as fairly and as quickly as possible. It is timely to acknowledge particularly the work of ihe new Federal Minister for Local Govemment, Senator Reynolds, who has already shown a deep commitment to local government in Queensland. I am sure that she will continue in that vein. It is notable that no Queensland local authority has received the minimum subsidy allowable under the Federal Act. If Queensland is compared with Westem Australia, which has a similar problem, it will be seen that Queensland has not fared too badly at all. On the 17th of last month the Premier and Treasurer made a fairly bold claim in this place that, compared with the Federal situation, Queensland had done very well indeed. He said that since 1984-85 a 91 per cent increase had occurred in subsidies paid. What he did not say was that prior to that the subsidies had been halved. To retum to the situation that existed originally, over that same period there would have had to be a 100 per cent increase in the subsidies. That would have had to happen just to get back, in dollar terms, to the situation that originally prevailed. On the Premier's own figures, local government is doing very, very poorly so far as subsidies from the Queensland Government are concemed. Worse than that, the Premier has wamed that the subsidies will be lower next year; that after next year, local authorities will face much stricter circumstances, and it may very well be that the subsidies scheme as it is 2894 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) known will come to an end. That will be very sad for local authorities throughout Queensland, because capital works are very, very important. So, in that field, the Queensland Govemment has very little to be proud of The Minister defended his role and Ministry in what he quite correctly said was loosely referred to as ministerial rezonings. It is tme to say, though, that in recent years they have grown like a cancer. The Minister says, quite correctly, that where those rezonings involved special circumstances, as he termed them—and I think that was a very quaint way of putting it, because what he was referring to was requests that were made by big developers or if the rezoning involved something which could be regarded as suspicious—he takes those requests to Cabinet first. That probably reflects on the Minister's great experience rather than anything else. He is correct when he says that they are not his decisions, they are Cabinet's decisions, and that perhaps they should more correctly be termed Govemment rezonings rather than ministerial rezonings. I acknowledge that they are certainly not of the Minister's own making. Mr Scott: "Governor in CouncU" is the euphemism. Blame the Govemor in CouncU. Mr SHAW: The Act gives the power to the Minister; he is the Minister, so I suppose the buck stops with him. It is tme to say that large developments often require rezonings and that, as a result of that, delays occur. The way to eliminate those delays is not to give special treatment to those people who are fortunate enough to have the ear of the Government, but to look at the procedures for rezonings, especially in those particular cases. While this system of zonings remains available to some people, with restricted rights to object— and the Minister himself has said that he sometimes instigates these types of zonings, particularly to ehminate the right of an objector to take his objections to court—the Minister will be open to criticism, and he must face up to that fact. The Minister gave the explanation that frequently these zonings are because of the involvement of the Crown. That is tme, but it would be an acceptable argument only if it was also accepted that the Crown should be exempt from the laws that it makes for everybody else. I certainly do not accepts that. What the Minister is saying is that there should be one law for the Govemment and one for the peasants out there who will have to put up with the delays. The Govemment approves the town plans, and it should abide by them. In the case of the planned high-rise building for Brisbane, the Govemment approved the town plan for the city of Brisbane and within a matter of months it has decided to pass legislation designed to override the town plan. I believe that is not the right way to be doing things and that it is unacceptable to all people. It is tme, as the Minister says, that the proper instigation of town plans will save money in the long term. It is also tme that these frequent intermptions to town plans, which, contrary to what the Minister says, are unacceptable to the councils, tend to negate those town plans and to render them absolutely useless. The Govemment must confess that these rezonings are happening all too often and that the millions of dollars that is being spent in the preparation of town plans will be wasted if that sort of thing continues. The Minister said that these rezonings are mostly with council agreement. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient time to quote the large number of statements that I have here, but they indicate that that is certainly not tme. Perhaps the best one is from the Gold Coast Bulletin of 12 September, which stated that there was uproar over the city plan, that the council was in the dark over the massive project and that approval had been given without the city's knowledge. I could go on to quote a large number of similar instances that show that, if the Minister beheves that councils are in favour of those rezonings—I must say that that was not my experience when I was on the council—he is sadly misinformed. In the case of the ICI plant, I think it was fairly well documented that the council was certainly not in favour of it, although I accept that, as seems to have been the case in a number of other instances, the Brisbane City Council changed its mind half-way through that project. Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2895

I shall now tum very quickly to the Main Roads Vote. As usual, I seem to have mn out of time to deal at length with it. It is generaUy a very efficient department and I am loath to question some of its activities, but I must question the amount of money that is being allocated to what might be termed pubhc relations. I am told that recently a dinner to launch uniforms was held at the Sheraton Hotel. That dinner cost something in excess of $20,000. Perhaps the Minister will give the Committee the exact cost. I think it is fair for these costs to be detaUed for honourable members. That launch at the Sheraton Hotel was repeated at a number of centres around Queensland. Mr Hinze: It was one of those old German shows—they paid for themselves. Mr SHAW: "They" being whom? Mr Hinze: The people who were there. Mr SHAW: How much did they pay? Mr Hinze: They made a contribution. Mr SHAW: I think the contribution Mr Hinze: It was a sizeable contribution. Mr SHAW: The contribution was well short of the cost of the meal at a function of that type. I challenge the Minister to refute the mmours going round that, on corporate image spending for things such as wining and dining, the department is spending more than $100,000 a year. Perhaps the Minister can give the Committee the tme figure. By nature, I am not penny-pinching. I agree with the Minister that sometimes money spent in this way can be money well spent, just as money spent on investigative trips can be money well spent. However, in these days when motor vehicle registration charges are so hi^ and when many people find it very, very difficult to raise the money to pay for their motor vehicle registration, they are entitled to know whether a significant proportion of the income derived by the Main Roads Department is in fact being spent on dinners. In conclusion, I ask the Minister to let honourable members know who is responsible for preparing and printing the book that is being distributed by the Main Roads Department, which has on the front cover, "Russ Hinze 1974-1984". It sounds a bit like an obituary. When I first saw the date that appears on the bottom, I thought that the Minister might have died. Whoever is responsible for the book must not be very proud of it, because the author was not prepared to put his name to it. I am sure that the Minister is not the author, because he is, by nature, a very modest man and he would not make such glowing statements about himself Whoever printed the book is also rather reticent about letting people know that he is responsible for its publication and whether or not it was a cost to the Main Roads Department. Mr SIMPSON (Cooroora) (4.55 p.m.): I commend the Minister on the presentation of his Estimates, particularly in these difficult times when the Queensland Govemment is being squeezed by the Federal Govemment in regard to the allocation of grants to local govemment and that Govemment is favouring its friends. It is also cutting back on the States' allocation of tax paid by the motorist. More than 60 per cent of the tax on fuel is going into consolidated revenue, and less than a fifth of that amount is being retumed to the road-user. I commend the Minister on almost 13 years of service as Minister for Local Government and Main Roads. It is the longest serving term in that portfolio in both State and Federal Govemment in this country. When one considers that many Ministers enjoy only a short term in a portfolio, one realises that there is something extraordinary about the Minister for Local Govem­ ment. He has an extensive knowledge of local govemment and racing. He brings that knowledge to bear in his role as an administrator. The Minister is first rate when it comes to assessing problems that are brought to his attention either by way of a deputation or personally. He sums up a problem and 2896 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) tries to find a positive solution. That spirit has spread throughout his department, and the same co-operation is to be found among his directors and other staff in the Local Govemment and Main Roads Departments. Those officers are very helpful. There have been massive cut-backs by the Federal Government in grants to local authorities. I cite the example of Aramac Shire. Under the Local Govemment Grants Commission recommendation, that shire was due to receive $423,114, but the Federal Govemment stuck its bib in. The Federal Government is more interested in bits of concrete than it is in people. It cut back the grant to that shire to $409,804. Progressively, over the next six years, that amount will be reduced to $293,076. In addition, during that time the value of the dollar will depreciate, thus further eroding the amount in real terms. That is typical of the discrimination that emanates from Canberra. It is typical of the victimisation of this State by the Federal Govemment. These Estimates reflect the way in which local government is being disadvantaged. An example in my own area is the Noosa Shire. The Local Govemment Grants Commission beheved that the Noosa Shire was entitled to receive $744,219. This year that amount has been cut back to $655,341, and will further decrease over the next six years—not taking into account the loss in real terms because of depreciation of the dollar—to $573,781. That shows the bias of the Federal Govemment, how it envies people who are productive, such as those in Queensland, and how it discriminates against them. The worst thing the Federal Govemment could possibly do is to discriminate, yet that is what it is doing. Recently, for example, Hawke, who claims to believe in consensus, suddenly changed his pitch in relation to the ID card legislation and said, "You will have it regardless." What a fool. At last the people of Australia woke up to him. The same discrimination is shown in these Estimates by the way in which the Hawke Govemment has treated local authorities in this State. Local authorities are a very important level of govemment in Australia. Fortunately in Australia the authority is divided three ways: Federal, State and local Govemment. Australians should be proud to protect those divisions of power. In the 1900s our forbears saw the danger of centralising and power-grabbing by a central Govemment in Australia. This has been seen with the Hawke Govemment. Not only, like Mr Comben, does it want to get rid of the States, but also it wants to get rid of the local authorities. There is evidence that Hawke wishes to do away with local and State Govemments. He thought that he would give them a bit of sugar coating and call them regional areas of development instead of local authorities and States. I believe that everyone must work vigorously and actively against this socialist ethic of centralising everything in one place—in this case, Canberra. This Labor Govemment is trying to do that and, when the people of Australia wake up to this deliberate move to destroy the existing fabric of Govemment, they will understand why it is making these various moves. This is not only happening in local govemment, but also in main roads funding. It is wrong to cut back funding to the extent that people do not have adequate roads to drive on and yet every available dollar is being squeezed out of them at the petrol pump. The result is reflected in jobs, and in these tight fiscal times, the jobs of those people who constmct the roads are at risk. The situation has to be watched to ensure that the motorist is not milked any more, with nothing being given back, and that motorists do not have to rattle around on old and dangerous roads. It is bad enough driving on a rough road, but it is even worse to have to drive on a road that is dangerous. I know that the Minister is concerned about this and has been doing everything possible to achieve grade separation and better road conditions in areas where the traffic wartants it. I retum now to local govemment and the moves made by Hawke in his attempt to get rid of local authorities. One of the first moves made was in Victoria where the Cain Government tried to reduce the number of local authorities to a quarter. Thankfully, after making a few inquiries—as was done with the ID card—it was told, "No. You are Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2897 not going to achieve greater efficiency and you will take the people's democratic rights away." The people finally rebelled and, because it was near an election, Cain got the message and dropped the idea. This Govemment has to be etemaUy vigilant to ensure that the ALP socialists do not get rid of Queensland's local authorities, because local govemment is such an important area. The fair and equitable funding of local authorities has always been a problem. Queensland has a rating system based on unimproved values. The Local Govemment Act is regularly amended—more than any other Act—in an attempt to improve the lot of local authorities in administering their responsibilities. One responsibility of local authorities is to be fair in apportioning the rate burden. Local authorities can go only so far with valuations. Where local authorities can identify certain properties, they can set the rates as they think fit. Another important responsibility of local authorities is in relation to developments. When one compares it with many other States in Australia, Queensland is a developing State. In nearly every instance, a developer will firstly go to the local authority with his proposed development. Whether the matter involves a rezoning application or an as-of- right use, the developers must deal with the local councils, particularly in relation to contributions for items such as headworks, building inspections and building approvals. The attitude of some councils has not been positive enough. They have been too restrictive and finicky in their dealings with people. A move should be made to find the most efficient method to deal with such matters. My colleague Len Stephan has the Widgee Shire in his electorate. The time taken by the Widgee Shire to approve an as-of-right house development is two days, whereas in the neighbouring Noosa Shire the time taken to approve a similar development is four to six weeks. That should not happen. It is no good for anyone to say that the Widgee Shire does not approve as many developments as the Noosa Shire Council. The Widgee Shire has fewer staff to deal with its applications than has Noosa. There might be a message in that. In other words, in the larger shire the applications are handed from one person to another and it takes much longer to deal with them. Local authorities are the front door to the people who are seeking to commence a development. The Queensland Govemment, as a free-enterprise Govemment, encourages people to be enterprising and to submit developments to local authorities. The Noosa Shire Council had before it a very major development proposal for the north shore. Originally I thought that the development was too big for the local authority. The State Govemment did not see it that way and said that the council had a responsibUity to make a decision. The council refused the application because it claimed that it did not have enough information about the project. At that stage it is appropriate for the council to talk to the developer to find out what is the best deal rather than spend a great deal of time in court. However, the local authority has the responsibility to make a decision. The doors of the Department of Local Govemment are always open so that it can help local authorities with their problems. The department has been particularly helpful in that area and will continue to offer assistance. In the presentation of his Estimates the Minister referred to special variations in the building regulations. Places such as Eumundi and Cooroy have an historical character. People apply to constmct buildings that may have verandahs abutting the roadway or the footpath. The footpath may be 28 feet wide. The verandah may take up only 10 feet of that, so that it would still be situated 18 feet from the kerb. Many people do not realise the existence of the By-laws Variation Committee, which was set up by the Minister. It deals with such matters on a regular basis. I believe that the committee sits every fortnight. If a person has exhausted his negotiations with the council and had his application knocked back, he has an oppportunity to put his case before that variation committee. The Noosa Shire CouncU has been saying, "You are at fault as a legislator because there is no way the building regulation can be varied to maintain the character of a town." That is not tme. Recently, in Cooroy, the By-laws 2898 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates)

Variation Committee directed the Noosa Shire Council to aUow a buUding to be constmcted. It was built and later opened by the Premier. Many people did not realise the possibilites. Once they are knocked back by the council, they often discontinue their proposed ventures. Sometimes negotiations are subject to sale requirements. People walk away and there is no deal. As the Minister has indicated, time is money, and there should not be hold-ups. Of course, some disillusioned people leave the State. That is sometimes caused by ignorance on the part of the developers and sometimes by deliberate misinformation that is provided by councils—for whatever reason. There is also a danger that certain local councils, on the pretence of assisting rate­ payers with their rate burden, will attempt to develop a sideline business in private enterprise. Perhaps they may subdivide land and sell it off in blocks. They may also develop a quarry or set up a business. That should be the prerogative of private enterprises, not local authorities. Local authorities should not be involved in that sort of enterprise. They should be involved in administering their public responsibilities such as roads, water supply and sewerage. Mr Shaw: Why not? Mr SIMPSON: The honourable member will have to read Hansard. I have just explained that local authorities should not be involved in private enterprise ventures. No doubt a private enterprise would undertake certain developments much more cheaply than would a local authority. The same situation applies in the Main Roads Department. A balance has been created within that department whereby maintenance teams carry out certain jobs and the remainder of the tasks are carried out by private enteprise companies on a contract basis. In relation to roads—experiments in buUding better pavements have been undertaken with the assistance of a small amount of funds from the Federal Govemment's fuel tax. Eventually, those pavements will have to be laid down and tested, and hopefully the experiments will lead to more efficient and better roads in terms of lower costs and lower deterioration. No doubt people travelling to the Sunshine Coast will travel over a new concrete section of road between the Mooloola River and Sippy Creek to the north. Those people will realise that—in terms of how long it will last—it is an expensive piece of road. However, it poses a problem. If all main roads were to be built in that manner, the upgrading of highways, such as the one to the north coast, to four lanes, would be delayed and it would be ever so much longer before people would be afforded the safety of a divided highway. As I understand it, perhaps the oldest pavement in Australia mns through Yandina. Even though some tar has been placed over that concrete pavement, it was originally built in the early forties. It is expected that the new section of concrete road between the Mooloola River and Sippy Creek will still be there in another 60 years' time. I certainly hope that it will be. The Minister has mentioned the new State Govemment toll bridge over the Maroochy River. No detaUs have been provided as to how high or wide that bridge will be, whether ships or yachts wiU be able to pass underneath it, whether it wiU provide access to pedestrians or bicycles, or whether traffic will be held up on it by cane trams. It will also become part of the new coastal freeway. The roads on the north shore of Noosa really take a pounding because they are the main beach thoroughfare between Tewantin and Rainbow Beach. Whether or not those roads are reclassified as arterial roads, they should receive attention from the Main Roads Department. There is always pressure on that department to provide new roads, but the safety factor must always be considered. I commend the Minister for the administration of his Racing portfolio. However, I ask him to consider the position of the Noosa picnic races with a view to legalising Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2899 the camival aspect of the races and to allowing people to bet. Betting at picnic races is allowed in many parts of Queensland, but for some reason it is not allowed at Noosa. The Minister must realise that the proceeds from the picnic races go to charity. Water quality is another area of the Minister's responsibility and it is becoming more and more important, particularly in aquaculture. I commend the Minister for his Estimates. Time expired. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (5.16 p.m.): I thank the Minister and his departmental officers for their assistance and co-operation. Although I may not get the decisions that I would desire in all my dealings, like many other people, I thank the Minister and his department for giving me a very good hearing and also for extending to me their co­ operation and assistance. I refer not only to the Local Govemment Department and its staff but also to the Main Roads Department and its staff. It is pleasing to receive a fair hearing from the staff of those departments. As I said, although they may not always take my arguments on board and do what my constituents would like, nevertheless, I receive a hearing from both the Minister and the officers of his departments. It is also clear that the Minister has once again drawn the short straw, because again this year we are debating the Estimates for Local Govemment and Main Roads. 1 say that not because I am against debating them—I am very much in favour of that, and I hope that they will be debated every year—but because I notice that the last departmental estimates for the Treasury—as distinct from the Budget—which were debated in this assembly were those for the 1966-67 financial year. It is scandalous that it is so long since the Treasury Department's Estimates were debated. The Estimates for the Local Govemment and Main Roads Departments were debated three years ago, in October 1984. They should have been debated last year. Clearly, the Govemment should look closely at that matter. I understand why the Minister is a little concemed. As I have said, once again he drew the short straw. It is interesting to note some of the statements that the Minister made when the Local Govemment Department's Estimates were debated on 11 October 1984. I will quote from Hansard a section that relates to local govemment. It states— "Queensland has a strong system of local govemment, with local authorities being granted wide autonomy under the Local Govemment Act. I think it is tme to say that the powers enjoyed by local authorities in Queensland are the envy of their counterparts in other States, which are subject to a considerable degree of Govemmental control. Under the Queensland Local Govemment Act, local authorities are provided with a charter of self-govemment with wide by-law making powers so as to regulate and control domestic matters within their particular areas." Since that time, and despite statements from the Minister to the contrary, honourable members have seen what I believe to be unnecessary interference in local govemmnent activities. I refer to ministerial rezonings and special Acts of Parliament, which the Minister has already mentioned. I thank the Minister for the kind words that he used about me in his speech on that subject. It is an indication that I certainly stick up for the rights of the individual, the rights of small-business people and the rights of the family, the house-holder and businessmen generally. However, at the same time, I strongly support development, if it is undertaken in a proper manner. Over a long period I am on record as supporting development not only throughout the city of Brisbane but also throughout the State. However, as I said, there is a proper manner and means by which development should take place. Special Acts of Parliament have been introduced or ministerial rezonings have been used for projects at the Roma Street and Toowong Railway Stations. The integrated resort development legislation was also introduced. Ministerial rezonings have been used in areas from Caims to Coolangatta. Interference has occurted in a number of areas. No doubt the Minister will trot out various reasons why that has occurred; but. 2900 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) nevertheless, one cannot get away from the fact that the town-planning legislation and the town-planning ordinances and by-laws of the various local authorities have been introduced to enable checks and balances to occur, and to allow proper town-planning to occur. One of the elements of town-planning is that proper checks and balances are maintained. Those proper checks and balances are abrogated in all those instances in which the State Govemment gets involved in ministerial rezonings. So many ministerial rezonings have occurted in that area from time to time that it is difficult to keep up with them. At Taylor Point near Caims in north Queensland, the local residents were recently in uproar because of a local govemment ministerial rezoning. The matter involved a court case. The Minister stepped in and took the matter away from the court. The local residents and the developer who were before the court suddenly had their rights abrogated in that instance. One finds also that market forces, as well as town-planning by-laws and ordinances, are being interfered with. One only has to look round this State at the number of shopping developments that have occurted in recent times because of special Acts of Parliament or ministerial rezonings. That kind of action by the Govemment is interfering with the market forces. Market forces and economic conditions may have indicated that a particular development ought not have been proceeded with, had ministerial or Govemment interference not occurred. Market forces include costs that take into account conditions for property development, such as town-planning requirements for set-backs, car-parking, headwork costs, and so on. Most of these costs are taken into account by market forces in relation to particular developments. If the development does not stand on its own two feet alongside other developments that occur in the normal manner in particular areas, it will fail and will not get under way. It is important to keep in mind that the community and businessmen are finding that some businessmen are receiving what the community believes to be favoured treatment of them over others. Of course, those who receive favoured treatment get their developments under way and constmct their buildings, which has an effect on neighbouring developments. Shops in those areas are not always viable and soon close. Instances of that have occurred, but largely not because the local authority has given town-planning approval for development to occur in a specified area. It occurs because of State Govemment interference in one form or another. I believe that town-planning processes and market forces are very much interrelated and should be left to their own devices because town-planning processes and market forces will certainly determine which development should go ahead and which should not. As the Minister indicated earlier, ministerial rezonings were included back in the eighties to allow for exceptional circumstances. The large number that have occurted during the last two or three years would indicate that there could not always have been exceptional circumstances in all those instances. Clearly, also what is occurring is a centralisation of power by the Govemment. One only has to look to Govemment actions in recent times, particularly during the last two or three years, to find that a great increase has occurred in the centralisation of power by the Govemment. In January 1986, appeal provisions were changed to allow court costs to be awarded and the onus of proof to be taken up by objectors, whereas previously the applicant had to bear the onus of proof if a particular allotment or a particular parcel of land was to be rezoned. Of course, they were significant changes, involving more than simply a matter of a few words. They were very significant changes affecting the way in which developers could go about making applications. The changes also had an effect on small-business people and business people in particular. They could see that things that ouglit not to be occurring were in fact occurring. The Minister and other speakers have mentioned that delays cost money, and that time is money. That is certainly the case. The fact that a ministerial rezoning is applied for does not necessarily mean that the applicant will have his application approved faster than it would have been approved had an application been lodged with the local Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2901

authority. Local authorities are also competing in the market-place. In many instances, if the development application had been put in correctly in the first instance, delays would have been far fewer and perhaps would not have occurred at all. Local authorities are generally aware that they are not to delay development applications unduly, because, if they do, other local authorities will certainly move in and encourage developments to occur in their particular area. It is pertinent to take note of just where the Govemment is heading in relation to ministerial rezonings and the effect that they are having on the community generally, on the market-place and on the economic situation. In the few minutes remaining to me, I want to refer to the fact that the Local Govemment Department does not publish an annual report. Unfortunately, it seems to join with the Treasury Department in that regard. I am aware that the Department of Employment and Industrial Affairs recently presented its annual report for 1986-87, yet at this stage the Local Govemment Department has not joined with a number of other Govemment departments in publishing an annual report. That is a shortcoming that I hope, in the future, the Govemment, the department or the Minister himself may take steps to rectify. On a regular basis the Main Roads Department produces reports. Although I do not believe that it is necessary for the Department of Local Govemment to produce several reports during the year, the production of an annual report prior to a debate such as this would help to inform members as to the workings and happenings within the department. If the report were made available in time for it to be studied, that would lead to a much better debate. Without such a report, one has available a few scratchy words that are published in one of the Budget documents and the Minister's speech, which is always delivered prior to other members speaking in the debate. I have also noticed that in the departmental Votes this year one or two other changes have taken place. In looking back at the Estimates for 1986-87, I noticed that for the Department of Local Government codes were attached to the various line items, whereas on page 59 of this year's Estimates no codes are attached to each of the particular line items. No reason for that appears to have been given anywhere within the various speeches that were made in the Budget debate. Of course, one could be suspicious and think that that might make it easier for the department to move funds around within the various broad allocations. I believe that it is desirable to have those codes attached, as they make for easier reference. Generally speaking, Govemment departments are guided by the various codes contained within the Estimates, within the appropriations, and they work from them. I would ask that some indication be given later as to the reason why in this year's Estimates of receipts and expenditures, not only for the Department of Local Govemment but also for all other (Govemment departments, no code numbers have been attached and that instead only the line items appear. I want to refer to the Estimates figures for 1986-87 because I have a number of questions about them that I would like to ask the Minister. Firstly, I notice that salaries have increased by $653,000 over last year's, which is a 10.5 per cent increase. That seems to me to be well above the norm for increases in that particular area. Administration expenses have increased by some 29 per cent, which is $711,000 more than last year's expenditure. These are significant figures. I would have hoped that the Minister might have referred to them in his speech, but I did not pick them up anywhere. I raise this matter now in order that the Chamber might be informed of the reason for these significant increases. I also note that the appropriation for salaries and administration expenses for the Department of Local Government has increased by $1.3m, or 15.8 per cent. It cannot be that the Minister suddenly intends to employ many more staff and have a bureaucratic increase, that is, an increase in the size of the public service. There must be a sound and good reason for it. I want to congratulate the Minister once again for giving $83,000 to the National Tmst to help with the fine work that it does. However, I note that that is the same 2902 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) allocation as last year. Although the appropriation for salaries and administration expenses has undergone a significant increase, the grant to the National Tmst has remained at the same figure. I ask that the Minister see his way clear in the future to make an increase in the grant to the National Tmst. I am sure it would love the same 29.5 per cent increase as his department received for administration expenses. I congratulate the Minister and his department for having seen fit to undertake a major research project on a financial model for local govemment. At my visit to the local govemment conference this year I could not help noticing the intense interest shown by those who attended in computers and other technology, which various local authorities are now taking up in a very significant way. I am sure that, whilst that proved to be a most popular sector within the local govemment conference, the work that the department is doing in this area will be of significant benefit and assistance. I raise very briefly the fact that a great deal more planning on town water supplies is needed. I cannot help noticing the continual statements being made about the problems occurring on the Gold Coast, where the Hinze Dam seems to have gone a little dry and where a pipeline has to be constmcted from the Tweed Shire. However, that is no long- term solution to the problem. It is a bit like what is occurring in Townsville. It is all very well to talk about these things, but long-term planning and action is needed. I could not but notice that the Federal Govemment has already backed down on its election promise for the provision of money for a pipeline to Townsville. That is something about which the Federal Govemment said much prior to the last election. The Labor Party has backed down on that promise very quickly indeed. In the couple of minutes that I have remaining I wish to support the Minister in his various fights with the Federal Govemment to try to obtain more fiinding for main roads in this State. That the Federal Labor Govemment rips off the motorists of this State by so many hundreds of millions of dollars and yet retums such a paltry sum to this State to be spent on main roads is outrageous. The motorists really do not see a cent of the money that they pay in fuel taxes. That money goes down into the Federal coffers and every six months, through the increases in the CPI, that fuel excise increase is compounded. The high rates of inflation over recent times have caused huge increases in the fuel excise and, as a result, the Labor Party has clearly ripped off motorists. Perhaps the Minister might be able to inform the Committee of the position with the Logan Motorway Company Limited. I want to know whether it has been established, what the share capital is and who owns the shares. I notice that $ 17.8m has been aUocated. As honourable members were given only 10 minutes to debate the legislation when it came before the Chamber earlier this year before the gag was applied, the Minister owes the Committee some detailed explanation today. There have been significant increases in the estimates of expenditure for the Main Roads Department. I cannot help noticing that the increase in "General Administration Expenses" is from $36.3m to $70.8m, an increase of $34.5m or almost 100 per cent. There must be an explanation for that. The Minister has not yet given it. In the Departmental Accounts Subsidiary to the Public Accounts, the item is not "General Administration Expenses" but "General Contingencies". However, I am sure that relates to the same item. Therefore I look forward to a detailed explanation. In conclusion, I ask the Minister to again consider Route 20 out in the westem suburbs. I believe that the problems that are now occurring there are as a result of a lack of long-term planning. That is not in the best interests of the community, nor is it in the best interests of motorists. There is certainly a need to upgrade the roundabout and the flyovera t the intersection of MUton Road and Frederick Street. It is very welcome. However, if one examines the work that is being done by the Main Roads Department, one finds that it has not solved the real problem, which is being caused by traffic travelling along Kaye Street and through the Bardon shopping centre. Clearly the present road system there is adequate to handle the traffic flow. Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2903 The Govemment should push on with the Hale Street proposal. The Minister seems to be delaying the implementation of that proposal. I repeat that the Govemment needs to push on with it. Planning needs to get under way for a ring road around the city, further out and well behind Mount Coot-tha Time expired. Mr HINTON (Broadsound) (5.36 p.m.): It is certaiiUy a great pleasure to support the Minister in the presentation of his Estimates. It has also been a great pleasure to listen to the accolades from all quarters of the Chamber in relation to the job that the Minister and his departments have done. I place on record my congratulations to the Minister on the manner in which he handles his portfolio with its three facets of main roads, local govemment and racing. I think that the Minister is probably one of the most efficient Ministers in this Govemment. My personal dealings with the Minister have been a great pleasure. It has also been my great pleasure to travel around the country with the Minister. He is a great character who draws a crowd wherever he appears. That has been my experience when I have travelled with him. The Minister has the capacity to very quickly assess a situation and to act very positively when a problem arises. That has been a feature of his activity in my electorate. I appreciate that very much. I congratulate the officers of the Minister's department, particularly those who live in my electorate. I mention in particular Mr Paul O'Keeffe of the central division and Mr Kev Kirby, who is the officer in charge in Rockhampton. In my dealings with them, those officers have been very co-operative. They have assisted me greatly in the development of my electorate. No doubt even the member for Bowen, who is being a little bit noisy, also appreciates the assistance that he has received from officers in his electorate. I am a great supporter of local govemment. I am very fortunate to have in my electorate three shires with which I have enjoyed great co-operation. Seventy per cent of the Broadsound Shire is within my electorate. That very progressive shire is led by Councillor Murphy. Being a mral shire council, it is very stable, and I am happy to say that it is very popular among my constituents. One division of the Fitzroy Shire is in my electorate. In my opinion, that shire really has only two problems, Ridgelands Road and the Ridgelands Race Club. Ridgelands Road is, of course, a mral local road. In the overall context of the Budget, mral local roads are probably not receiving quite the measure of support that they deserve to receive. I think that that is something that needs to be considered. However, I do appreciate that $300,000 worth of works on Ridgelands Road are presently under way. In addition, as a result of submissions to the Minister, a further $100,000 per annum wUl be allocated to widening that road. That is certainly appreciated. The Ridgelands Race Club, which also faUs within the Minister's jurisdiction, is situated at the end of Ridgelands Road. The race club is looking forward to a function that is to be called the Russ Hinze Race Day. On that day the Minister will visit the club and, hopefully, will examine carefully the problems of the club. The Livingstone Shire Council is also within my electorate. That councU has had a troubled history in recent years but I am now very pleased to report that councillors have settled down and are working very well at present. The Livingstone Shire Council has a big job to do because my electorate is a fast developing area, particularly in regard to tourism. That puts a lot of pressure on that council. I believe that it is handling those pressures very weU indeed, and I extend my congratulations to its members. 2904 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) I am delighted that I have this opportunity to inform honourable members that next week-end I will be accorded a great honour. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Warburton, is going to visit my town. I am thrilled to bits that he has chosen next week-end to come, because next week-end the silver celebration of the National Party on the Capricom (Coast will be held. This silver celebration is to be held because during the eight months since I was elected I have obtained over $25m in State Govemment assistance for the area. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition's coming to the area because he can help me celebrate that event. I would suggest that few, if any, members of this House could claim to have obtained $25m in assistance during their first eight months in Parliament. I am absolutely delighted that the Leader of the Opposition is helping to celebrate that event. I offer to take him around the area so that he can have a look at aU the good works that are happening in the area and can fully appreciate them. Mr Smyth: Mr Hinton Mr Smith: You would need a map to find your way around your own electorate. Mr HINTON: I can find my way around very well, and I could find my way around the honourable member for Bowen's electorate as well. I do not think that he has ever left Moranbah. I offer to take the Leader of the Opposition around the area because there is a lot that I can show him. Firstly I will show him some of the main roads. Out of the $25m that I have obtained for the electorate, approximately $15m is to be spent on main roads. The intention is to constmct a major loop tourist road from Rockhampton down through Emu Park, across the beachfront, back to Yeppoon and down to the Iwasaki resort. It is intended that a further road be constmcted across towards the Caves area to make a major northem loop road as an altemative to the Bmce Highway for tourist traffic. A damn good start has been made, thanks to the assistance of the Minister. On the Emu Park Road, a $1.7m bridge is presently being constmcted over Sleipner rail crossing. This will eliminate a very dangerous crossing. I expect and hope that the Minister will come down and open that bridge in the near future. After reaching Emu Park and travelling along the beach road, The Causeway is reached. I took the Minister there last year and showed him the big problems in that area. There is the problem of major beach erosion which, sooner or later, will cause the road to fall into the sea. Additionally, Causeway Lake is silting up, and a very nartow, dangerous bridge has been the scene of fatal accidents in the past and, unless the problem is rectified, it will be the scene of fatal accidents in the future. Last year when I showed the Minister this problem, he quickly arranged for the CIAE to build a model. This model is currently being tested in an attempt to devise the right design so that the problem can be corrected. I have no doubt that that situation will be attended to in the near future. When I am taking Mr Warburton further along the same road, if we look across to the right from the road we wiU be able to see the Rosslyn Bay harbour. Last year when I visited Rosslyn Bay as a member of Parliament I noticed that it was nothing more than a fishing port. It was merely a sih trap and a real problem area. Now I am very pleased to say that this Government has committed the sum of $5m to upgrade that harbour. A sum of $800,000 will be spent on dredging, and the constmction of public wharves is currently under way. In the Budget the sum of $4. Im has been allocated for the constmction of a north-west waU to incorporate a marina. That wiU be a major advance and the best marina between the Whitsundays and Maryborough. It will attract all the ocean-going yachties and wiU help to make this area a major tourist attraction. Mr Beard: If you only had a leader you would be really happy. Mr HINTON: I think we are lucky. We have got the lot. Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2905

As I take Mr Warburton further along from the Rosslyn Bay harbour, we will reach the centre of Yeppoon and there he will see work carried out on the Famborough road at a cost of $6m. This will make a very attractive four-lane road to the north of Yeppoon. The Iwasaki resort is located on that road. Yesterday I was disgusted by the remarks made in this House by the member for South Brisbane. I will quote what the member for South Brisbane said about the Iwasaki resort, on which many, many miUions of dollars has been spent and on which many, many more millions of dollars wiU be spent. Probably, millions of dollars will be spent on an intemational airport. The member for South Brisbane said The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mrs Harvey): Order! The honourable member may not quote from a previous debate. I remind him that he may not read from an unrevised Hansard proof Mr HINTON: Madam Chairman, I withdraw that quote, but I will certainly tell you what the member for South Brisbane said. She said that the place had only Japanese tourists in it and that it was staffed only by Japanese. What utter mbbish! The majority of the staff at the Iwasaki resort are Australians and are, in fact, from my electorate. Yeppoon residents work there. Very few Japanese tourists have been to the resort. Most of the tourists who go to the resort, which is about 80 per cent occupied, are from central Queensland. The member for South Brisbane said that it was an ugly place. I would point out that Bob Hawke seems to regard it as his favourite retreat. Every three months he plays golf there. It is one of the best golf courses in Australia. I suggest to Opposition members that the Iwasaki resort is one of the major attractions in the area and that that fact is recognised even by the Labor Party's national leader. The member for South Brisbane ought to go up there and have a damned good look. The road that is being constmcted to Yeppoon will certainly be a credit to the district. I will take Mr Warburton a little farther north than Yeppoon. First of all, by that time Mr Warburton might have become a bit thirsty. I suggest that we give him a drink of Yeppoon water. At present, he may find the water a little distasteful because it is slightly discoloured. Yeppoon does not have a water filtration plant. A sum of $4.8m, which is an enormous contribution from the State, has been allocated towards a water filtration plant. That will certainly bring the quality of the water supply right up to scratch and help to make the area a primary tourist resort. If Mr Warburton returns to the area, he will certainly enjoy his drink of water a little more. As we travel west with Mr Warburton, we will go past the schools. He will find that a brand-new pre-school is to be constmcted. He will also have a look at the high- school and he will see $375,000 being spent on a new library at the high school. From the road he will see that constmction has recently commenced on a $400,000 multi­ purpose building that will serve as an assembly hall. I hope that he takes very good notice of it. Mr Comben: Tell us about the Bayfield national park. Mr HINTON: I point out to my friend that the Bayfield national park is in good hands. I have prepared a submission that I have co-ordinated through three departments. It is before Cabinet right now and is receiving consideration. As we head north from Yeppoon, 9.6 kilometres from Rockhampton we will find a very narrow and winding stretch of road. It has many low-speed sections and is quite dangerous. The nature of the road encourages people to take risks when overtaking. I drew that matter to the attention of Mr Hinze. A sum of $6m has been aUocated to upgrade the road to a four-lane highway. Constmction is expected to commence next month and will continue during this financial year and next financial year at a total cost of $6m. I think that honourable members wiU appreciate that the Govemment is doing very well with the Main Roads Department. I am guilty of a very serious omission, because I forgot to mention that as we leave Yeppoon we would pass Tyrer Park racecourse. The Tyrer Park racecourse was certainly 2906 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) progressing slowly, but it had some drainage problems. I took Mr Hinze to the Tyrer Park racecourse and he had a look at the problems. $280,000 was allocated to the race club to fix up the drainage problem, to provide mnning rails and a covered betting ring. The club now has one of the best racecourses in central Queensland. I pay a tribute not only to the Minister but also to the local committee, which spun out its money till it received about $300,000 or $400,000 worth of improvements from the funds that it had available. I pay particular tribute to the committee, which is led by John Geany and Dick Tyrer, who did an outstanding job. At present, racing has been suspended while the track is being grassed. By the end of the summer it should be one of the best country race-tracks in central Queensland. Mr Prest: Did you have a win at the races? Tell us that. Mr HINTON: No, I have not had much luck at the races, but Neville Hewitt gave me a good tip the other day. To the west of my electorate is a bad road, which mns between Dingo and Mount Flora. That road services two of the major towns in my electorate, namely, Middlemount and Dysart. It was originally contmcted as a narrow beef road. Since then it has carried ever-increasing volumes of traffic because of the growth in the major towns. That has created a problem not only for the mral folk in the area but also for the through traffic and the mining communities. That road is also a major inland route to Caims. A tremendous volume of heavy traffic carrying heavy mining equipment uses that road, which creates a major problem in wet weather. Mr Hinze and his department have recognised the problem. Last year, $4m was spent on the Mackenzie River bridge, which is one of the biggest and best bridges in (Queensland. At present, $1.7m is being expended on upgrading the area north of that bridge to the Mackenzie River school. Further continuous upgrading of that road will be undertaken in order to bring it up to the standard that the area certainly deserves. Mr Prest: Will you have that ready for the wedding? Mr HINTON: At this stage I have not made any personal arrangements as far as the wedding is concemed. In relation to racing—a further major development is being undertaken at Middle- mount. Again, this development is the personal handywork of the Minister. Last year, I took him out to what is now the Middlemount race-track. At that time it was a paddock. A group of people from a local race club, who had high hopes, also attended the inspection of the track at that time. The Minister designed the new track on the spot. He determined where the various facUities should be built and provided $250,000 through the Racing Development Fund. Through a great deal of local contribution and personal effort, a magnificent race-track is now under constmction on that site. It wiU become a major fomm for racing in central Queenland and is a tribute to those people who contributed to its constmction. I congratulate particularly the constmction company, CapCoal, the Acton family, who have provided a lot of machinery and have done a lot of work on that project, Barry Nielson, the secretary of the club, and all members of the committee who have put such a dedicated effort into bringing that race-track to fruition. It will certainly be a major improvement and benefit to the area. Mr Smyth: What about the school rooms that aren't air-conditioned in that chmate? Mr HINTON: I am delighted that the honourable member has raised that matter. Let me talk about the school. When I first arrived at Middlemount there was a State school and there was a secondary department. At present, $lm is being spent on the constmction of buildings for a new high school. That development can be seen from the road. I am proud to say that that is being brought to fmition not only because of my efforts but also because of the efforts of the member who formerly represented that area, Jim Randell. At present. Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2907 we are endeavouring to obtain a special education unit for the 130-odd disadvantaged schoolchildren in the area. I believe that few areas of Queensland would have experienced that sort of development in the education field. In fact, I believe that only three new high schools are presently under constmction in this State. The town of Middlemount, which the honourable member for Bowen is maligning so much, has one of those new high schools under constmction. At Dysart, major improvements are being made to the schools in that a new covered area is being constmcted at the high school and a new library is programmed for next year. I invite Mr Warburton, if he wishes, to visit the area and have a damn good look at what a progressive electorate can provide. He would really enjoy himself In relation to roads—I mention the May Downs Road, which is a major arterial road that mns from east to west. At present, it has 7 kilometres of bitumen. The grain- growers and the graziers in the area are seeking urgently that it be upgraded. I will be pressing for that very vigorously indeed. Once again, I invite Mr Warburton to attend my electorate with me. On Friday night, the people of Broadsound are looking forward to celebrating its silver anniversary. Perhaps the member for Windsor would like to come along. Time expired. Sitting suspended from 5.56 to 7.30 p.m. Mr ARDILL (Salisbury) (7.30 p.m.): Without doubt, local govemment is the poor relation of govemment in Australia. Local govemment, or the folk moot, was the cradle of the British democratic system, and the Parliament developed from it. In Australia, as a colony, power developed downwards from colonial Govemors. Local govemment was the creation of colonial Govemments, set up to do the dirty work which was beneath the dignity of squatters and businessmen who sat in these august Chambers. Mr FitzGerald: Rubbish! Mr ARDILL: That is fact. Mr Gately: And you were a part of it. Mr ARDILL: In 1879? I was not even bom—despite the appearance given by my grey hair. The divisional boards that were set up in the 1870s were specifically given the job of looking after local roads, which were then sloppy tracks, disposal of garbage and minor health matters. Unfortunately, the present attitude of this Govemment to local authorities reflects the attitudes of those colonial times. In point of fact, local govemment in Queensland now carries out functions undreamed of in those days. Local govemment is far more relevant in the services it performs to the people of Queensland than is the State Govemment. Not only is this Govemment's attitude founded on the colonial past; it has failed to acknowledge the massive changes which have occurted in the past four decades in population dispersal and amalgamation, in technology and in the expectations of the public. I commend the initiative of the honourable member for Manly, who has called for an open investigation into the whole system of local govemment in Queensland—an investigation that is long overdue. Many of Queensland's local authorities constitute a denial of representative govemment for the overwhelming majority of residents in those shires. Many local authority extemal boundaries are manifestly ridiculous because they separate resident from resident and, in areas such as the Gold Coast and, possibly, the Sunshine Coast, they separate people from shopping and administration centres. Many of Queensland's local authorities are also uneconomic entities which should be attached to adjoining areas, communications having been infinitely improved since 2908 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) the time those areas became separate entities. Many quangos in this State could be abolished in favour of putting their activities under the control of improved local authorities. However, what does one find? Exactly the opposite is the case. This State Government is increasing its number of quangos—totally unnecessary quangos—and is promoting illogical nonsense, such as the division of Queensland's largest provincial city into two local authorities, Townsville and Thuringowa. The present boundary situation prevents serious consideration of legitimate objection by residents and small-business—and, again, the Gold Coast is a prime example of that—against unsatisfactory development in adjoining shires. The Govemment deserves the most scathing criticism for taking away the right of objection to developments within local authority areas by the way it abolished the no- cost provisions that were previously part of the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act. That was the worst act that the present Minister has ever been involved in. Why should local residents be subjected to paying the costs of wealthy developers and high-cost legal representatives and consultants when their only personal interest is in protection of their rights and an altmistic defence of the local environment? This is a total denial of justice and one which a Labor Govemment will certainly redress at the earliest opportunity. Certainly, many of the problems of local govemment can be laid at the door of this National Party Govemment. Many problems that exist in Brisbane are the fault of this Govemment. One of the Govemment's shortcomings is the paucity of adequate financial support for public transport, which is undoubtedly the unqualified responsibility of State Govemments. Instead of a 60 per cent subsidy for the fare box for Brisbane buses, a Labor Govemment would add faimess to fares by giving a 100 per cent subsidy. This is not to say that Brisbane's present problems are the fault of the State Govemment alone—far from it. The mediocre performance of the media's darling, the present Lord Mayor, and her amateur supporters has plunged this city into a decline which will be very hard to reverse. The highly efficient edifice built up by the Labor Party over decades has been almost destroyed in three years by ignorance, arrogance and sheer stupidity. The morale of the highly motivated staff of the council, who are uniquely motivated amongst public service employees, has now reached the lowest possible ebb. Anyone who takes the attitude that battles are won by generals alone and that sergeants and other ranks do not matter and in fact are to be treated with contempt, is bound to lose the war. Anyone who treats with contempt instead of consideration all advice which does not fit one's own pre-conceived prejudices is on a collision course. Anyone who states that the best way to win an argument with engineers is to sit on their desk is definitely on the wrong track. Alderman Atkinson has had bad luck in losing her only effective deputy—I see that he has just entered the Chamber—to this place, where he will long be a thom in the side of the National Party and also, incidentally, the next Labor Govemment. Her present deputy, like myself, is a better planner than Vice Mayor. While she has had bad luck in losing her deputy, her other problems are all of her own doing and are her own responsibility. She sacked the man who would have been her best lieutenant, the very effective, efficient and qualified engineer, planner and Town Clerk—Tony Philbrick. But that was the penultimate folly of this flibbertigibbet publicity expert. Neariy all of the key staff of the council who guaranteed that the people's wishes were carried out have been either persuaded or coerced into resigning or leaving the council, or they have been moved sideways so that they became square pegs in round holes. The most effective manager of town-planning, Eric Borrows, is well known to the Minister and his officers in the Local Govemment Department, as is his planning director; his traffic director; the senior traffic planner; the manager of health, Fred Sharp, who supervised the incredibly magnificent Commonwealth Games; his chief city architect'; the head of library services; the city works engineer; the water supply and sewerage manager; his chief of water supply. Bill Huxley; the city treasurer—the hst goes on and on. Those people have not been replaced, except in one case, by the officers who have understudied them for years. They have been superseded by rank outsiders. That has Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2909 destroyed totally the morale of staff throughout the council. They know that they are now leaderless and they can see no progress for themselves by service and ability. The turn-over in staff includes not only disillusioned long-term staff but also some of these newcomers brought in with great fanfare from the exciting extremities of the Northem Territory and other never-never lands. The Brisbane City Council is in deep trouble and it desperately needs a retum to solid Labor control under experienced and enthusiastic aldermen. The sooner the city of Brisbane, which is more regional govemment than local, retums to the Westminster system of a Lord Mayor elected from within the aldermen, the better for the people of Brisbane. Recently the ABC described the Minister for Local Govemment and Main Roads as "the subtle and sensitive Russ Hinze". I am under the impression that it was a sarcastic statement. However, the ABC should look beneath the bold front of the Minister and it will find the most effective Minister on the Govemment benches. This is not to say that I in any way endorse his control of local govemment. However, I will say that I agree with his criticism of the hypocrisy of the Liberals' belated objection to the Toowong folly and the Roma Street disaster of Transport Minister Lane. It was not the Minister who delayed and fmstrated Lord Mayor Frank Sleeman and myself in the council; it was Liberal members of this State's Parliament who delayed the implementation of the popular and generally praised 1976 town plan for two years. I wish to discuss the other major aspects of this tripartite departmental edifice that Mr Hinze controls. The Minister himself would be, and has been, the first to acknowledge the support given to Main Roads in Queensland by the Federal Department of Transport and its Minister of those days, Mr Morris. Unfortunately honourable members continuaUy hear back-bench National Party members harping on Federal cut-backs yet ignoring the support given to roads in their own areas. The Federal Govemment funds almost totally the national highway system in this State. The New England and Cunningham Highways from the border to Brisbane, the Warrego Highway to Morven, the Landsborough Highway to Cloncurry and the Bmce Highway to Caims are all part of this federally funded system. Why is that not acknowledged? Many other works are carried out with Federal funds. Recent works on the Gold Coast, including the new Pacific Highway by-passing the city area and the all-weather Southport connection, are the result of considerable Federal funding. Mr Stoneman: Who wrote this for you? Mr ARDILL: I did. I ask the honourable member to have a look at the writing. The Main Roads Department has done a great job. When one looks at the officers concemed, from Eric Finger down, that is understandable. I congratulate the Minister on his practice of promotion on ability in both his major departments. In view of the Fitzgerald inquiry, I make no comment on his other portfolios. However, in his major departments obviously he has carried out his promotions entirely on the basis of ability. That is something to be praised. It is a great pity that other Ministers have recklessly promoted party hacks and not followed the example of Russ Hinze. One area in which Main Roads could do with some beefing up is traffic control. Although the MRD is the goveming traffic authority in Queensland, the Brisbane City Council traffic branch has always left it for dead. That has been particularly so in the last decade. I must say that I was disappointed when I went to ARRB conferences and saw the expertise of separate traffic authorities in other States and compared them to Queensland's, which are obviously the poor relations. The Main Roads Department could do with the authoritative expertise of people such as Fred Reed, Tony Avent, Bob Holland and Ken Pearce, who made the Brisbane City Council a respected traffic authority on the Australian scene. This in no way detracts from the overall good result produced by the Main Roads Department. I am pleased to see that it has made a belated start on providing climbing lanes, which for some years have made driving in southem States so much less dangerous and difficult. 2910 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) There is no doubt that Victorian roads are infinitely better than Queensland roads. Perhaps the Minister will claim that that is because of the longer distances that the Queensland department has to cover. The real difference, of course, is in the funds provided. The cost of registration for an average six-cylinder car is an ongoing cause for complaint in Queensland. The high cost of registration has to be considered as a tax on motorists, so I do not suggest this as a means of increasing revenue. Certainly one of the advantages that Victoria has is the fewer number of heavy transport vehicles using country highways, except for the interstate roads. That is obviously because the Victorian Railway Department has aggressively marketed its country services and recaptured the parcel and general merchandise cartage that Queensland has rejected, and ejected, onto the roads. The lighter loads on country roads are reflected in the lack of patching work over kilometre after kilometre of pristine road surface. One of the developments that I personally applauded was the decision to build the so-called Gateway Arterial road, which represents the culmination of the Wilbur Smith proposals for an eastem freeway—or I should say it will result in the culmination of this great proposal when it is eventually properly built to four-lane standard. I am surprised that the department accepted the mediocre standard that was forced upon it by lack of adequate funding. The road urgently needs upgrading, including the provision of proper noise barriers, four lanes of arterial standard and grade separation, particularly at Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road. The department should give urgent consideration to the constmction of a third lane inbound over the crest of the Toohey Forest section of the South East Freeway. That section carries the largest number of merging vehicles—except perhaps for WooUoongabba, although there the cars do not really have to merge—yet it is the only section without a third lane to allow for efficient merging. It also has the worst topography of the entire freeway. That matter should be attended to as a matter of urgency. I hope that the Minister and his officers will give it the highest priority. Other minor matters need attention, such as the need to extend the Gateway Arterial road through to Beaudesert Road and to connect it with the proposed toUway. The accesses to the freeway and to major highways in Brisbane need to be given urgent consideration by the Main Roads Department and the Brisbane City Council acting together. Overall, I believe that the Minister carries out his duties with considerable concem. I only wish that other Ministers would give the same attention to details as he does. However, I must say that considerable work remains to be done in the local govemment arena in Queensland. At the outset I said that local govemment in Queensland is the poor relation of govemment in this State. The reason is that it has not had a major overhaul for 40 years. The member for Manly has given notice of a motion that I believe should receive not only the consideration but also the support of all honourable members in order to ensure that local govemment does become the effective force that it should be. Ministerial rezonings are certainly causing grave concem in Queensland. I believe that proper local govemment, working efficiently, should not have to suffer ministerial rezonings except in extreme circumstances. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The fast- track method of paying attention to people who have influence has to be abandoned. Everybody is entitled to the same consideration, whether the rezoning being sought is a minor one or the person seeking the rezoning is somebody who can advance the Bjelke- Petersen Foundation and in other ways have influence in this State. The problem of rezoning, of course, is one that should be exercising the minds of town-planners. They should be given more discretion within the existing zones. I opposed the action by the State Govemment to restrict what was formeriy the Special Uses Zone and is now called the Particular Development Zone. Town-planners and local authorities should be given more discretion within zones, as long as the proposed development does not totally contradict the use that is designated. Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2911

That brings me back to the Brisbane City Council. It should be given more autonomy but it should be given autonomy in an atmosphere in which the aldermen are able to have a complete say and the council is not mled by one individual who lacks the expertise to control the destinies of that council. Every alderman in the Brisbane City Council should have an equal say in the operations of the council. Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (7.50 p.m.): I have pleasure in speaking to the Minister's Estimates. I wish to refer briefly to some areas of concem to those people in my electorate. As many other Govemment members in this Chamber have already stated, we are very concemed about the very considerable cut-backs by the Federal Govemment in road-funding to this State. I am trying to be perfectly fair and not political about it. This started during the time of a coalition Govemment and the Menzies Govemment Mr Davis interjected. Mr ELLIOTT: Why doesn't the honourable member be quiet for once? I do not want to be unkind to him, but I think he ought to spend most of his time looking after his conquests now that he is prince regent down at the headquarters. Menzies was the first person to break the nexus in respect of the imposition of excise on fuel. Once that was done, each successive Govemment gradually eroded it until the whole thing became a joke. Queensland is receiving nothing like a fair and reasonable equity from the fuel excise. The whole exercise was about building roads in a country which has tremendous problems with roads. Because Queensland is so much larger than Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales, its problems are compounded by its size and the distances that people have to travel. It is fair to say that when one drives around Victoria and sees the roads in that State and then comes to Queensland, one realises what kind of a raw deal this Minister is being handed by the Commonwealth Govemment. That makes it very difficult for both him and his officers to find enough money to do the job as he would like to do it or even to do the job in a reasonable fashion. The whole appropriation for this portfolio has to be looked at in that hght. Mr Scott: That's not right. You have control of your own Budget. Why do you blame someone else? Mr ELLIOTT: The honourable member does not even listen, that is his trouble. It is important to realise that those are the problems that Queensland faces. Queensland has never had a Minister for Main Roads who had a better grip and understanding of the situation than the present Minister. Over the years Queensland has had many practical Ministers, but this Minister does understand the situation and has been in local govemment. He knows what it is all about and knows the problems that Queensland faces. No-one could say that he has been backward in coming forward and stating that Queensland should receive more funding for roads. Over the years he has helped many members in this Chamber with special projects that are very important to our electorates. I wish to raise a couple of matters that are important not only to my electorate but also to the industries of this nation and the transportation of goods. I refer to the Toowoomba-Millmerran-Goondiwindi section of road which goes down to the NeweU Highway. Ever since that road was completed at the other side of Millmerran, more and more heavy transporters are using it largely because it is level, apart from where it climbs the Toowoomba range. Whether one is driving to Sydney or Melboume, from there onwards the road is more level and suitable for tmck transport. Road transporters are tuming up in their droves, and more and more of them are using this road. Roads such as this were not built to National Highway standards but are basically main roads designed to take a reasonable number of tmcks. They are not standing up to this incredible volume of traffic. An increasing number of tmcks are using the road. I am sure that the Minister's officers who are present tonight would have traffic counters on it and would confirm what I am saying. The volume of traffic using 2912 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) the road is such that the shoulders of the road are being torn to pieces. When work is done on roads, serious consideration should be given to widening them so that when tmcks move to the edge of the roads, the shoulders of the roads are not broken away. The minute that cracks appear in the shoulders of the road, water will seep through. In the black-soil country the water will go through the cracks and undemeath the road, and lift up parts of the bitumen. That is a very real problem. Mr Vaughan: You are never satisfied. Last time you were saying you wanted the road upgraded. Mr ELLIOTT: No-one is saying that we do not want the road upgraded. We are saying that it is a fact of life that this is happening. Traffic from north Queensland will travel down through Cooyar and such places. Vehicles are beginning to travel through Oakey, to Pittsworth and link onto that road also. We have been asking for assistance towards the maintenance of the Oakey-Pittsworth part of that road. Some money has been allocated to carry out some work in ensuing years. Mr Davis: Are you blaming the Commonwealth? Mr ELLIOTT: I ask the honourable member: is it not a fact that cut-backs have occurred in Main Roads funding in this State? Mr Davis: No comment. Mr ELLIOTT: What a chicken! I thought that the honourable member was a man of substance. He has a desire to represent City Hall in some manner—maybe five paces to the rear. He wants to represent City Hall. Mr Hobbs: "Mr Thatcher". Mr ELLIOTT: As the honourable member says, he wants to be "Mr Thatcher". In all seriousness, we need to realise that these problems exist and that they will not go away. We have to come to grips with them and see whether we can do something about them. The inconvenience to transport vehicles is not the problem; the real concern is safety. A mixture of tourists and heavy transport operators are using those roads. Because the edges of the roads are breaking away, drivers are trying to overtake heavy transport vehicles. During wet weather, vehicles have left the edge of the road, which has resulted in horrendous accidents. Mr Davis interjected. Mr ELLIOTT: The honourable member squibbed on his last interjection, so there is no point in taking interjections from him. It is very difficult to do something about the safety aspect. I ask the Minister's officers to take into account the problem at what is called the hermitage between Pittsworth and Brookstead. Mr Davis: I know it well. Mr ELLIOTT: The honourable member has been there and no doubt boiled his biUy there. The problem at the hermitage is very serious. The only reason it has not surfaced in recent times is that the area has experienced virtually three years of drought, so the major mn-off from the Rocky Creek catchment to the hermitage has not taken place. Tourists from Victoria or South Australia who are unfamiliar with the roads travel along a very straight stretch of road. On a fine, clear night, when the stars are out, drivers travel in perfect weather and think that there are absolutely no problems on the road. Suddenly they are confronted with the mn-off from a storm that has occurred some time earlier. The water spreads right across the road. With hardly any waming, a driver Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2913 is confronted with 300 or 400 yards of water before him. So many accidents have taken place in that area that representations have been made about it by the police. The Main Roads Department and the local people know about it. The shire councils are very concerned about it. A meeting was held at the site to try to do something about the problem. The land-holders immediately above and below have agreed to co-operate. At the moment, because of the drought, there is no problem; but obviously the season will break. We have been lucky enough not to have a fatal accident on that road. I am sure that Government members would not want it on their consciences that they neglected that particular piece of road, particularly when they know that it is so dangerous. All that is required is the co-operation of the Soil Conservation Authority. Honourable members may ask what that has to do with main roads. It has a great deal to do with them. Soil conservation is part and parcel of road-building. An overall catchment development program has been mapped out. The local DPI representative has come up with a very suitable solution to the problem. I urge Govemment members to deal with this problem. I believe that someone has been pigeon-holing it. Unless something is done to come to grips with the problem, people will be killed on that stretch of road. I now deal with a number of minor concerns that relate to my electorate. Although I have been throwing a few brickbats, I take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister and his department for the work that has been carried out on the Warrego Highway. Many honourable members travel to the west of the State. Mr Hobbs: Hear, hear! Mr ELLIOTT: The honourable member for Warrego and other honourable members often travel that route. One does not have to remember very far into the past to recall the problems that were associated with travelling over that route. The road has been improved immensely. A lot of work has been done on it, which has assisted in lowering its road toll. The Minister is to be commended for the work that has been carried out by his department in that area. In common with other honourable members' electorates, many smaller problems exist in my electorate. However, I do not believe that this is the occasion during which to raise all of them. I realise that other honourable members wish to contribute to this debate. It must be remembered that, particularly in black-soil country, roads are to a certain degree the life-blood of the community. They enable people to transport goods, to take grain to terminals and so on. We must be conscious of Main Roads funding to local authorities. Some local authorities are happy with the new system under which some roads have been reduced from main roads classification. Others are finding it harder to live with. I ask the Minister to consider the various problems that are experienced by the local authorities in my electorate and to give them a sympathetic ear. Some of them have rather unusual problems. They are attempting to build roads across black-soil plains. Exceedingly long hauls are necessary to obtain quality gravel that will create a suitable bottom course to stabilise the moving black soils. It is not easy. I realise that other honourable members wish to contribute to this debate, so I would simply state that I support the Minister's presentation of his Estimates. Mr SCOTT (Cook) (8.04 p.m.): It is with a little reserve that I join in this debate this evening. I have come to realise that members on this side of the House are addressing a Government that is held in place by threat. I have just seen the honourable member for Mulgrave on the 7.30 Report acknowledging that Government members are kept in rein by the Premier, who is threatening to go to the Govemor and call an election. That worries me greatly. 2914 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates)

If ever the cat was let out of the bag, it was let out by that old reprobate from far- north Queensland—one could say a parliamentary colleague of mine—Max Menzel. I saw him on television. He said it very clearly. Govemment members should be ashamed of themselves in that they are prepared to continue sitting over there The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Alison): Order! I ask the member to keep his comments relevant to the debate, which is on the Estimates presented by the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing. Mr SCOTT: Well, they are relevant to the debate if there is a shaky Govemment over there. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member will come to order. Mr SCOTT: 1 accept your advice, Mr Temporary Chairman, but it does worry me. I am concemed about the inflated reputation of the Minister for Local Govemment. I have pemsed this glossy brochure, which I am holding. It does not contain the face of one constituent from my area, yet the Minister is supposed to represent the whole of the State in the Local Govemment portion of his portfolio. In fact, he has a special interest in the Shires of Momington Island and Aumkun. The brochure only contains inflated images of the Minister for Local Govemment telling of all the good things that he has done in southem Queensland. The Minister for Local Govemment has gone overseas on more occasions than he has headed for the remote parts of this State. That is the sort of Minister that he is. The reputation that he enjoys in this Chamber is much overinflated. I can see why he will never become Premier of the State. Even though the Govemment is shaky now, it will never be stabilised by the full bulk of the Minister. Instead of handing out bouquets to the Minister who, after all, only relies on the work of his public servants, I will congratulate the officers of the Local Govemment Department, who have had to bear up under his great weight. I believe that he has been a directionless Minister. He is like one of those great baUoons. If he is pushed in one place, he comes out somewhere else. I am not referring to his physical bulk; I am referring to the reputation that he appears to enjoy. I believe that the stability lies with the people in the departments—the engineers in the Main Roads Department and the local govemment people. They are the ones to whom I give my compliments. With due regard to the man, I feel that Mr Hinze is a mdderless Minister who does very little. The Local Govemment Department goes on and on. The Opposition is calling for an investigation into that department and for a move to have it regulated, because the Minister has not attended to his job at all. Mr Hinze should be congratulating me on the retum of the elected local authority to the Shire of Cook. He should have stood up and congratulated me on the very strong efforts that I have made and which he has finally recognised by agreeing that in March next year there will be an election in Cook. I ask: why not the Torres Shire? Why do the people up there have to labour in the Dark Ages by being denied the right to have an elected local authority? The Shire of Tortes must be the next shire to achieve that basic right that all other Queenslanders will be enjoying after March 1988. Honourable members know why that has been brought about. It was brought about by very devious legislation from the Government that denied Aboriginal and Islander people the right to vote in the local authority areas in which they lived, and in which they continue to live. I will not go into the details of the legislation. I was going to say that it is well known. It is not actually well known. It is one of the fairly dark acts from the Govemment that really has denied democracy to the people of a particular part of Queensland. There are widespread problems in the Cook Shire to be overcome. However, I have confidence that the council elected in March next year will tackle those problems with Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2915 confidence. It is a large, remote shire with a small population. Naturally, that causes problems. Roads will continue to plague the residents and the council. I inform the Chamber that at present the Australian Army is active in the peninsula. There is a combined force of ten thousand Australian Army troops and American servicemen playing war games up there. I am pleased to see that. I am particularly pleased in this case because they have seen fit to take an engineering unit up there. That engineering unit is going to engage in badly needed constmction and reconstmction of roads, bridges, culverts and creek crossings. I will not outline in chapter and verse what they are doing up there, but I might say that it is a Federal Govemment contribution that is greatly appreciated by the people living in that area. The people up there know that the army is present and that has given them a considerable degree of reassurance, because, while we have a shaky Govemment in Queensland, we have the stability of the Hawke Labor Govemment The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! There is far too much audible conver­ sation in the Chamber. I ask honourable members to co-operate. Mr SCOTT: Because Govemment members have given up trying to needle me, they have devolved into arguing among themselves. It is about all that one would expect from something that is approaching a rabble in this Chamber. The extent of the shire is considerable. It mns—I use that word with no pun intended—from the Jardine River to the Bloomfield River. All parts of the shire—which is, of course, a key part of the Cook electorate—are of major tourist interest. This interest will be enhanced by the rainforest listing that I will talk about a little later during my speech. Major things will happen—thanks, again, to the Federal Govemment. There will be a bare air force base established in that area. The word "bare" simply means that it will not have a permanent retinue of servicemen attached to it. Air force personnel and soldiers will go there regularly, as required. As for the space base touted by the Premier—where did he go, to walk away from his tottering Govemment? He went to Canberra because he thinks that if he cannot win with National Party people, he will go down to Canberra and continue to give the Federal Govemment a bash. Of course, it is not working; it is all passe. One only has to look at the television and other media reports to see that the Premier is on shaky ground. However, the Premier has gone down to Canberra to talk about the space base. Although there is some worthwhile principle and worthwhile practical application for the space base, the amount of money that it requires is far too much for that area of the State and for this part of the world. I also make the point that the Minister for Northern Development is trying to upstage the Minister for Local Government. The very inactive and not particularly fertile mind of the Minister for Northem Development has given birth to the so-called Cape York Development Council. It is a shame to see that man cavorting around far-north Queensland doing extreme damage—not only to the Govemment he is supposed to represent, but also to the people who live in the area. With his small mind—and I have to say that—he thinks that he is doing some good for them, so he has set up this quango. I thought that this Govemment was all about getting rid of quangoes, not making more of them. The Minister for Northem Development set up a quango in far-north Queensland that is totally National Party-based. It was set up at the beginning of the mn-up to the Federal election with the very faint hope of winning the seat of Leichhardt. Of course, the National Party did not have the slightest hope of winning that electorate. It was held and retained by an excellent member, John Gayler. However, Mr Katter went up there and set up this quango, the Cape York Development Council. Mr Glasson interjected. 2916 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates)

Mr SCOTT: Do not worry about Mr Gayler. He will be there long after the honourable gentleman has departed the political scene. That quango is totally a National Party organisation. I would like to know who is funding it and who is paying the fares of people who attend its meetings. What worries me is that it is trying to subvert the Cook Shire Council, which is about to be born and which, as I have said, will be of great use to that area. The man who is working for Mr Katter in that area is Mr Kevin Byme—the failed candidate in Leichhardt. Later I will table a letter. I will proceed for the moment to talk about World Heritage listing because I want to get the contents of this letter before the Committee. This letter is signed, as I have said, by Mr Kevin Byme who was the failed candidate for Leichhardt and later taken back into the Department of Northem Development. The letter is a memo to all departments and it states, "RE: N.O.R.M.A. Office". Mr Gately: You don't even believe it. Mr SCOTT: I will take that interjection because the World Heritage listing is extremely important to local govemment. World Heritage listing will go on and on as an income-earner for all of the shires in that region. The honourable member should not worry about that—the World Heritage listing will do Queensland and Australia the world of good! The NORMA Office that was set up by the Queensland Govemment—at least one assumes that that was how it was funded—is assisted by Syd Williams who wears more hats and has more jobs than anyone could poke a stick at. Syd Williams is the executive officer of NORMA. I will read to the Committee part of that letter— "As you are aware the State Government will open the NORMA Office"— which is the office that will oppose the World Heritage listing and which is being funded by the State Govemment— "on Wednesday 23rd September ... this organisation will be staffed principally by Parks and Wildlife personnel." The word was around in far-north Queensland that this organisation was to he a volunteer organisation and would include the few people who are concerned about World Heritage listing and are prepared to tell the tmth about its benefits. In this letter, not only does Mr Byme spill the beans, but he also states that the State Government is operating "in austere times", and further states as follows— "... it would be appreciated if each Department can part company with at least one ... display panel/room divider for the NORMA Office for a maximum period of six months. This piece of furniture would be signed for." I will table that letter. That is a rather disgusting effort on the part of the failed candidate for Leichhardt. He was given a very cushy job working for Mr Katter, who does nothing anyway, so it is quite a vicious little circle and one would wonder what is actually being achieved up there. Mr Veivers: Mr Cook Mr SCOTT: The name is Scott, the electorate is Cook. I know members opposite have trouble thinking these things through but they should not worry too much about it. Talking about Mr Katter—Aboriginal councils are not properly in situ. He has not been able to organise them. There are particular reasons for that. It has nothing to do with the efforts that the good people on the Aboriginal councils are putting towards their organisations; it is the fact that over the years Mr Katter's department has not been able to train them. That is quite a shame. There is a necessity for local govemment in the far northem area of the State. There should be three councils in that area, one based on Bamaga, the Torres Shire itself and one comprising the outer islands. I would expect Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2917 that a council would not be under the leadership of George Mye, who is skating on very, very thin ice, if ice could be found in that part of the State. I must mention Aumkun and Momington Island because they are most important shires within the ambit of the Local Govemment Minister's responsibility. Unfortunately, he does not go to those places. He is not aware of the extremely high costs that people in those areas face. I have said repeatedly that Aboriginal councils and Aboriginal areas should remain in the mainstream of Aboriginal affairs. I believe that Mr Hinze should set up an Aboriginal council secretariat within the Local Government Department. That would be the umbrella organisation which would take over from Mr Katter's department Aboriginal councils on the Aboriginal communities. It would also make sure that there was an elected council for the outer islands that I referred to. I can see great merit in an Aboriginal council secretariat because it would finally bring Aboriginal councils into the proper ambit of the Local Govemment Department. In those areas the cost of living is particularly high. The Minister has done nothing about that. He has certainly not been to Momington Island recently. That is a shame. Hence my reference to the inflated opinion that is held of him. Transport of goods to Momington Island is achieved by tmcking the goods to Kammba and then taking them by barge from Kammba to Gununa, the community on Momington Island. The Aboriginal people there pay $140 for a bottle of gas which costs less than $50 in Caims. That one essential item is almost three times the price that it is in Caims. The electricity there is generated by the local council. I believe that the supply of that electricity should be the responsibility of the Far North Queensland Electricity Board. That authority should be responsible for generating and transmitting electricity in that area. I know that the Minister for Local Govemment, whose Estimates are being debated tonight, has made representations to his colleague the Minister for Mines and Energy to try to achieve that. As another example of his own lack of achievement, that will not happen. Unfortunately, Mr Austin will dig in and say, "No, I am not going to allow the FNQEB to undertake that responsibility." That is a totally wrong decision. The board should be made to undertake the responsibility of supplying electricity to all consumers in its area. I must also refer to the Burke, Carpentaria, Croydon and Etheridge Shires. Burke Shire, new to the Cook electorate, has problems of communications and roads. Both those problems are being attended to by the Federal Govemment. The $400m Telecom program to bring good communications to remote and mral areas is being put into effect, and early next year Burketown will benefit from that program. I am very pleased to see that is happening. The State Govemment has ignored the plight of the residents of the Burke Shire; the Federal Government is coming in to do this very important work for these very important people. What about populating the State? What about keeping people in these remote areas? Surely it is the role of the Govemment to look after its people who choose to live and work and produce in that area. However, the cost of living is high and because of that they suffer. As a result, the quality of life of their children is diminished. For example, the money spent on children's education and holidays is diminished by the amount of money that people have to spend from their weekly pay packets in order to simply survive. Government members interjected. Mr SCOTT: It is a terrible state of affairs, and all I am getting are crass interjections from the other side of the Chamber. No constmctive thought has come from that side of the Chamber for a very long time. Carpentaria, Croydon and Etheridge Shires are most important parts of the Cook electorate and fall well within the ambit of the responsibility of the Minister for Local Government. Croydon is about to leap ahead with mining. Gold-mining is very important in various places. That is also the case with Horn Island, which is up in the far north of the Cook electorate. Why are those areas having a resurgence? Because of the far­ sightedness of the Federal Government. 2918 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) Members of the Opposition hear Govemment members making pathetic attempts to knock the Federal Govemment; they should be proud to be living in a nation that is govemed by such a far-sighted Labor Govemment in Canberta. I am speaking of mining towns. I know that the Minister has been doing a great deal of lobbying and I know of the extreme need for lobbying on the part of people on that side of the Chamber. I am glad that I have now got his attention. When will Weipa get local govemment? Will the Minister put a little mark on his head to remind him of that? Government members interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Alison): Order! There are far too many interjections in the Chamber. Mr SCOTT: Quite inane and ineffective they are, too. Mr Veivers: Mr Scott, you don't have to shout. Mr SCOTT: All Govemment members are doing is shouting. I have a lot to congratulate the Federal Govemment on and I am about to congratulate it again on its far-sighted and courageous vision in introducing and imple­ menting the World Heritage listing of northem rainforests. In the concluding moments of the very short period that honourable members are allowed to discuss the Estimates, I will speak about the good things that this listing will bring and of the great benefits that it will confer on all people living in the area. I might say that tonight those crass people up in Ravenshoe walked out again. They would not talk to Senator Richardson. They played the last post; that should be the last post for the the fascist-type of action that they are taking up there. They are wound up by the Premier, who is getting increasingly closer to insanity. Government members interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the Committee to come to order. Mr SCOTT: The only people who will miss out from the benefits of the World Heritage listing will be those who behaved in this ridiculous manner. Who has been egging them on up there? The ridiculous Premier of this State, that political Neanderthal, this frightening man with a frightening advertising campaign paid for by the tax-payers of this State. He appears on television, is reported by the print media and is making an utter and absolute fool of himself When he is not up there he goes down south to try to take on Bob Hawke, where he misses out to the greatest possible extent. This is the man who supported Milan Brych and the man who supported the hydrogen car. He supports all these ridiculous things. Honourable members know the litany, which has been repeated so often in this Chamber. I had not intended to take up my last few minutes by talking aboiit him, but that is what is happening. His latest effort is to question the integrity of the High Court of Austraha and to support revolution in Fiji. This is the man who is inciting local govemment people and residents and timber- workers of the north to oppose what will be a very good thing. Senator Richardson has said in the north that six separate studies are being undertaken. They wiU take into account the forestry industry, which will remain up there. There will not be logging of rainforests, but there wiU be a forestry industry. The studies will also be into the mining industry, tourism potential, altemative employment and the regional economy. All those studies are being carried out to make sure that the best thing will be done for the people of far-north Queensland. I am very proud to stand here and speak about these things as they relate to the listed area. Control of the area is most important; it will reside with Australians. In fact, it will reside with the local people up there, who will have representation on the management committee. The functions of State and local govemment will not be usurped by the Federal Govemment. The powers of local govemment will not be destroyed and local communities will not lose control over their future. These are great things from a far-sighted Govemment. Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2919 Time expired. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the document referred to. Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (8.25 p.m.): Following the member for Cook gives me an opportunity to raise the tenor of the debate on the Estimates of the Department of Local Govemment and to pay tribute to the long-serving Minister, who I believe has made a wonderful contribution to Queensland in the portfolios of Local Govemment, Main Roads and, in latter days. Racing. It is not my intention to spend a lot of time on the emotional issues that were raised by the previous speaker. I do not represent a north Queensland electorate, so I will not mention the heritage legislation. Mr Milliner: Before you go on, do you support Rabuka in Fiji? Mr BOOTH: I have risen to support the Minister in the presentation of his Estimates. That is what I have been doing, and that is what I wiU continue to do. During my life-time—and stiU today—people have claimed that a vast number of councils could be amalgamated and regional councils could be formed and could do a better and cheaper job. Such regional councils may do a cheaper job or they may not. However, I am not convinced that they would carry out their duties as well as or better than the present councils. I remember when the Whitlam Govemment was talking about establishing regional councils. At that time it was claimed that one council would be sufficient for the whole of the Darting Downs. I said then that I was not prepared to take that risk. If a road or bridge gave way and prevented me from leaving my property, and if the control centre of the council was situated some 140 kilometres away from my farm, the road would probably be fixed, but not for about two years. I was not prepared at that stage to take any risks with the future of local govemment. I still hold the same belief; I stUl support the status quo. It may be that consideration will have to be given to one or two small areas. However, I do not think that any Mr Simpson: Not like Victoria. Mr BOOTH: That is quite right. Victoria and New South Wales have not had great success. Those States do not seem to have saved very much. It was found that Mr Comben interjected. Mr BOOTH: I do not know. I was not going to go into that, but I will now. These councils started off with a shire clerk, but when they were enlarged a couple of deputies were needed. The deputies were paid almost as much as the shire clerk. The councils finished up with more highly paid officials than they had before. To say that the councils of this State are inefficient in carrying out roadworks is a different argument. However, I do not think that they are inefficient. I will not criticise the councils in that regard, and later in my speech I will call for more research to be carried out on this issue. I repeat that I do not think that the councils are inefficient. Mr Comben: There would be fewer National Party people coming up trying to challenge you for endorsement, because there would be less National Party management. Mr BOOTH: I am in the happy position of not being particularly worried about that. I pay tribute to the Minister for the way in which he presented his Estimates. It took the Minister about an hour to present them, and he gave honourable members quite a good picture of what is going on. I thank him for that. The Minister mentioned some of the things that are going on in the engineering and technical departments. I believe that the work of those departments is most important. It is certainly in the best interests of the people of Queensland that consideration be 2920 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) given to planning in regard to water supply, sewerage, storm-water drainage and the other things that the Minister mentioned. Most people do not seem to favour the recychng of water. I would have some reservations about it. However, I will be very surprised if this country can go on for many more years without recycling some water. I have discovered that in other countries it is claimed that some water is recycled 16 times. As long as the water is brought back to a pure state in which it can be used, I cannot see much wrong with that. I am aware that many people will disagree with that. Even some people involved in irrigation say, "I would not like to use water that has been used in the city." However, I cannot see any way of avoiding it. It is better than having no water. As long as people are careful, it should work. I am glad the Minister is supervising the research being carried out by technicians to try to make some headway in that regard. It is all very well to say, "We have to wait until other countries tell us what to do." Some countries have much more water available than Australia has. So it may be in our interests to make a serious attempt to overcome the problem of water shortage. That is not the only problem, but it is the one that came to my mind. Some sewerage installations could be improved, and flood mitigation is always a problem, even in small towns. Since the drainage began to be changed by building up roads and banks to protect farm communities, the areas where the water will mn have changed. I am pleased to see that that is taking place. In the Minister's remarks he referred to the lack of funds. At the present time that is a major problem in the community. I will not blame only the Federal Government for the problem, because all Australians realised that they were living beyond their means and that somewhere along the line they would have to tighten their belts a littie. At the present time it is not as easy for families or communities to make savings. Some years ago, electricity was not generally in use in the country, and someone who was a bit short of funds could get along without it or cut down substantially on the amount of electricity that he was using. Nowadays, however, the electricity bills keep coming in, particularly for someone who is using irrigation. The same thing happens with large equipment that is provided to shire councils and Main Roads departments. Because of the capital outlay, if the machinery is not working a huge amount of money is tied up. That has to be looked at, and it might be possible for councils to share the equipment. I am not convinced that it is in everyone's best interests that each council has its own equipment. I have not referted to road-funding in my electorate, for the obvious reason that my electorate has been fairly well looked after, as are most other electorates in Queensland. As I travel around, I find very few people who can tell me where a road is so bad that they are unable to travel on it. During the week-end before last I travelled out to Tara. After leaving my property, I had less than a kilometre to travel before reaching bitumen roadway and I travelled all the way to Tara on an excellent road. If anyone had told me 20 years ago that I would be able to do that, I would have laughed. Many of the people who are critical today would have laughed as well. The Minister has had great success with the Racing portfolio. Not only has it brought enjoyment to country people who attend the race-track, but it has also provided employment. Warwick has shared in the expenditure which the Minister for Racing has overseen, and did not get more than its share. The result is that I can attend the races about 18 to 19 times a year in Warwick. I can go onto the course where there is an oncourse TAB, Skychannel and excellent amenities. In addition, I can guarantee that every race will have a full field. Mr Yewdale: Are you an old punter? Mr BOOTH: An old punter, but not a successful one. I still like it from a sporting point of view. Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2921 People are employed by the trainers, and if a producer is selhng luceme or oats or some product that racehorses eat, he has a market. Mr Comben: Don't you know what they eat? Mr BOOTH: Yes, and the producers have a market. One of the best horses in Queensland at the moment. Some Charm, is trained at the Warwick track. He was entered in the Epsom, but he did not win. He ran a good race and before he went there he had won three out of four races. One win was at Caloundra, where he beat Burglar of Banff. I won that day and that is why I have such happy memories of him. He is trained by a very reputable trainer who has a number of horses in work. I am sure that this is not the best horse that he will train and that he will have other good horses. Some Charm is a horse who has won enough races to become a successful sire. It can be said that some of the money that the Minister has channelled through the Warwick race-track has helped to develop some very good horses. Some Charm is not the only good horse that is being trained at the moment in Warwick. There are a number of excellent horses with promise, Warwick is going well in the racing field. People can have an excellent day at the Warwick racecourse. Drinks and food are available in pleasant surroundings. The covered betting ring and all the other amenities make it a very pleasant place to visit. If any honourable members have some spare time next week-end and come to Warwick they will be able to see the Warwick Cup. Some good local horses have been nominated. However, the race might be won by a visiting horse. The race-track has been a great advantage to the town. Of course, it just did not happen. Warwick has an excellent race club that has done its best. As a result, the standard of racing has been very high. I pay a tribute to the Warwick Race Club, which has co-operated with the Minister. Although limited funds have been available to the club, it has spent its money wisely and obtained all the facilities that are needed at a price that was not ridiculous. I congratulate the club on what it has done. I believe that the Minister has been very fair in his distribution of funds to racing clubs. I tum now to the Main Roads Department. I have always been treated very fairly by the Main Roads Department. However, I have noticed in recent years that it seems to be somewhat more difficult to build a road that will withstand modem traffic. I have reached the conclusion either that some of the transports using the roads are too large and carry loads that are too heavy or that we lack some of the skills that are necessary to build roads that will withstand the traffic that is using them. Earlier I referred to the effectiveness of the engineering section of the Local Govemment Department. More research should be undertaken into the materials that are used in the constmction of roads and the way in which those materials are compacted. Although I am a layman, I have been told by some engineers that they do not think that the thickness of material under the road is as important as the way in which the material is compacted. That aspect must be considered very seriously. Mr Scott: Do you mean building them longer instead of building them to such a high standard? Mr BOOTH: In some areas. I might be wrong about the roads that carry very heavy traffic. However, certain changes have been made and I think that the honourable member would probably be aware of them. Engineers are inclined to build roads wider and higher. Where roads have been built higher and it is dangerous at the side, it has been necessary to build the roads wider. Since the engineers have started to do that, it appears to me—again this is only a layman's opinion—that they have not been as successful in maintaining the road because it seems to give way more quickly. I think that more research needs to be undertaken. I repeat that it is no use leaving the problem to someone overseas to solve, because he may not have the black soil that is found on the downs. I have seen the deterioration

76384—96 2922 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates) of roads that are not in black-soil country. However, I repeat that roads in the black- soU country are notorious for their deterioration. My colleague the member for Cunningham said earlier that roads are a most important amenity for country people. I agree with that. We cannot do without good roads. More good roads are needed. They should be built up so that they last longer. As I said, some roads are a good deal higher than they used to be. Some people claim that, because of that, the roads are dangerous. As long as a road is widened at the same time as it is built higher, I do not think that it will be dangerous. That is what the Main Roads Department seems to be doing. Perhaps the height of the road might be important in certain areas so that adequate drainage is achieved. I am not complaining about the roads or saying that anyone could have done any better. I think that the Main Roads engineers have done their best. Nevertheless, I think that the technique may need to be improved. If too much stress is being put on the roads by allowing loads that are just too heavy, it might be necessary to tackle that problem and say that heavy loads cannot be carried on the roads. People in the haulage industry wUl say that all sorts of obstacles are put in their way. I do not think that such a suggestion is cortect. By and large, we seem to do the best that we can with the techniques that are available. More money should be spent on research to improve those techniques. I tum now to motor vehicle registration fees. Often, when motor vehicle registrations are mentioned, people say, "Why don't you double them or treble them, and you will have plenty of money?" Even if motor vehicle registration fees were doubled, there would StUl be hmits. There is a limit to how much people can pay. For a person who does not have a great deal of money, Main Roads registration fees are quite a slug. The Govemment would not like to say to those people, "You cannot have a car." I am in favour of keeping registration fees under control. I pay tribute to the people in local govemment throughout Queensland, and particularly in my electorate, for the part that they have played, particularly the chairmen, counciUors and aldermen of the city councUs. I doubt whether many councillors would receive a reward for the one day's work that they lose each month. Probably the only reward that they receive is the provision of a meal and perhaps some reasonable travelling allowance. Those counciUors are required to make inspections of roads and provide an input into what happens with them. On top of that, they have to talk to people on the telephone at night and take the chop that comes from those who are dissatisfied. Their task is not as rewarding as some people would have us believe. Yet they perform it, and perform it very weU. That is the reason why I support councils in their present form and why I do not support willy-niUy their amalgamation. I believe that people have stuck with smaller councils and their councillors because they know that they can approach those councUlors and get the job done. If people had to travel long distances to consult with their council, they would not be as happy as they are. I know that if I have a complaint about a gutter or a road, I can simply phone my counciUor or meet him in the street and ask him about it. If the councU does not have the money to remedy the situation, there is a problem. CouncUs usually respond to problems. If they cannot carry out major repairs, they will at least undertake minor repairs. I have already paid tribute to the Minister. He has shown great commonsense. His approach to most matters is what I like best about him. Furthermore, when he makes a decision, he sticks to it. The Estimates for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing are quite satisfactory, and the Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing portfolio is in very safe hands. Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (8.43 p.m.): Mr Temporary Chairman Mr Hinze: You stay in the right trend. Repeat what you have heard in the Chamber this evening. Act your age, otherwise you don't get any Bumett River bridge. Supply (Estimates) 7 October 1987 2923

Mr CAMPBELL: It was my pleasure to join in the debate on the Minister's Estimates in 1984. I thank him for mentioning the Bumett River bridge, because it is as important today in 1987 as it was in 1984. In actual fact, it is probably more important now, because there could be a great catastrophe if another bridge is not built. The National Tmst wants that bridge classified as a historical bridge. If an accident were to occur on that bridge, no essential services could reach north Bundaberg. It must be appreciated that there could be a major disaster if there was a hold-up on that bridge. I tum now to Govemment grants to Queensland local authorities. It is important to update and cortect the myths and misconceptions that the National Party has in relation to local govemment fiinding from both State and Federal Govemments. On the second page of the Minister's presentation of the Estimates he commented on the Commonwealth Govemment in this way— "The heavy intmsion by the Commonwealth Govemment into the area has added to these difficulties." Considering the statistics and the amounts that are involved, without Commonwealth Govemment intmsion local authorities in Queensland would face a major financial disaster. It is very important that honourable members reahse what has happened. Local authorities in Queensland have depended on both the State and Federal (Govemments for a substantial proportion of their funds. Since 1979, combined grants as a percentage of total revenue collected by the local authorities have ranged from 23.6 per cent to 32.4 per cent. Since the Second World War the major subsidies to local authorities were provided by the State Govemment. These loan subsidies and grants remained the main source of grants until the 1970s. The relative importance of Commonwealth grants to local authorities changed during the seventies when we had the Whitlam Federal Labor Govemment. In 1972 the Commonwealth Govemment provided only $7.6m to Queensland local authorities, compared with $22.Im from the Queensland State Govemment. This situation has changed, with the Commonwealth Govemment now providing substantially more funding to the local authorities compared with that from the State Govemment. I seek leave to include in Hansard the statistical table which provides detaUs of State and Commonwealth funding to local authorities since 1979. Leave granted. GRANTS TO QUEENSLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES BY COMMONWEALTH AND STATE GOVERNMENTS 1979—1985

Type of Grant 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 $M $M $M $M $M $M $M $M Commonwealth 49.0 56.0 73.4 88.6 101.5 159.5 159.5 158.1 State Govemment 57.0 79.5 58.2 56.1 56.8 58.8 63.0 N.A. Total Grants 106.0 135.5 131.6 144.7 158.3 218.2 222.5 Total L. A. Revenue .... 362.3 418.8 509.9 592.1 669.6 805.5 886.9 Grants as percentage of total revenue 29.3 32.4 25.8 24.4 23.6 27.1 25.1

PROPORTION OF TOTAL GRANTS % %%%%%%% Commonwealth 46.2 41.3 55.8 61.2 64.1 73.0 71.7 State 53.7 58.6 44.2 38.8 35.9 27.0 28.3 Sources: Commonwealth Budget Papers Australian Bureau of Statistics Cat. No. 5504.0 2924 7 October 1987 Supply (Estimates)

Mr CAMPBELL: The State Govemment grants to local authorities are very difficult to determine, as there is no consolidation of the State departmental grants and subsidies in the State Budget papers. Over the period 1979 to 1985, the figuressho w that the Commonwealth Govemment has increased grants to local authorities. Since 1979 the Commonwealth grants have increased yearly from $49m to $ 158.1m in 1986. This is equivalent to an annual increase of approximately 20 per cent per year. The total Commonwealth and State Govemment grants have increased from $106m to $222.5m in the period 1979 to 1985. Govemment grants as a percentage of total revenue over the period ranged from 23.6 per cent to 32.4 per cent, which is relatively stable over the period. I repeat: while total State Govemment grants have been fairly stable. Commonwealth Govemment funds have increased at an average of 20 per cent per annum since 1979. However, over the same period the State Govemment grants to local authorities have remained at the same level. In 1979 the Queensland Govemment provided $57m and in 1985 the amount was $63m. In real terms this is a substantial reduction in State Govemment grants to Queensland local authorities. State Govemment grants in 1985, to maintain the same real value as in 1979, and allowing for a 9 per cent inflation rate, should have been $96m; but, as local authorities only received $63m, a deficiency of $33m occurted. These figures show that it has been the State Govemment which has lagged badly in funding local govemment authorities. Not one National Party member, to my knowledge, has made representations on behalf of shire or town councUs in his electorate to complain of that real reduction in State Govemment subsidies to the shires or town councils. The relative importance of Commonwealth versus Queensland grants is shown as the proportion of grants by each level of Govemment. In 1979 the State Govemment provided 54 per cent of the total Govemment grants, compared with 46 per cent for the Commonwealth Govemment. By 1985 the percentage of Commonwealth grants had increased to 72 per cent and the proportion of State grants had fallen to 28 per cent. This shortfaU of State Govemment funding has placed an added burden on local govemment authorities to raise funds directly from the rate-payers or through increased bortowings. Revenue from these sources has increased from $256.3m in 1979 to $664.4m in 1985, an annual increase at just over 16 per cent. Those increases have been passed on to every home-owner and to every pensioner who is a rate-payer and owns a home. They have had drastic increases in rates that have outstripped inflation over that period. Graham King, of the James Cook University, in a thesis comparing interstate differences in the functions of local govemment, provides data showing the considerable reduction in State assistance to local authorities. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table that was presented in Mr King's thesis of per capita grants to Queensland local authorities from the State Govemment from 1979 to 1983, which is presented at constant 1983 values. Leave granted. YEARS 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 ^ $ ^ 3 Total Grants 36.31 35.88 33.82 26.74 21.23 General Purpose Grants 3.56 3.21 2.78 1.19 0.00 Specific Purpose Grants 32.75 32.67 31.03 25.55 21.23 Mr CAMPBELL: The table shows that total grants in 1979 in constant dollar values were $36.31 per capita. That value had dropped in 1983 to be $21.23. The decrease in State Govemment assistance in real terms over the four-year period is nearly 60 per cent; yet not one National Party member of this Govemment has murmured about the loss of income to local authorities. This is a way in which local authorities have been very hard done by at the hands of the State Govemment. Mr Speaker's Ruling 7 October 1987 2925

In his recommendations, Graham King had this to say about Govemment assistance: firstly, there has been a substantial decline in State assistance in absolute terms in Queensland from 1975 to 1983 of 44 per cent; secondly, the absolute level of change in the percentage of total grants coming from Commonwealth sources has been greatest in Queensland with an increase of 14 per cent over the 1975-1983 period. I believe that they are the facts about Govemment funding from both State and Federal levels. The other area I wish to address concems the Budget in 1986-87 which shows how the State Govemment depends on State, semi-Govemment and local authorities to do much of the work and provide much of the bortowings compared to simUar bodies in other States. In the booklet that was provided at the presentation of the 1986-87 Budget, titled Summary Tables relating to the Public Accounts 1986-87, important information was set out. I think it is very important to point out to the Committee that a similar booklet was missing from this year's Budget papers. No figures have been provided in relation to public accounts this year. Table 19 of that booklet sets out the approved programs for State works and housing and loan raisings by State and semi-Govemment and local authorities per head of population. In the second category of figures shown for State semi-Govemment and local authorities, approved loan raisings is shown as $530.67 per head for Queensland, which was raised by local authorities and semi-Govemment bodies, compared to the Australian average for loan raisings of only $402.06. The difference is $130 and is over 30 per cent higher than the Australian average. What those figures mean is that many of the services provided by other State Govemments are expected to be paid for by semi-Govemment and local authorities in Queensland. That is one way of supposedly showing that Queensland has a low level of taxes whereas in actual fact a low standard of services is provided because of the expectation that local authorities and semi- Government bodies will pick up the tab. It is very important to remember that this year's State Budget, which was very secretive in the way its information was presented, has not provided that kind of information for the 1987-88 financial year. When one examines the Co-ordinator-General's report on local bodies and their subsidy expenditure on capital works, table 8 sets out the subsidies that were provided from 1976-77 to 1985-86. That table shows that the subsidies provided by the State Govemment have decreased markedly from the high level that was recorded in 1981- 82. In 1981-82 the State Government provided in cash and in interest and redemption subsidies for capital works for local authorities an amount of $47,875,000. In 1985-86, that amount had been reduced to $38,333,000. Those figures show that a reduced level of funding has been put into local authorities by the Queensland Govemment. Some aspects of the Minister's speech should be referred to specifically. One thing that I was very happy about was that previous provisions were taken out. At 8.55 p.m.. Under Standing Order No. 307 and the Sessional Order, progress was reported.

Mr SPEAKER'S RULING Motion of Dissent Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate—Leader of the Opposition) (8.56 p.m.): I move— "That the Speaker's mhng of 6 October 1987, namely, the sub judice mling in relation to the question asked by the member for Salisbury, be dissented from." Mr Speaker, when you invoked the sub judice mling in relation to the question from the member for Salisbury, you referred in your comments to clause 6 of the sub judice convention of December 1976 and suggested that it was your discretion that was under question. By using part of clause 6, you, Mr Speaker, have seized on part of a clause—half of a clause, in fact—out of a total of 16 clauses setting out the rights and duties of the House in relation to sub judice matters. Those other paragraphs explain the purposes of the convention and the conditions under which it should be invoked. 2926 7 October 1987 Mr Speaker's Ruling On 4 August this year you, Mr Speaker, said— "I will not allow references to facts or allegations that are presently before the inquiry"— and the Opposition agrees with that. You then went on to say— "... or that I believe should be provided to the inquiry." The fact is that nothing contained in the question put by Mr Ardill is a fact or allegation before the Fitzgerald inquiry. However, it is a fact that in a front-page article of the Daily Sun of 28 September, Mr Gunn freely admitted that he suspected cormption within the Queensland police force more than a year ago. I table that particular article. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr WARBURTON: The first part of Mr Ardill's question refers only to Mr Gunn's public statement, and it is not a fact or allegation before the inquiry. The second part of Mr ArdiU's question simply asked whether, as a result of what Mr Gunn himself said in the Daily Sun, Mr Gunn raised his information and concems with any person prior to the Four Corners program. Again it is impossible to constme in any shape or form that what was said was a fact or allegation before the Fitzgerald inquiry. Nor is anything, I put to you, Mr Speaker, contained in the question that is not based wholly on what appeared in that Daily Sun article that I have tabled, something that you, Mr Speaker, I feel sure, would not be inclined to provide to the inquiry. I will get to the real cmx of the reason why you, Mr Speaker, made the sub judice mling. I consider that it all revolves around your misunderstanding of discretionary powers. You yourself, Mr Speaker, mentioned that your discretionary powers were under question. What you have not appreciated, Mr Speaker, is that any discretion regarding sub judice must be within the laws of sub judice. A court or commission has a discretion as to whether to mle any particular action or statement sub judice. It is not tme that, simply because a court proceeding or a commission of inquiry has commenced, all future actions or statements vaguely related to it will be sub judice. Each action or statement has to be considered individually to see whether it is likely to prejudice the court or the commission. The fundamental premise of sub judice is that witnesses or potential witnessess not be affected in their evidence by actions or statements outside of the proceedings. Facts and allegations put by witnesses to the commission—and this is what I put to you, Mr Speaker, is reasonable—ought not to be commented upon, as witnesses ought not to be berated for doing their public duty. The Opposition agrees whole-heartedly with that. We on this side of the House have said consistently that we are not about to do anything that upsets the sub judice conventions as they affect the Fitzgerald inquiry. If what I have said is allowed to occur, because of the fear that witnesses will receive a public bagging for their trouble, future potential witnesses will be deterred from offering evidence. That is the premise of any sub judice mling and that is what I indicated the Opposition supports. Mr Speaker, in applying your sub judice mling, you have mled out comments in questions from the Opposition that have no conceivable connection whatsoever with the confidence of witnesses or potential witnesses in giving their evidence to the commissioner. Mr Speaker, you have sought to do what no judge has ever done in the history of the law of contempt. You have sought, Mr Speaker, to make a blanket mling. Mr Speaker, you appear to have taken the view that the discretion afforded to you by the sub judice convention is not limited by the law of sub judice itself If that yas not the case, you could mle that the mere mention of the name Fitzgerald is sub judice of course, that is ridiculous—that any reference to a commission of inquiry is sub Mr Speaker's Ruling 7 October 1987 2927 judice—equally ridiculous—or any question relating to pohce promotions over the last 10 years is sub judice—again, that is equally ridiculous. Mr Speaker, your application of the sub judice convention in this place is so broad and so remote from any sub judice mhng made by the courts of this country or other Parliaments of Australia that there is no rational basis on which members of this House can know whether they are complying with it. That is the position. This was all made particularly confusing by you, Mr Speaker, when you failed to stop debate on the Dmgs Misuse Act Amendment BUI, even though that BUI clearly pre-empted Commissioner Fitzgerald's duty to recommend legislative changes to some laws relating to dmg use in Queensland. However, the most serious confusion occurred on 10 September this year when you aUowed the Premier to berate viciously a witness and her evidence given before the inquiry. I put to you that it is precisely that sort of conduct that the sub judice convention was designed to prevent; yet you did not see fit to sit the Premier down on that occasion. It is only members of the Opposition, the House will recall, who have ever been silenced by your intervention; it has never been Govemment members. I say in all sincerity that, had the Premier repeated those comments outside of the House, there is no doubt in my mind that the commissioner would have summonsed him. I say that because it was only the next week that the commissioner hauled Queensland Newspapers over the coals for a similar, but less extreme, reflection on that witness and on her evidence. Yet in this House the Premier was permitted to say unhindered whatever popped into his head. Quite frankly, the mling is a nonsense. It is flawed in its conception; it goes completely beyond what any court or commission has ever mled; and it is most selective and convenient in its application. I retum to what I said earlier about where I beheve your mling falls down, Mr Speaker, that is, that any discretion regarding sub judice must be within the laws of sub judice. Mr Speaker, that is where you have missed out and that is where you have fallen down. There is no doubt that your mling was wrong, and that this Parliament will be the poorer if this dissent motion is not supported. Mr GOSS (Logan) (9.05 p.m.): I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Hon. P. J. CLAUSON (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (9.05 p.m.): Once again it falls on my shoulders to take the mnning in this matter to defend the forces of light against the forces of darkness. As honourable members are aware, on 26 May 1987 His Excellency the Govemor issued a commission to Mr Fitzgerald, QC, under the Commissions of Inquiry Acts, to inquire into certain matters. On 24 June 1987 His Excellency further extended the terms of the commission issued to Mr Fitzgerald. Honourable members will also be aware that when Parliament resumed on 4 August this year, you, Mr Speaker, mled that matters relating to the commission of inquiry chaired by Mr Fitzgerald, QC, must be regarded as sub judice. I refer honourable members to the Votes and Proceedings of that date and to your mling in the foUowing terms— "Order! I have simply told the House that anything to do with the Fitzgerald inquiry is to be regarded as sub judice. I respect the honourable member's point of privilege. However, I do not believe it is relevant to my statement. I will mle accordingly. However, for the information of the House, I wish to say that the House has no Standing Orders relating specifically to sub judice. Matters can be discussed at the discretion of the Speaker. I will not aUow references to facts or allegations that are presently before the inquiry or that I believe should be provided to the inquiry." 2928 7 October 1987 Mr Speaker's Ruling

On 5 August, you, Mr Speaker, made a further mling, in the foUowing terms— "Order! Honourable members, it was my duty as Speaker to study whether the Fitzgerald inquiry should be regarded as sub judice by this Parliament. I sought advice from my legal advisers—from the Attomey-General and from senior counsel— all of whom were unanimous in the opinion that it would be sub judice. I have conveyed that opinion to this Parliament, and honourable members must take the Speaker's mling on that. As the convention of December 1976 states, discussion on sub judice is at the Speaker's discretion. I have said that I will not allow any discussion on facts or allegations that are before the Fitzgerald inquiry or that I consider should be referred to the Fitzgerald inquiry. I believe that that is all I should say on the matter." Again, on 15 September 1987, you, Mr Speaker, made a further mling following media releases by the member for Sherwood. You said, in part— "I say to all honourable members that I declared matters before the Fitzgerald inquiry to be sub judice. That was my mling. I have also stated to honourable members that, in accordance with clauses 6 and 7 of the sub judice convention of 1976 delivered to this House, the Speaker is able to exercise his discretion—a discretion which I have already exercised several times in the House, especially in debate on the Dmgs Misuse Act Amendment Bill and questions which have been asked in this House." There should therefore be no doubt that even the most simple-minded of all honourable members in this House should be aware that you have plainly and unequivocally mled that matters relating to proceedings before the commission of inquiry being conducted by Mr Fitzgerald are covered by the sub judice convention and therefore will not be allowed to be the subject of question or debate in this House. Again, even the most simple-minded of members of this House who have considered either the initial terms of reference or the extended terms of reference given to Mr Fitzgerald would toiow, understand and appreciate that one of the matters which Mr Fitzgerald is inquirtng into is the question of cormption in the Queensland police force. Indeed, honourable members have seen the Leader of the Opposition, aided and abetted by his putative heir, the member for Logan, publicly calling for members of the public with any information in relation to this matter to bring it before the commission. Indeed, as recently as yesterday, the member for Logan took pleasure from telling this House that members of the Opposition had that very day been supplying information to the commission of inquiry. There is therefore no doubt, and there should be no doubt in the minds of the members of this House, that the question of cormption in the police force is a matter properly before the Fitzgerald inquiry and therefore plainly and obviously covered by your mling, Mr Speaker. It would seem that the Opposition is not prepared to accept your mlings, Mr Speaker, in this regard, and it is therefore appropriate that I take this opportunity to place on record the reasons why your mlings are plainly cortect and are in accordance with the practice of Parliaments which foUow the Westminster tradition. All honourable members would be aware, following your mlings, Mr Speaker, of the report of the Select Committee of Privileges of this Parliament on the sub judice convention which was tabled in this House on 8 December 1976. The committee did not recommend the framing of a Standing Order which would provide an inflexible sub judice application with automatic cut-off points for House debate. It did say that the process could be described in a number of ways, including "curtent proceedings before a royal commission should not be referred to in motions, debates or questions". Earlier in its report the committee had reported as follows— "6. Application of the sub judice mle is thus subject always to the discretion* of the Chair and to the right of the House to consider and legislate on any matter." Mr Speaker's RuHng 7 October 1987 2929 Thus, in applying the sub judice mle, the Select Committee of Privileges recognised the necessity for you, Mr Speaker, to exercise your discretion in the application of the sub judice mling, stating— "It is the obligation of the Chair to hold the balance between the rights and duties of the House on the one hand and the rights and interests of the citizens on the other hand." This report of the Select Committee of Privileges of this Parliament echoes the views adopted by other Parliaments in the Westminster tradition. For the record, let us look at what some of the authoritive texts say on this point. Erskine May, which is the font of knowledge of the practice and procedures of the Westminster Parliament, in the 20th edition, at page 341, when discussing whether or not questions can be asked of Ministers, states— "Questions are inadmissible which refer to the consideration of matters by a royal commission." It cites as authority for the proposition a private mling of the Speaker of the House of Commons on 24 May 1936. Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice, when discussing the sub judice convention, at page 465, makes the following points, amongst others— "Application of a sub judice mle is subject always to the discretion of the Chair and the right of the House to legislate on a matter"— and later— "Proceedings before a royal commission should not be referted to in any motions, debates or questions where the matter inquired into concems issues of fact or findings relating to the propriety of actions of specific persons." Odgers, in his 5th edition of Australian Senate Practice, on page 252, cites with authority a mling given by Speaker Cope in the Commonwealth House of Representatives on 18 September 1974. As this House knows. Speaker Cope was a Speaker who, despite his long history of membership of the Australian Labor Party, refused to debate the position of Speaker in the House of Representatives and was ultimately removed from his position by the Australian Labor Party's use of numbers led by former Prime Minister Whitlam. Speaker Cope mled— "That discussion of any matter within the terms of reference of a royal commission would be an infringement of the sub judice mle". He stated that his mling was supported by past mlings, that it was not in order to discuss the proceedings of a royal commission or matters coming before it, and that the Chair would be failing in its duty if it allowed any discussion about matters which had been deliberately handed to the commission for investigation. Hallett, in his book on royal commissions and boards of inquiry, which was cited yesterday by the honourable member for Logan as a book of authority on the question, discusses in some detail in chapter 14 the question of Parliament and the sub judice mle. Whilst acknowledging that, so far as commissions of inquiry are concemed, the Victorian Parliament does not seem to follow the sub judice mle, Hallett points out that in October 1975 the President of the Commonwealth Senate mled that discussion of matters coming before a then royal commission breached the sub judice mle. Time expired. Mr GOSS (Logan) (9.15 p.m.): In seconding the motion of dissent moved by the Leader of the Opposition, I endorse the arguments that he has put. Before I proceed to develop those arguments further, I pay a compliment to the Minister who has just spoken for demonstrating a rare ability. When he is finaUytume d out of this place, that ability will suit him well in the sale of unroadworthy motor vehicles. The paramount consideration here, Mr Speaker, is the freedom of speech to which members of this House are entitled. The effort that we have seen from the Minister fits 2930 7 October 1987 Mr Speaker's Ruling in very nicely with the mhngs that have been made by you in relation to this matter; that is, we get the top line but we do not get the small print. We do not receive an explanation of the tme notion of discretion. Discretion is the key to this. It is very disappointing for honourable members—certainly those on this side of the Chamber—that you, Mr Speaker, in making your mling, have made a very bland, superficial mling that is so short as to be meaningless and provides really no guidance to members of this House in this particular matter. That is why, when I rose on the matter of privilege yesterday moming, I sought clarification of your mhng, Mr Speaker, so that we would know exactly where we are going. That is the problem. We do not know where we are going because of the meaningless mhng that has been given. It provides no assistance to members of the House. The Minister for Justice and Attomey-General referted to a number of mlings. The additional mlings that you have made in this matter do not take the matter any further. They basically repeat the same hne over and over. When I rose yesterday moming on the matter of privilege, I made reference to the original and key mhng. The Opposition has no argument with that; it is the enforcement of it wherein lies the problem. The enforcement of the mhng has been haphazard and impossible for members of the House to understand. You said, Mr Speaker, that the facts and allegations before the Fitzgerald inquiry are not to be the subject of discussion here, because they are sub judice. That is fine, but it still leaves a whole host of matters that are the legitimate subject of discussion, debate and question in the House. In responding to my request for a mling, Mr Speaker, you said— "I ask all honourable members to obtain a copy of the sub judice convention that was presented to Parliament in December 1976. I ask the member for Logan to read it and to look at clause 6..." I have done that. The Minister for Justice and Attomey-General also made much play of clause 6. But where is the clarification in the mling? There is none, just this reference again to clause 6. Before moving on to the question of discretion, I want to refer briefly to the definition provided in the Oxford Companion to Law, 1980 edition, where the definition of "discretion" is given in these terms— "In administrative law a discretion or discretionary power is frequently con- ferted on a Minister. Such must be exercised reasonably." I think that is analogous to what we have here. But I am profoundly disappointed, Mr Speaker, in your mling yesterday and in the supporting comments made by the Minister, in which he said, "Refer to clause 6." What about clauses 3, 7, 11, 12 and 14? I think that if you, Mr Speaker, had referted to those matters, the House would have been given an accurate and fair mling and an accurate and fair guide as to what we should be doing here; otherwise we wiU have haphazard, arbitrary and meaningless mlings that confuse everybody, and debate and question-time in the House will go on in that same illogical and hopeless fashion. Clause 6 states— "Application of the sub judice mle is thus subject always to the discretion of the Chair..." Mr Speaker, I am sure that you know that clause 7 states— "We consider the Chair's discretion should recognise the paramount right of the House to consider, legislate and act on any matter, being mindful only"— I emphasise the word "only"— "of the necessity for avoidance of any substantial prejudice to pending court proceedings." Mr Speaker's Ruling 7 October 1987 2931

Look at the question asked by the member for Salisbury. It is quite reasonable. It does not contravene that principle at all. Paragraph 11 states— "We consider that the distinguished judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal would not likely be affected by anything said in Parliament." Surely Commissioner Fitzgerald is comparable. We are not prejudicing any jury. There is no jury involved here. You, Mr Speaker, are dealing with highly skilled people who will act on the evidence before the commission of inquiry, not on anything that is said in this place. That is the other safeguard that applies and must be taken into account in distinguishing your mling in this situation from the mhng that would apply in the case of criminal proceedings. Mr Newton: That's your opinion. Mr GOSS: It is not my opinion. It appears in the sub judice convention to which you, Mr Speaker, refer and rely upon. Paragraph 3 of that convention states— "The media and the judiciary have in recent times shown a much more relaxed attitude to contempt of Court. Members have expressed the opinion that past apphcation of the sub judice convention has led to a restriction of the right of the House to discuss matters while the public has not been similarly inhibited." That inhibition, which has been imposed upon the House and upon members of the Opposition in particular, is in our view wrong and should be rejected. Mr De Lacy: You have won me. Mr GOSS: The honourable member is an astute man. Paragraph 14 of the convention states— "In general, care should be exercised to avoid saying inside Parliament that which would be regarded as contempt outside Parliament." The absurd situation exists in which there is greater freedom of speech on the public footpath outside than there is on the floor of this Parliament. That is an unreasonable restriction to place on the members of this House. Unfortunately, the mling is open to abuse. As the Leader of the Opposition has properly pointed out, in this House the Premier has made speeches and comments that clearly contravene that principle and are a great abuse of the privilege of this House. To make the matter worse, his comments were published on the front page of a newspaper. As the Leader of the Opposition said, if the Premier had made those comments outside this House, it is quite likely that action would have been taken against him. The Premier has much greater freedom in this House. But the situation appears to be reversed for members of the Opposition, who have considerable power to say what they like outside this House but are restricted here in this House. In view of comments that were made by the Minister, I intend to make a brief reference to some of the authorities. Firstly, I refer to Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice at page 23, which states— "This mle is sometimes applied to restrict discussion on current proceedings before a royal commission, depending on its terms of reference." The relevant words there are "restrict", not "prevent" and "sometimes", not "all times". The discretion of the Chair is referted to in these terms— "The discretion exercised by the Chair must be considered against the back­ ground of the inherent right and duty of the House under the Westminster system to debate any matter considered to be in the public interest." 2932 7 October 1987 Mr Speaker's Ruling That is the paramount consideration. The Opposition has a legitimate role. Indeed, it has more than a role; it has a duty to raise matters, to probe into matters of State and national importance, and to bring home questions of ministerial and pohtical accountabihty. ,' It is quite clear that the plan in this House is to dump this whole sordid scandal onto the police force and for Govemment members to skate out from under it. That is why the Minister raised his dubious argument about Crown privilege, which he has now ungraciously been forced to back away from. That is the reason why some people want to make use of the shield of sub judice in the very same way. If there if to be fair play in this House, that is not on. That heavy responsibility falls upon you, Mr Speaker, and we look to you for a fair application of the principles of sub judice and a fair and reasonable application of your discretion in accordance with the law. Your having a discretion under clause 6 of the convention does not mean that you make a mling in a vacuum and that everybody has to fall into line. Mr Speaker, you have to exercise that discretion in accordance with the law. We call upon you to so exercise that discretion in accordance with the law and not in accordance with some other notion that has not been explained to this House. If you, Mr Speaker, have some idea as to the details of this mhng—some clarified set of principles in your own mind—this House should be enlightened. Quite clearly, the mlings to date are not helpful to this House and they conflict with the law as it is clearly stated in all of the authorities relating to the proper application of the sub judice principle. Pettifer's publication in relation to the discussion of matters before a royal commission makes it absolutely clear that what the honourable member for Sahsbury did and what the Opposition has been doing today is perfectly legitimate. On other occasions, Mr Speaker, you have allowed questions to be asked and speeches to be made that touch on similar matters. Indeed, those matters contained references to evidence before the commission. That can be done in appropriate circumstances. You have allowed that and you have allowed such questions from me. That is why clarification is needed. Time expired. Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (9.25 p.m.): I oppose the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition to dissent from Mr Speaker's mling on 6 October this year. A number of questions have to be answered in the House and a number of principles have to be established. Mr Speaker, on a number of occasions tonight, we have had explained to the House the sub judice convention that you referted to when you made mhngs from the Chair. I have taken the opportunity to obtain a copy, and I will refer to it later. The real question is: what reaUy did happen on that day? I recall that the former member for Salisbury, who is the present member for Logan, asked a question regarding the Fitzgerald inquiry. You, Mr Speaker, hstened intently to the question, mled it out of order and said, if my memory serves me correctly, that if the member for Logan rephrased the question, it may be acceptable. There was a httle bit of cross-fire in the Chamber. Mr Speaker, you took exception to a remark made by the member for Logan, and the member for Logan was sat down. He was unable to complete the question. Later, the member for Salisbury slithered, skated and scurried around to ask that same question that had been reworded. The member for Logan was peeved. Mr ARDILL: I rise to a point of order. I am not a snake. I did not slither around. Anything that I do is quite straightforward. I seek a withdrawal of that nasty remark. Mr FITZGERALD: The descriptive words, the verbs that I used, I certainly do withdraw. I will rephrase that by saying that the member for Salisbury daintily walked around to gather some information that was supphed to him by the member for Logan, so that the member for Logan, who was peeved at the time, could have his reworded question presented to this House. The member for Salisbury then asked that question, and again it was mled out of order. Mr Speaker's Ruling 7 October 1987 2933 Mr Speaker, on a number of occasions since Parhament has resumed and since the inquiry has been set up, you have made mlings in this House with regard to what is sub judice. They had never been challenged before. Your discretionary powers had never been challenged in this House before. But the fire had been ht. Somebody was peeved. He feels he must now challenge your right, Mr Speaker, to use your discretionary powers to determine whether a question should be permitted. I admit, Mr Speaker, that your position is not a very easy one. As you sit there, you are trying to listen to interjections from a rowdy rabble, which the House can be at times. There is evidence of that here tonight. While that row is taking place, you are trying to determine what is actually said. I have some sympathy for the position of Speaker. The House has to have confidence in the Speaker's abihty to mle whether a matter is sub judice. The member for Logan quoted from the report of the Select (Committee of PrivUeges on the sub judice convention that was presented to this House on 8 December 1976. The chairman of the Privileges Committee at the time was M. J. Ahem. I understand the House did not have any form before it on what was privileged and what was not. The quotations always went back to Erskine and May. The committee report was some form to put before the House and has obviously been accepted by this House. I noticed that the previous speaker quoted some parts of that report. I believe that each clause stands on its own. Mr Davis: It is not Erskine and May. There is only one person, Erskine May. Mr FITZGERALD: Thank you very much. Hansard will usuaUy fix up those httle mistakes. The honourable member for Logan also drew our attention to clause 12, which I agree should be read. After it says, "However, broadly we believe the practice should be described in these terms", there appear subparagraphs (A) and (B). It then states— "(C) Current proceedings before a Royal Commission should not be referted to (in motions, debate or questions)." Mr Goss: Read the next two paragraphs. Mr FITZGERALD: Previously I read clause 7 that was mentioned by the honourable member for Logan. The honourable member challenged the Minister to read clause 7, and, for the illumination of the honourable member for Logan, who challenged the Minister to read it out, I will do so. It states as follows— "7. We consider the Chair's discretion should recognise the paramount right of the House to consider, legislate and act on any matter, being mindful only of the necessity for avoidance of any substantial prejudice to pending Court proceedings." That is certainly tme. I have pointed out the difficulty experienced by a Speaker in determining matters that come before the House. I have said that clearly the discretion lies with the Speaker and that that had never before been challenged, in spite of the fact that you, Mr Speaker, had made several mlings. You have to make on-the-spot decisions on whether a matter is sub judice. I also note the qualities that it is necessary that a Speaker possess, but I will not go into them in detail. I think that a Speaker has to have fairly broad shoulders as well as common sense, integrity and faimess and the abUity to act with a sense of justice. Another matter I wish to mention concems an issue raised earlier in this debate. The honourable member for Logan said that people on the street have more freedom to debate matters than the members of this Parhament. This House is master of its own destiny and honourable members act upon what they have heard in this Chamber. It has been clearly established that you, Mr Speaker, have the right to make mlings in this House. 2934 7 October 1987 Mr Speaker's Ruling

Did honourable members happen to listen to a news telecast on Channel 9 tonight in which a comment was made by Mr Fitzgerald, QC, the commissioner of the inquiry? Honourable members should not get the two Tony Fitzgeralds confused. Mr Fitzgerald called for less public comment. This House should note that Mr Fitzgerald has made a call for less pubhc comment. Obviously, he was referring to some matters that perhaps the honourable member for Logan would like to have raised. I know that many honourable members are anxious to know what the answers are to many of the questions that will be posed. However, the inquiry is not in this House; it is in another place. I believe that that is where the inquiry should take place. I note that this House has the right to legislate on inquiry matters. That is quite clearly indicated in Erskine and May. Honourable members have accepted that. Mr Davis inteijected. Mr FITZGERALD: I thank the honourable member very much. Of course, the publication is Erskine May. This House has had legislation before it, and no doubt will have more legislation before it, relating to commissions of inquiry. Mr Speaker, you are in a position in which he will have to mle on whether the matters raised will be or could be of concern to the commision of inquiry. It is quite clear that this House will support your mling, Mr Speaker. Honourable members will support your discretionary powers, which have never been questioned before. On this occasion, members of the Opposition believe that we have made a mistake, Mr Speaker. I have clearly indicated that no mistake has been made. Mr Speaker, Govemment members wiU back your mhng to the hilt. I think it is great that tonight you are listening to the advice that is being handed to you. Hon. Sir WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah—Leader of the Liberal Party) (9.34 p.m.): Parhament imposes upon itself a duty regarding matters before courts of law and before commissions of inquiry and royal commissions. That duty or that imposition on the Parliament is caUed a sub judice convention. It is to the credit of this Parliament that, in 1976, on the recommendation of the Select Committee of PrivUeges, which was then chaired by Mr Ahem, the sub judice convention was adopted. That convention was adopted without reservation. Honourable members might well refer to it or read it again, because it is a voluntary imposition made upon them. It is only because members agreed to it that it is possible for it to survive and to be respected. The Speaker is the custodian of that convention on behalf of honourable members. He holds that writ on behalf of honourable members to ensure that individuals, no matter what their circumstances in the community, are protected. I am pleased that, even though it took a long time to achieve, this House has adopted that convention. An honourable member interjected. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: The honourable Jim Houghton was the Speaker at the time. The matter was debated in this House at some length and it was adopted. It prohibits debate on motions or questions on matters before, or about to be placed before, courts, royal commissions or commissions of inquiry. Why is that so? It is in order to prevent undue influence on witnesses or juries. In the instance of the Fitzgerald inquiry, witnesses are being referted to, many of whom have not yet been heard of or seen, and many of whom do not even know that they will be witnesses. There may be people in this House who become witnesses. It is imperative that that convention be adopted in relation to proceedings in this House at this time. There should be no doubt about it. It is voluntary, it is tme. It is not a law of the land, as the Leader of the Opposition tried to imply. There is no law about this. Mr Speaker's Ruling 7 October 1987 2935

There is in fact an acceptance of a convention by this House. There is no body of law on this subject whatsoever. The discretion exercised by you, Mr Speaker, on our behalf, having adopted that convention, is absolute. There is absolutely no doubt about that discretion. Individually, we may have reservations about how a Speaker exercises that discretion, but clause 6 of that convention quite clearly states that the discretion lies with the Speaker. Tonight evidence has been seen of how stupid it would be if the discretion were to lie with individual members of this House or even by resolution of this House. Having delegated that discretion to a Speaker, we should support him in the exercise of that discretion. An Opposition member: You are not with us? Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I am certainly not with the Opposition, and I wiU explain that in a moment. I have said aheady that you, Mr Speaker, are the custodian of that convention on our behalf Mr Scott: It doesn't make him right. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: A Speaker does not have to be right. That is where the honourable member is so wrong. There is a matter of judgment involved. There is a grey area—an enormously grey area. It is imperative that a Speaker have this authority; otherwise there would be chaos in regard to the exercise of discretion. On the Opposition's interpretation of the convention, it would have a consensus. That is the way in which the Opposition would look at it—consensus. One person is entmsted with responsibility. That is why members of the Liberal Party support your mling, Mr Speaker. There are proceedings before the commission of inquiry and matters are still to come before it. There are things which have yet to be heard. It is a very difficult area in which a discretion has to be exercised, and you, Mr Speaker, must exercise that discretion. The overriding principle that a Speaker has to take into account is that the Parliament should not be silenced on matters of public interest. Last night honourable members saw evidence of you, Mr Speaker, exercising your discretion to allow a very fuU and frank debate, and at no time did you prohibit any member from expressing his opinions about a very delicate matter before this House. That was the exercise of a discretion to aUow that debate. As honourable members saw last night, the Parliament is not silenced by the exercise of that discretion, and no doubt the same will be seen when another Bill that is on the business paper is debated later this week. The right to legislate during the exercise of the sub judice mle is still preserved. That convention quite clearly states that the right to legislate on any matter during the course of a sub judice matter is still preserved, and that was demonstrated again last night. It is difficult—it is extraordinarily difficult—when a royal commission, which can go on for months, as this one wiU, is under way. Mr Hinze: You are making a very knowledgeable contribution. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I thank the Minister. I hope I am not being damned with faint praise. As I was saying, when a matter is before a royal commission that can go on for many months, it is difficult. Matters could be raised in the royal commission that need immediate attention by this House. It may even be that the Parliament has to be recalled in subsequent months to deal with certain matters. That does not mean that the Parliament is silenced; that does not mean that individulas are silenced. The flexibihty is there; it is provided in the convention, and you, Mr Speaker, look after it on our behalf so that the public interest is protected. Mr Lickiss: It deserves our support. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Yes, it should be supported. 2936 7 October 1987 Mr Speaker's Ruling What about the member for Salisbury—a relatively unknown member of this House, comparatively inarticulate, very seldom heard, even less seldom seen, a sort of scarlet pimpernel of the Parliament and a minor back-bencher who asked a delicate question? It was so delicate that he could not even read the writing and could not pronounce the words. The question had been put into his hands. It was a stunt, and even the member for Salisbury could not have thought of that stunt. This Parliament is not an altemative court, but it is a superior court and ultimately these matters before royal commissions have to appear in the Parliament, either on the floor of the House or at the bar. It is a superior court, not an altemative court. While matters are being discussed elsewhere, that should be done without prejudice and witnesses should not be subjected to any pressure whatsoever from here. The Liberal Party supports the mling, Mr Speaker, and more strength to you. Hon. L. W. POWELL (Isis—Leader of the House) (9.43 p.m.): The privilege of Parliament has been won over many, many years after much debate and evolution. Honourable members of this Parliament ought to take some note of the history of how the privilege of Parliament has been achieved. That privilege extends to each and every one of us. In each case we need to use that privilege in the proper and cortect manner. In the time that I have been in this place it has been my unfortunate experience to see some members—a very small minority of members—abuse the privilege of Parliament. They have stood in this place and used the privUege of the Parliament to abuse people without foundation and to bring some people into disrepute. That is why the Parliament has a Select Committee of Privileges and that is why you, Mr Speaker, have such an important role to play in watching the privilege of the Parliament. The issue before the House tonight—that is, the disagreement with your mling— stems from the fact that there are some people in this House who would like to see the Parhament as an altemative court. As the honourable member for Nundah has just explained, the Parliament is not. It is very clear to me, Mr Speaker, that the mlings that you have made and the advice that you have received have l>een correct and accurate. They are correct, because this Parliament needs to protect its privilege. We need to be able to show to the people of Queensland that we are responsible people and that we can use that privilege, which has been won over 700 years, to an extent that we protect those people who are innocent and expose those who are not. As a result of the curtent inquiry, from which the mling evolved, a very serious accusation could be levelled at members of Parliament who abuse that privilege and try, in the hope of gaining some notoriety, to raise in this place under privilege—so that they cannot be challenged—the actions of persons known to them. It is very clear, Mr Speaker, that the mling that you gave yesterday moming is accurate and correct and that the advice that you have received is also accurate and cortect. Mr Speaker, it is not I who have been misleading the Parliament; the misleading has been done by the Leader of the Opposition and his pseudo-lawyers and advisers who seek notoriety rather than honesty. They seek to grandstand rather than to have an inquiry that is properly constituted—it is important to emphasise that—that is under the control of a Queen's Counsel and that this Govemment, and hence this Parliament, should be supporting to the utmost. Mr Fitzgerald, in conducting the inquiry, cannot be supported to the utmost if from time to time members of this Parliament are going to try to abuse the privilege that they have by subverting the work that Mr Fitzgerald is about. An Opposition member: Rubbish! Mr POWELL: A member of the Opposition says, "Rubbish!" It is clear to me that members of the Opposition are more concemed with notoriety than with honesty. They are more concemed with grandstanding than with seeking the tmth. Mr Warburton: Give us an example. You can't. Mr Speaker's Ruling 7 October 1987 2937

Mr POWELL: If some members of this Parliament would keep quiet, they might be able to find out the tmth.

If in fact members of the Opposition have information that should properly be put before the Fitzgerald inquiry, why do they not provide it to the inquiry? Why do they try to raise it in this Parliament under the protection of parliamentary privilege so that they cannot be asked questions in the inquiry?

I suggest that if members of the Opposition wish to continue to chaUenge the thmst of the very clear and unequivocal mling by you, Mr Speaker, they should carry out some basic research into the background of your mling and the ample precedent which supports it.

I was a member of the Select Committee of Privileges which produced the report that has been quoted. This Parliament was the first Parliament in the British Common­ wealth to recommend in a report a sub judice convention, which we now have. I am proud of that because I believe that that report was brought down as a result of some instances of the abuse of parliamentary privilege which were evident previously. Unfor­ tunately, since that time other instances have arisen.

I submit that there can be no doubt that this continued attempt to challenge your mling, Mr Speaker, forms part of an attempt by the Opposition to seek to tum the Fitzgerald inquiry from a mechanism for establishing the tmth about certain matters into a mechanism for gaining base party-political advantage.

Notwithstanding the slings and artows that have been directed against it by the Opposition and the media since the establishment of the Fitzgerald commission of inquiry, the Queensland Govemment has demonstrated time and time again its com­ mitment to ensuring that Mr Fitzgerald possesses the power and the resources to conduct a fair and honest inquiry into the matters that have been referred to him, and I emphasise "referted to him". If that were not the case, the inquiry would not have been set up.

If the Opposition genuinely wishes to ensure that crime and cormption are eradicated so far as possible in this State, as it so piously proclaims, I would expect it to display the support for the Fitzgerald inquiry that the Govemment has displayed.

Opposition members interjected.

Mr POWELL: Listen to the cries, Mr Speaker, from the Opposition when it is accused.

Continued attempts to use this House for party-political point-scoring, contrary to the mling which you, Mr Speaker, gave to ensure that the inquiry can conduct its activities in an impartial manner, only belittles both the Opposition and the activities of Mr Fitzgerald. It also brings disrepute upon the position of a member of Parliament.

If the Opposition is really genuine in its support for the Fitzgerald inquiry, it should be silent and let Mr Fitzgerald get on with his work. If the Opposition has genuine information that is of relevance to the inquiry, it should confidentiaUy advise Mr Fitzgerald of that material.

Mr Warburton: And let you get on with your rorts? Do you say we should sit back and say nothing? 2938 7 October 1987 Mr Speaker's Ruling

Mr POWELL: It is correct, as the Leader of the Opposition interjects, that he should sit back and say nothing in this Parliament about the Fitzgerald inquiry. If he has information, he should go and talk to Mr Fitzgerald. He should not be trying to canvass in this House matters which are not properly the province of this Parliament whUst that inquiry is in progress. If the inquiry was not in progress, this debate would not be taking place. This House must dedicate itself to ensuring that the commissioner can continue his work. Mr Speaker, that can occur only if this House supports your mling that discussion of matters before the Fitzgerald inquiry comes within the sub judice convention and also supports the mling that you gave yesterday. Mr Ck)ss: You've missed the point. The motion relates to a question asked. Mr POWELL: The interjector is saying that I have missed the point. I have not missed the point, and other speakers on this side of the House and the honourable member for Nundah have not missed the point, either. The very point is, Mr Speaker, that your sub judice mling is cortect in the way that you have stated it. It is correct to say that this is not the proper place to discuss the matters that the Opposition is trying to raise. I wiU say it once again, because Opposition members seem to be so deaf that they cannot hear. If they have matters pertaining to the inquiry, I suggest that they go to the inquiry and give evidence, if they are game. They should not be using the privilege of this Parliament to raise those matters. I urge honourable members to oppose the motion before the House. Mr BRADDY (Rockhampton) (9.53 p.m.): I rise in support of this motion of dissent from your mhng, Mr Speaker. It is important in the midst of great moments in the history of any State, such as the Fitzgerald inquiry undoubtedly is, that common sense and sanity are retained and that in the exercise of that common sense and sanity the proper rights and privUeges of elected members of Parliament are protected. It is in this spirit that the Opposition moves this motion of dissent. The Opposition genuinely believes that your mling was incorrect, Mr Speaker. I wiU examine the law in relation to your mling. This mling is before the House because you have failed in your duty to examine each reference to the Fitzgerald inquiry on its own merits. Unfortunately, you have made a blanket mhng which prevents discussion in any shape or form on this subject, with the exception of a Govemment Bill which came before the House last night and an occasion when the Premier was allowed to continue. I wiU refer to that matter later. In making a blanket sub judice mhng covering the Fitzgerald inquiry, I suggest that you have been hiding behind clause 6 of the 1976 sub judice mling, which states— "Application of the sub judice mle is thus subject always to the discretion of the Chair and to the right of the House to consider and legislate on any matter." Tonight in his speech to the House, the Attomey-General made reference to HaUett's work entitled Royal Commissions and Boards of Inquiry. This is the most recent and up-to-date work on the sub judice mhng and relates not only to courts but also to royal commissions and boards of inquiry. In fact, a chapter deals with each State of the Commonwealth and with the Commonwealth of Australia. In his work, Hallett makes it clear that the worst possible case would be for a Speaker to make a blanket mling on sub judice. It is that mling which the Opposition condemns. The final sentence of Hallett's chapter dealing with the sub judice mle in relation to royal commissions and boards of inquiry states at page 280— "An overall discretion in the Chair is essential because some inquiries last many months and to stifle discussion in parliament by a 'blanket' mle would be most unwise." Mr Speaker's Ruling 7 October 1987 2939 This is where the Opposition suggests, Mr Speaker, you have been most unwise. We say that in the context of what occurs in other Parliaments in this country. Westem Australia has no sub judice mle in relation to commissions of inquiry. Victoria has no blanket mle condemning any discussion. It is this area in which the Opposition believes that the ertor has been made. The member for Nundah said that we have to protect the right of the Speaker to make mlings, and that when he does so the exercise of his discretion must be protected at all costs. That is arrant nonsense. Why, therefore, do we have Standing Order 117, which enables the House to dissent from the mhngs of the Speaker? Of course, the reason for that Standing Order is that ultimately this House is more important and the privileges of the members of this House are more important than the individual mlings of a Speaker. It is in that context, therefore, that the member for Nundah is incorrect. He seeks to make the members of this House subservient to the Speaker. He suggests that, whatever the Speaker mles, it is incorrect for us to try to bring to the Speaker's attention that his mling is incorrect. The member for Nundah was supported by the Minister for Education, who said that Opposition members seem to think that the House is some form of a court. I have a message for the Honourable the Minister for Education. This House is set up with Standing Rules and Orders that give it the power to overmle Speakers, to fine people and to imprison people. In a tme sense, this House is a court. That has been the great tradition of the British system. It is in that context that members of the Opposition seek to draw to your attention, Mr Speaker, the problem that you have made for yourself by making this blanket mling. It is something that the leamed author Hallett condemns as being the worst possible practice for a Parliament to adopt—a blanket mling that prevents any discussion in a matter that could go on for months. Has there even been consistency from you, Mr Speaker, in this matter? I suggest, unfortunately, that there has not. On 10 September, a mling was made by you in relation to the Premier. In respect of the Fitzgerald inquiry, the Premier said— "The media are reporting many statements by ladies and others who have a reputation for certain activities. These persons have named other people just as the honourable members seeks to name members of Parliament." The Premier then continued on and on without any intermption or instmsion from you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I suggest that the Premier himself has exposed the shortcomings of your mling in this matter. It is extraordinary that, although the Premier can do that and although the media commentators and editorial-writers discuss openly evidence given to the commission, because of a blanket mling members of Parliament are prevented from conducting any discussion at all in relation to this matter, even though it be proper, restrained and careful, as indeed it has been. Mr Speaker, I tum now to the situation in which your mling was made. It was made as a result of a question from Mr Ardill, the honourable member for Salisbury, who said— "I ask the Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police: given his reported statements that he had information of cormption prior to the Four Corners program, did he raise that information and concems with any person prior to that program and, if not, why not?" The Opposition believes that Mr ArdiU's question was in order and proper and that you, Mr Speaker, had no altemative but to allow it to proceed. The Opposition asks this House to support it in that belief and to overtum your mling, Mr Speaker, which is a blanket mling that flies in the face of the most recent understanding of the law in this regard. The Opposition believes that the information should be provided to the Fitzgerald inquiry, which would require the present Deputy Premier and Minister for Pohce, Mr Gunn, to appear before it and be cross-examined. 2940 7 October 1987 Mr Speaker's Ruling

As members of a loyal and responsible Opposition, we are seeking to force the Minister for Police to do his duty, not to discuss the information or the evidence. The Opposition is seeking to smoke the Minister for Police out of his foxhole in the Executive Building and to send him down to the Fitzgerald inquiry where he could be cross- examined about these matters. The Opposition did not seek to discuss these matters in this House. Mr ArdiU's question did not seek to raise the matters themselves. It raised the impropriety of the Minister for Police not volunteering to make himself available. Mr Speaker, I suggest that you have erted in that you misunderstood the importance of not making blanket mhngs in relation to royal commissions. In other States, matters relating to royal commissions of inquiry are able to be discussed quite openly in Parhament. The Opposition does not seek a complete discussion of the evidence. It seeks the opportunity, during the many months that will be taken up by the inquiry, to continue to raise questions that will force this Govemment to accept its responsibilities. In those circumstances, Mr Speaker, I submit that your decision was wrong and that this Parliament is the poorer because of it. Question—That the motion be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 24 NOES, 51 Ardill Ahem Knox Braddy Alison Lane Campbell Austin Lickiss Comben Beanland McCauley De Lacy Beard McKechnie Goss Berghofer McPhie Hayward Booth Menzel McElligott Borbidge Muntz Mackenroth Burreket Neal McLean Chapman Nelson Milliner Clauson Newton Palaszczuk Cooper Powell Scott Elliott Randell Shaw Gately Schuntner Smith Gibbs, I. J. Sherlock Smyth Gilmore Sherrin Underwood Glasson Simpson Vaughan Gunn Slack Warburton Gygar Stephan Wamer Harvey Stoneman Wells Henderson Tenni Yewdale Hinton Veivers Hinze Hobbs Tellers: Hynd Tellers: Davis Innes Littleproud Prest Katter FitzGerald Resolved in the negative. The House adjoumed at 10.11 p.m.