Queensland Parliamentary Debates [Hansard] Legislative Assembly TUESDAY, 7 APRIL 1987 Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy Ministerial Statement 7 April 1987 1293 TUESDAY, 7 APRIL 1987 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. K. R. Lingard, Fassifern) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m. PAPERS The following paper was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Report— Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service for the year ended 30 June 1986. The following papers were laid on the table— Proclamations under— Universities and Colleges (Higher Education Administration Charges) Act 1987 Adoption of Children Acts and Another Act Amendment Act 1986 Adoption of Children Act Amendment Act 1983-1986 Orders in Council under— Local Government Act 1936-1985 and the Libraries Act 1943-1979 Acquisition of Land Act 1967-1977 River Improvement Trust Act 1940-1985 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 Regulations under— Public Service Act 1922-1978 Adoption of Children Act 1964-1986 Rules under the Lotto Act 1981-1984 Report— Project 21: Teachers for the Twenty-first Century. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Cameron Inquiry into Road-funding Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast—Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing) (10.03 a.m.), by leave: I wish to bring to the attention of the House a recent action by the Federal Government which has critical implications for the future of road- funding in Queensland. Of particular and serious concern is the most serious consequence for the rural sector. By way of background—when the Federal Government passed the Australian Land Transport Act in 1985, the Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris, cunningly included a clause which set aside for his own determination the distribution between the States and Territories of 10 per cent of the funds allocated to arterial and local roads for the last three years of the life of that legislation. These three years extend from 1 July this year until the expiry of the Act on 30 June 1990. In order to give some credence to his distribution of these funds, the Federal Minister for Transport established what he was pleased to call an "independent committee of inquiry" to examine the fundamental principles underlying the formula for sharing these funds nationally. This committee comprised three members: Mr R. J. Cameron, formerly a Federal Government statistician; a Melbourne University academic; and a member of the Interstate Commission. 1294 7 April 1987 Ministerial Statement This committee has been deliberating since 1985 and finally produced a report at the end of December 1986. It was a long and complicated document, which, on face value, purported to set out to provide a series of indicators which would be applicable to all road categories across Australia. The recommendations were heavily loaded to react to traffic volumes, axle loadings, road occupancy and upgrading requirements. It will be no surprise to learn that, consequently, the outcome is severely biased towards the populous States of New South Wales and Victoria with their heavily trafficked urban-road systems. The methods used in the report have no regard for the existing condition of the road system, the effects of decentralised population, the importance of rural industries or the need to promote development. Given these serious and utterly unrealistic guide­ lines, we could have predicted the outcome—a diversion of funds to New South Wales and Victoria. Over the remaining three years of the program Queensland will lose a total of some $7.5m basically in the local roads category. Arterial roads have not been affected greatly, although about $lm per year has been shifted from Queensland's rural arterial State highway system to the urban arterial roads in the larger cities. It is the cut in local roads' funding which is of major concern, as almost all local authorities in Queensland are dependent on this funding to maintain a safe road network. In many cases, the very livelihood of rural council road gangs will now be put in jeopardy. Simply, less Federal money means obviously fewer jobs on our country roads. While any loss of road-funding to Queensland is a matter of grave concern, the longer-term implications of this Cameron report could be disastrous for our State's future allocations from the Federal Government. If the so-called "principles" developed in this report are upheld and adopted by the Federal Government in determining the distribution of road-funding between States after the present Federal Act expires at the end of June 1990, the loss to Queensland will then be of the order of $35m per year. It is intolerable for all Queenslanders to contemplate that the road needs of this State could be glossed over by the Federal Government to such an extent that this could happen. This disgraceful decision by the Federal Government was conveyed to me by letter from the Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris. That letter contained the following advice, and I quote it verbatim— "The Government has given careful consideration to the Cameron Report and to the views of the States, the Northern Territory and Local Government on its findings. It has decided to accept the recommendations of the Report to distribute Federal road funds in accordance with the principles of effort neutrality, funding both restorative and upgrading works, and periodic reviews of the data and assumptions underlying the indicators developed by the Inquiry." I defy any honourable member to discern what this extraordinary statement actually means. I su^Jose it is appropriate that a decision which defies realities should be conveyed in a form of words which defies comprehension. It is also grimly appropriate that this letter should have been dated 1 April—April Fool's Day. The rural councils in Queensland and their road construction gangs will be comforted, no doubt, by these reasons for this decision. The Federal Government's record on road-funding has not been good. It seems to find every possible loophole to divert road fimds away from the motorist to fill its coffers elsewhere. Last year, it blatantly used fuel taxes to try and balance its Budget, with the result that Queensland suffered reductions totalling nearly $17m. This year, in its May mini-Budget, I suppose it will take another slice from our fuel taxes without any beg Ministerial Statement 7 April 1987 1295 pardons whatsoever. Reports in the media which, significantly, have not been denied by C^anberra, point to savage cuts again in May. Mr Speaker, it is beyond a joke when the Federal Government strips $6,350m from the motorist each year. For the benefit of honourable members opposite, I repeat: it is beyond a joke when the Federal Government strips $6,350m from the motorist each year, and then distributes a paltry $ 1,200m back for road improvements. Its unmitigated gall allows it to claim great credit for granting this pittance to our starving road system. Obviously, it sees this as an achievement. When motorists fill their cars with petrol, they should realise that, of the 50c or whatever per litre that they pay, a paltry 5.75c goes back into road improvements and a massive 24c is diverted by the Federal Government to its Consolidated Revenue Fund. All honourable members should be concerned by the cold-blooded, mercenary way in which the Canberra Government takes and demands our taxes but does not justly give back in return. I will not cease in my demands for a better deal in road-funding for Queensland in particular, until the needs of our road system are equitably satisfied. It might also be of interest to honourable members representing our great provincial centres of Cairns, Mackay, Mount Isa, Gladstone, Bundaberg, Maryborough and Warwick to learn that this infamous Cameron report has determined that road improvements and maintenance of roads in those areas should be costed as if they were rural roads and not urban roads. This is the perception of reality that we face in Canberra. Roads classified as rural arterial or rural local attract only one-ninth to one-third of the amount required to maintain and upgrade urban roads. So the people of these major Queensland centres will be grossly disadvantaged by the Federal Government's adoption of this report's recommendations. Basically, the Cameron report's recommendations would result, in the longer term, in 60 per cent of all available Federal road funds, apart from national highway funds, being spent in New South Wales and Victoria. That of course is the reality, and I appeal to all honourable members to convey their outrage, and that of their constituents, to Canberra. It may not yet be too late to obtain some basic justice. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Project 21: Teachers for the Twenty-first Century Hon. L. W. POWELL (Isis—Minister for Education) (10.12 a. m.), by leave: During the past two years the Board of Teacher Education has undertaken a major review of teacher education and teacher registration in Queensland. In the course of its review, the board received submissions from individuals and organisations, held public meetings in major centres throughout the State, and convened working parties involving a wide range of people from education and from the wider community. The board has now completed its report, entitled Project 21: Teachers for the Twenty- first Century. Earlier today I tabled that report. The report concludes that, in a context of rapid social and technological change in the latter years of this century and the early years of the twenty-first century, the role of the teacher will become increasingly complex and the knowledge and skills required of teachers will continue to grow. The report argues that much of what teachers need to know about education is best acquired after a period of teaching experience.