Legislative Assembly Hansard 1985
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Queensland Parliamentary Debates [Hansard] Legislative Assembly THURSDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 1985 Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy Ministerial Statements 26 September 1985 1387 THURSDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. H. Waraer, Toowoomba South) read prayers and took the chair at 11 a.m. PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Amalgamation of Nursing Boards From Mr Austin (24 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland wiU intervene in the proposed amalgamation of the Board of Nursing Studies and Nurses Registration Board of Queensland. Enforcement of Fraser Island Access Act From Mr Buras (66 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will reconsider the enforcement of the Fraser Island Access Bill. Petitions received. PAPERS The foUowing papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Reports— BuUders Registration Board of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1985 Department of Forestry for the year ended 30 June 1985 Department of Welfare Services for the year ended 30 June 1985. The foUowing papers were laid on the table— Reports— Queensland Milk Board for the year ended 30 June 1985 Central Queensland Grain Sorghum Marketing Board for the year ended 31 December 1984 Ginger Marketing Board and the Buderim Ginger Growers Co-operative Association Limited for the year ended 31 December 1984. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Mr J. C. Needham; Allegations by Member for Ashgrove Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast—Minister for Local Goverament, Main Roads and Racing) (11.3 a.m.), by leave: Mr Speaker An Opposition Member: Make it short. Mr HINZE: When there are clowois opposite who make stupid statements, they have to be replied to. The speech by the honourable member for Ashgrove (Mr Veivers) in the Matters of Public Interest debate yesterday was noteworthy from two points of view. From the point of view of what the honourable member said, certain key elements were quite inaccurate. The other point of view is, of course, what the honourable member omitted to teU the ParUament. The facts from the first viewpoint are: first, I have not, as stated by the honourable member, been involved with Mr Needham in relation to property formerly ovmed by him at Samsonvale. The facts are that in 1979 Mr Needham's solicitors made an inquiry 1388 26 September 1985 Ministerial Statements of the Main Roads Department as to its future intentions with respect to a property at the comer of Mount Samson Road and Winn Road. Such inquiries are not uncommon, there being something of the order of 1 500 per week to the Brisbane metropoUtan division of the department. As a result of that inquiry, Mr Needham began negotiations with departmental officers to see whether the preliminary alignment—I emphasise "preUminary", a word which appeared in the letter the honourable member tabled but which he has chosen to ignore—could be varied in a way that would not affect his planned development of the property. The honourable member is probably unaware that many property-owners in the metropoUtan area do precisely the same thing each week, and that departmental officers are only too wiUing to negotiate so that the use of the land for both road and private development is optimised. As a result of the negotiations and of the investigations into altemative alignments, it became quite clear that the total cost of a road on the preUminary aUgnment, including the compensation that would be payable to Mr Needham under the terms of the Acquisition of Land Act, would exceed those of the road curtently under constmction. Secondly, there was no original route favoured by the Main Roads Department. A preUminary route was dravm on a contour plan which required further investigation. That route essentiaUy followed the old railway Une for some distance. However, it never did foUow the old railway line in the vicinity of the properties formerly owned by Mr Needham. Thirdly, the decision to alter the preliminary alignment to that on which the road is curtently being constmcted was not against the better judgment of the Main Roads Department. Departmental officers concemed at the time had concluded that the total cost of the road on the new alignment would be less than that on the old. Fourthly, a more expensive, longer and more dangerous route was not chosen. As I have said previously, departmental officers assessed the total cost of the original preUminary route as being higher than the cost of that on which constmction is cmrently proceeding. The road curtently under constmction has been designed to the same standards applied to the preUminary route. It is not a dangerous design. Next, it is not unusual for the boundaries of a proposed road to be pegged by departmental surveyors. It is a courtesy extended to many with whom the department has deaUngs to enable property-ovmers to assess the effects of proposed resumptions. It was done for Mr Needham; it was done for Mr Cochrane; and it is was done for Mrs ColUns. Finally, from the first point of view, the department's purpose in roughly pegging the boundaries of the amended route was to ensure that no further improvements were carried out on the area required for road, that is, that no improvements were carried out on land to be retained by Mr Needham. From the point of view of what the honourable member has not said, no mention is made of the fact that the area acquired from Mr Needham was of the order of 6 ha, and that the areas required from small property-ovmers who would not otherwise have been affected varied from 0.5 ha to 0.06 ha. Nor was any mention made of the fact that on 5 March 1985,1 advised the honourable member for Everton, interaUa, that the cost difference between the two altematives would have been reduced to the difference in property costs. A value of $800,000 was placed on improvements carried out by Mr Needham. These costs are far in excess of property costs on the altemative routes. I feel sure the honourable member for Ashgrove was aware of that advice to his colleague. The honourable member has also omitted to state that it is quite normal for property-owners to seek to have the effects of public works on their property ameUorated. In fact, under the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act, it is a property-ovmer's Ministerial Statements 26 September 1985 1389 right to object to the resumption of property, to state his objections and to have them fully considered. That, where possible, a simUar process is foUowed within the Main Roads Department as plans are being developed, would seem to me a matter for congratulation rather than the reverse, as it seeks to sort out the problems before they reaUy arise. Not long before his death, the former member for Archerfield joined in a deputation to me seeking to have the Main Roads Department change the planning layouts for the Oxley Road interchange. There were some advantages in such a course of action, just as there were disadvantages, including some to property-owners who were not affected by the original proposal. I agreed with the case put by the deputation and instmcted that a revised layout be investigated. On the basis of the honourable member's argument put forward in the case under debate, I should not have agreed with the case put by the former member for Archerfield. 1 totaUy reject the concept, just as I reject the concept that any person who claims to be a friend of mine should on that account forfeit any rights he may have under the legislation in force in this State. When I was speaking last night to Mick Veivers, a former interaational footballer and a cousin of the member for Ashgrove, he said to me, "Russell, 1 think I wiU have to change my name by deed poU. I just cannot carry on with the name of Veivers with a clown like that in Parliament." Regional Mortality in Queensland Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Wavell—Minister for Health) (11.9 a.m.), by leave: I present, for the information of all honourable members, a report entitled Regional Mortality in Queensland, which has been produced by the Cancer Prevention Unit of my department. The report covers mortality for different types of cancer and selected other causes of death for the period 1970 to 1982. The report looks at mortaUty from two main axes, the geographical regions within the State; the other, different levels of urbanisation. The geographic divisions are Brisbane, Gold and Sunshine Coasts, other coastal regions, northera, westera and eastera interior. Four levels of urbanisation have been examined, ranging from major urban, which essentiaUy covers Brisbane and the Gold Coast, down to mral, which has been defined as areas in which none of the population Uves in a centre with more than 1 000 people. The purpose of the report is to add to our understanding of the distribution of disease patteras in Queensland and to help target health services to particular health problems in different parts of the State. The findings need to be interpreted with some caution, as differences in mortality may be due to a number of different factors. They may, for example, reflect the effects of migration, varying degrees of exposure to factors which influence health and/or the effects of health services. Therefore, differences highlighted in the report need to be investigated so that specific treatment or health promotion programs can be directed to those problems, where necessary, as a further measure in improving the health of the community as a whole.