Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 17 OCTOBER 1989

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

1426 17 October 1989 Petitions

TUESDAY, 17 OCTOBER 1989

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. K. R. Lingard, Fassifem) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m.

ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following BiUs reported by Mr Speaker— Appropriation BiU (No. 2); Wheat Marketing (Facilitation) BiU; Bond University Act Amendment BiU; Education (Board of Advanced Education Dissolution) Bill; Ipswdch Trades HaU (VaUdation) Bill; Police Act Amendment BiU; Constitution (CanceUation of Referendum) BiU; Constitution Act Amendment BiU; Cotton Industry Deregulation Bill; Elections Act Amendment BiU; Sugar MUUng Rationalization (Far Northem Region) Act Amendment BiU; Partnership (Limited Liability) Act Amendment BiU; University of Central Queensland BiU; Land Act Amendment BUI; University of Southem Queensland BiU.

ASSENT TO BILL

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) Mr SPEAKER: I have to report that on Friday, 6 October 1989, the Deputy Speaker, Mr Row, presented to His Excellency the Govemor Appropriation BiU 1989-1990 (No. 2) for the royal assent and that His Excellency was pleased, in Mr Row's presence, to subscribe his assent thereto in the name and on behalf of Her Majesty.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS

Report Mr SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that I have received from the ParUa­ mentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations his report for 1988-89. Ordered to be printed.

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

Road Safety Training for Child Cyclists; Wearing of Safety Helmets by All CycUsts From Mr Wells (43 signatories) praying that the ParUament of (Queensland will immediately introduce compulsory road safety training programs for child cycUsts and compulsory wearing of safety helmets for aU cyclists. Papers 17 October 1989 1427

Tabling of Ministerial Expenses From Mr Wells (26 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland wiU take immediate steps to table records of ministerial expenses over the last 10 years.

National Park, Fraser Island From Mr Wells (228 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland wdU take action to declare all forestry and vacant Crown land on Fraser Island a national park.

Daylight-saving Zone, Mount Isa From Mr Beard (140 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland wdU take action to establish two time zones, one to include Mount Isa in which dayUght- saving time will not apply.

Second TraflBc Bridge Over Burnett River From Mr Campbell (760 signatories) praying that the Pariiament of Queensland will take action to provide immediate funding for a second Bumett River traffic bridge.

All-tide Boat Ramp at Dunrock, Sandy Creek From Mr Casey (370 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland wdll ensure that favourable consideration is given to and funding provided for an aU-weather and aU-tide boat ramp at Dunrock, Sandy Creek. Petitions received.

PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE COMMISSION

Report Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Leader of the House) (10.06 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the first report of the Parliamentary Service Commission to 30 June 1989, and I move that the report be printed. Whereupon the document was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Reports— Bundaberg Port Authority for the year ended 30 June 1989 Gold Coast Waterways Authority for the year ended 30 June 1989 Queensland Performing Arts Tmst for the year ended 30 June 1989 Board of Tmstees of Newstead House for the year ended 30 June 1989. The following papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under— Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977-1988 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1989 Health Act 1937-1989 Water Act 1926-1987 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1988 Water Act 1926-1987 Harbours Act 1955-1989 1428 17 October 1989 Ministerial Statement

Companies (Administration) Act 1981-1984 Distiict Courts Act 1967-1988 Justices Act 1886-1989 Roman Catholic Church Lands Act 1985-1986 Supreme Court Act 1921 Regulations under— Health Act 1937-1989 Hospitals Act 1936-1988 Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1962-1989 By-laws under— Harbours Act 1955-1989 Harbours Act 1955-1989 and Mackay Airport Act 1989 Reports— Royal Brisbane Hospital Foundation for the year ended 30 June 1989 Royal Women's Hospital Research and Development Foundation for the year ended 30 June 1989 Tmstees of the Financial Benefit Tmst Fund for the year ended 30 June 1989

Perpetual Tmstee Australian Limited for the year ended 30 June 1989.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Electricity-supply Industry Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders—Minister for Mines and Energy and Minister for Northem and Regional Development) (10.09 a.m.), by leave: At the National Press Club luncheon, in answer to a question on what he would do about Queensland's draconian electricity industry legislation, the Leader of the Opposition Mr De Lacy: Oh, sit dovm, you mug. Mr KATTER: The dingo trap was set, the Leader of the Opposition put his foot straight in it and Opposition members regret that he did it. The Leader of the Opposition said that he would implement the Hanger report recommendations. The implications of that answer are that the tmth wdll be taken—the teeth wdll be taken out of that BiU. Opposition members interjected. Mr KATTER: The word "tmth" is quite acceptable and, in fact, is quite accurate. As a result there would be a party of ETU heavies, wdth Vaughan and Warburton as prominent front-benchers and Goss beholden to that faction. To understand what that wiU mean, one must understand that, in the four years prior to the 1985 SEQEB dispute and the consequent enforcement of the State Govemment legislation, 52 856 man-days were lost but, since then, not one man-day has been lost. I leave to the imagination of every member of this House how many man-days would be lost if that legislation were removed. At present approximately 20 per cent more electricity is generated and reticulated by 30 per cent fewer workers. The number of workers in the QEC has faUen from 5 245 to 2 995 and the number of employees of electricity boards has decreased from 7 948 to 5 673. In other words, Queensland is producing 20 per cent more electricity wdth 30 per cent fewer workers. The megawatt hours sold per employee are over 2 000 in Queensland but less than 1 500 in New South Wales and less than 1 400 in Victoria. Plant availabiUty in Queensland is 84 per cent. On occasions, a generating unit cannot be fixed because of maintenance Ministerial Statement 17 October 1989 1429 bans, scaffolding bans or some other stupidity, which is why Queensland can gain access to 84 per cent of its plant, whereas New South Wales has access to only 61 per cent and Victoria has access to only 68 per cent. As to the cost of generation, which is the most important point—industry foUows cheap electricity, and he who has the cheapest electricity wdU get aU of the industry and all of the growth. In this State the cost of generation is 1.67c per kilowatt hour, whereas in New South Wales the figure is 2.09c per kilowatt hour and in Victoria it is 2.24c per kilowatt hour. Mr Vaughan: You don't know what you're talking about, you fool. Mr KATTER: The honourable member can interject, because he wdU be responsible for pushing Queensland back into the Stone Age. He wdll drag this State dovm. Under the direction of the Opposition Leader, this State would retum to the Dark Ages. Queensland, which has the lowest electricity charges in Australia, would retum to the 1984 situation in which there were padded employment levels, a plethora of maintenance bans and a work-force that worked how and when it pleased. Queensland languished under the highest electricity charges in Australia. Labor leadership federaUy has presided over a similar industrial dispute, which is not much less serious than the Queensland power dispute. Let me compare the performance of the two Govemments. The airline pilots dispute, which is now in its ninth week, has cost Australian tax-payers $100m, which was pledged to Mr Murdoch, Sir Peter Abeles—in other words, Ansett Airlines—and AustraUan Airlines. The sum of $30m has been pledged as a special tourism grant, which is poor compensation for the $3,000m that has already been lost to the Australian economy. During the electricity dispute, Queensland tax-payers were charged nothing and the industry was fully operational wdthin 11 days. Workers' compensation costs in Victoria and New South Wales are three times higher than they are in Queensland—or 50 per cent higher, depending on which figures one wdshes to consult. Electricity costs in those States are 25 per cent higher than they are in Queensland. Under Labor this State would suffer as AustraUa is now suffering because this nation's "greatest negotiator" is responsible for the most costly industrial dispute in Australia's history. The "world's greatest Treasurer" has produced the highest interest rates in the developed world, the highest interest rates in AustraUa's history and the worst current account deficit—$2.58 biUion in one month—in Australia's history. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Goss, has said that, in terms of taxation, Queensland has to get in step wdth the other States. He has now also put his foot in the dingo trap with respect to industrial disputation. Under Labor, clearly the lights would slowly go out and once again the darkness would descend on this State.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Federal Government Housing Assistance Hon. J. H. RANDELL (Mirani—Minister for Works and Housing) (10.16 a.m.), by leave: I wish to draw honourable members' attention to the intolerable situation created by the Federal Labor Govemment's refusal to negotiate a satisfactory agreement on funding for Queensland housing assistance. The Federal Labor Govemment, having perpetrated by high interest rates the worst housing crisis AustraUa has ever seen, is refusing to guarantee funding to the States beyond this financial year. It is attempting to coerce States into signing a 10-year Commonwealth/State housing agreement but wdU not give any guarantee of its continuing funding levels. This pig-headed attitude by the Federal Labor Govemment wdU place in jeopardy Queensland's continuing program, which is funded jointly with the Commonwealth, of providing affordable housing. This situation is deplorable. 1430 17 October 1989 Ministerial Statement

Mr De Lacy: Give the Labor Party a go. Mr RANDELL: It is a pity that the member for Caims does not stand up for Queensland. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr RANDELL: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I was provoked. As I said, the situation is deplorable. Although Labor members opposite are prepared to go along wdth the Federal Govemment's attitude, I note reports that not even the nation's Labor States are prepared to be tricked into signing this type of foolhardy agreement. The Federal Labor Govemment cannot be tmsted; nor can honourable members opposite, who are no doubt aware of this atrocious attempt at deception and support it. When the States agreed to change financial arrangements for the Commonwealth/ State housing agreement in May this year, the Federal Labor Govemment gave no indication that the provision for guaranteed base-level funding was to be removed from that agreement. Nor was there any reason for the Premiers to anticipate this intention; otherwise there is little doubt that the agreement would not have been signed. It is obvious that planning for the provision of housing needs to span at least three to five years and, to be effective, must be based on the certainty of minimum funds being avaUable. The Federal Labor Govemment itself recognised that necessity preceding the 1984 agreement and to that end included provisions relating to continued base-level funding. Mr Burns: You don't know what you're talking about. They came here and had a seminar and explained it. You were asleep. Bill Gunn forgot to tum up. Mr RANDELL: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition wdll not recognise what the Federal Labor Govemment has done to housing in this State. Interest rates have risen from 12.5 per cent to 18 per cent and are still climbing. Yet, when the banks have made a record profit of $800m, the Federal Govemment has given them $200m to bring interest rates dovm. That is the sort of thing that can be expected from members on the other side of the House. Not one word in support of the State of Queensland is heard from them. I say to the union-leader opposite: what about the low income earners? It is time that he started to think about them. However, the Federal Labor Govemment, in a typical about-face, is now trying to coerce the States into signing a 10-year agreement wdthout any provisions to ensure that funding wiU be maintained at appropriate levels. This is the oldest trick in the book; it is doing it all the time. The proposed agreement caUs for formal Commonwealth/State plans for 10 years, but the Federal Labor Govemment wdU agree to definite funding for the first year only. This is what the Federal Govemment usually does: it signs an agreement for 10 years, provides funding for one year and then tells the State that it is out on its ovm. That is what it has done in the past. However, the Federal Govemment wiU not get away wdth it this time. It is sheer absurdity, and no-one with any business sense would be wdUing to sign a deal which has such obvious loopholes. The proposed agreement is so ludicrous that I suggest it has been deliberately designed to allow the Federal Govemment to reduce its share of funding to the States after the first year while the States are locked in for another nine years. It is interesting to note that, under the proposed agreement, the States are required to maintain home purchase assistance funds in real terms but the Federal Labor Govemment is not prepared to do the same wdth its funds. Mr McElligott interjected. Mr RANDELL: Why doesn't the honourable member listen? Ministerial Statement 17 October 1989 1431

This proposed agreement as it stands is so blatant in its political intentions that it throws into question its so-called commitment to providing affordable housing when the Federal Labor Govemment tries this type of ploy. If the Federal Labor Govemment were serious in its supposed concem, it could quite easUy resolve this farcical state of affairs by including guaranteed base-level funding for the life of the agreement. Despite repeated representations to the Federal Minister for Housing, Mr Staples, the Federal Labor Govemment has refused to budge. I inform the House that I have now requested Premier Cooper to take up this issue with the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, as a matter of urgency to have this totally unacceptable situation resolved as soon as possible. Until this important issue is positively resolved, it must be assumed that the Federal Labor Govemment has no intention of assisting the thousands of famiUes it has thrown onto the streets because of its perpetration of the worst housing crisis ever seen in Australia. Mr De Lacy: Is this the knock-out punch? Mr RANDELL: Those policies wdU be continued by the Labor Party in the unUkely event that it ever sits on this side of the House—which is very, very unlikely.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Education on Parliamentary and Governmental Processes Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (Condamine—Minister for Education, Youth, Sport and Recreation) (10.21 a.m.), by leave: Recently the Department of Education appointed a teacher as an education officer (special duties) to undertake a project on education about Parliament and govemment. The appointment follows an instmction from me to the department earUer in the year for education resources to be developed in regard to Parliament and govemment generally. This action was in part prompted by the large number of requests to my office, particularly from primary school chUdren, for information relating to my role as Minister for Education and on how the Govemment operates. A State secondary school teacher has been appointed to the position and wdll take up duties early next month. Initially, he wdll undertake a one-month professional development program being offered through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Education Office in Canberra. Duties detailed for the position include— development of leaming materials and/or teaching guides and guide-lines that focus, in particular, on Queensland parliamentary and govemmental processes; assistance in the provision of field services including visits by school groups to the Queensland Legislative Assembly; and establishment of networks of interested teachers, professional associations and relevant officers in this field in Queensland, other States and the Commonwealth. Qualifications required include— experience in and commitment to "teaching for active citizenship" as part of either primary social studies or through secondary subjects such as citizenship education, history and study of society; and knowledge of the basic stmcture and functions of parliamentary democracy and an understanding of political processes at State and national levels. The officer wdll be involved in producing the material over the next year. I have suggested that comments on the final draft should be sought from the Honourable the Premier, from you, Mr Speaker, and from other pariiamentary leaders. It should be emphasised that this topic is not new to Queensland schools. Coverage of this area was outlined last year in the submission on Education for Active Citizenship in Australian Schools and Youth Organisations to the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training. In Years 1 to 7 the Department of Education social studies syllabus introduces aU chUdren to the study of citizenship and govemment 1432 17 October 1989 Ministerial Statement through many concepts; in Years 8 to 10 this subject can be covered through syllabuses such as citizenship education, geography and history; and in senior secondaiy, board subjects such as modem history, study of society, geography, economics and legal studies, or non-board programs such as AustraUan social investigations or social and community studies. One of the five integrating themes of the draft P-10—that is, pre-school to Year 10—curriculum area framework on social education is Participating and Deciding in Society. Other themes, such as Conserving the Environment and Investigating Communities also emphasise the development of knowledge, skiUs, processes and attitudes necessary to behave as active, informed citizens. In teacher-training, this area is covered in three ways— • general primary trainees consider aspects of citizenship wdthin a three-year course as part of preparation for teaching social studies wdth an option for further elective study in Australian govemment; • primary specialist teacher trainees gain exposure to stmctures and functions of govemment through Australian studies; and • secondary teacher trainees wdth social science specialisation receive both core and optional studies in citizenship whereas other trainees receive some exposure in either core or specialised studies. Some individual schools in Queensland may put more emphasis, generally, on ParUament, govemment and citizenship studies than others. This year the State Govemment has been encouraging parents and other members of the community to take part in the formulation of school development plans. In this way, parents may weU seek that their schools devote more attention to that aspect of education.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

TotaUsator Administration Board Membership Hon. G. ALISON (Maryborough—Minister for Main Roads and Racing) (10.24 a.m.), by leave: I wish to provide some information to the members of this House in reply to comments attributed to Labor's Racing spokesman, the honourable member for Wolston, Mr Bob Gibbs, in the week-end press. I find it incredible that he should be caUing for a shake-up of the TotaUsator Administration Board in the same week as the TAB announced a record profit and a record pay-out to the clubs of $32m. With regard to the composition of the board—Mr Ian CaUinan, QC, was appointed to the board as chairman in AprU 1985. The entire board was reappointed in August 1987 to serve untU mid-1990. How could any allegedly responsible shadow Minister accuse the Govemment of bias when Mr Jack Houston, who was at one stage pariiamentary Leader of the Labor Party, is on the board? Mr Houston has been, and stiU is, a very valuable member of the board. It is nonsense to suggest that the board has been appointed on the basis of political affiUations—a very scurrilous statement. That is simply not tme and it is an insult to all the board members. They were appointed because of their expertise in certain areas, and on that basis alone. Under Mr CaUinan's competent chairmanship, the board has fiilfiUed its role under its aims and objectives. Specifically, they are— • to develop and implement policies and mles conducive to the ongoing welfare of the board and protection of the public interest; • to establish outlets in such numbers and at such locations as approved by the Minister and to disseminate information of interest to the public; ParUamentary Committee of Public Accounts 17 October 1989 1433

• to arrange payment of dividends to investors at the earliest practical time after the mnning of each race; and • to use pmdent business principles to maximise annual profit distmbution to the racing industry. In other words, the board should contain administrative, business and financial expertise and, above aU, integrity that is beyond reproach. I am confident that the current board meets aU those criteria. Regarding the reported computer bungle—this is a rehash of old news that was canvassed earlier in the year. The board kept the previous Racing Minister, Mr RandeU, and me up to date with its plans and intentions. It has a constmctive and responsible developmental program mapped out. The board keeps resources, which are referred to in the annual report, for the development and maintenance of the computer technology. There is no reason to suggest that the board does not have the situation under control. It has been made public in the past that the board purchased interim computer technology to maintain its level of service and provide at least some expansion in service—up to about 40 additional outlets—pending the integration of a very sophisticated computer system. It is tme to say that some delays due to software programming have occurred. However, I am confident that the board has the situation in hand. Comments were also made by the honourable member about the annual report. The TAB annual report has won awards in past years and this year's report is up to that standard. It is easy to read and informative. Mr R. J. Gibbs: What about the photographs? It is one for the photographs. Mr ALISON: I am very pleased to extend my congratulations to the board for the standard of this year's report. It is easily read and easily understood. If the honourable member for Wolston is having trouble understanding it, perhaps I can help him at a later time. I have no reason to believe that the report is other than a faithful and accurate account of the board's activities. SP betting was another matter commented on by Mr Gibbs. Mr R. J. Gibbs: You personally broke the Maryborough trotting club. Mr ALISON: I repeat, Mr Speaker, that SP betting was another matter commented on by Mr Gibbs. It is public knowledge that the TotaUsator Administration Board, through its chairman, has previously commented on the effects of illegal gambling in Queensland. Again it is alluded to in the chairman's report in this year's annual report. It is noted that Mr CaUinan echoes the comments of Mr Tony Fitzgerald, QC, and states that the board has not formed any concluded view, but agrees that consideration should be given to the comments. I wiU be giving these suggestions attention. It is worthy of note that the policy of the board and the Govemment to locate TAB agencies in unlicensed areas adjacent to hotels in strategic locations, particularly over the past 12 to 18 months, has seen significant tum-over increases. It is strongly suspected that this reflects a dovmtum in illegal SP betting at these locations. Mr Speaker, I conclude by saying that the Fitzgerald report highlights a need for reform. This wdll no doubt mean that legislative amendments wdU be required to more effectively control illegal betting and associated criminal activities in the racing industry.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Report Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (10.29 a.m.): I rise in my capacity as Chairman of the Pariiamentary Committee of Public Accounts. I seek leave to table the unanimous report of the Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts on the annual reporting 1434 17 October 1989 Questions Upon Notice standards of the Queensland Industry Development Corporation and other statutory authorities. I move that the report be printed. Leave granted.

Whereupon the document was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

SIXTH BIENNIAL CONFERENCE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEES

Report Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (10.29 a.m.): I seek leave to table the report of the Sixth Biennial Conference of Public Accounts Committees. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Comments by Minister for Land Management Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (10.30 a.m.), by leave: I rise in my capacity as Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts to refer to comments made by the Honourable Neville Harper, Minister for Land Management, in a radio interview wdth Rod Henshaw on 20 September 1989. My committee has sought advice from legal counsel on the comments, but has decided not to take any action against the Minister. Nevertheless, the committee regards the Minister's reference to it as a kangaroo court as a serious reflection on its integrity. As honourable members are still familiarising themselves wdth the operations of select committees, I wdsh to remind them of the need to respect their obligations to the House when making comments about such committees.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1. Opposition to Take-over of Corporate Sector by Commonwealth of Australia Mr INNES asked the Minister for Justice and Minister for Corrective Services— "With reference to the opposition of many medium and small companies around the Australian States to the takeover of Corporate Affairs by the Com­ monwealth of Australia and to the report that Queensland has abandoned a Court Appeal against the takeover and joined the position taken by the Labor Govem­ ment of Victoria to diverge from the position of New South Wales and some other Labor States— Will he give a full explanation of Queensland's action to this House?" Mr HENDERSON: Queensland has wdthdravm its High Court challenge to the Commonwealth Corporations Act and associated legislation as it has been able to negotiate a favourable agreement with the Commonwealth Govemment. The terms of this agree­ ment wdU benefit all Queensland companies, including the medium and small companies referred to in the question. In particular, the Commonwealth has agreed to limit the scope of its new legislation so that, in effect, it wdll not extend beyond the activities of companies as they are presently regulated. Also the Commonwealth has agreed to the continuity of services to Queensland companies. The Queensland operations of the Australian Securities Com­ mission are to be staffed and organised so as to adequately and effectively service the Queensland community, especially recognising the importance of business development in Queensland. Questions Without Notice 17 October 1989 1435

The Queensland Government carefully considered the position and decided that the terms of its agreement with the Commonwealth Govemment would provide the most benefit for Queensland companies. Accordingly the Govemment entered into the agreement, notwithstanding the political complexion of the Commonwealth and the stance taken by other States, whether having Labor or Liberal Govemments. The final agreement was settled by the Honourable the Premier and Treasurer and Minister for State Development on behalf of Queensland and the Honourable L. Bowen, Deputy Prime Minister and Attomey-General, on behalf of the Commonwealth, and accordingly if the honourable member requires further detaUs of the agreement his question should be directed to the Honourable the Premier.

2. Premier's Record on Crime Clear-up Rate Mr MACKENROTH asked the Premier and Treasurer and Minister for State Development— "With reference to the Police Department Annual Report tabled on 5 October which shows that during his term as Police Minister the clear up rate for selected crime dropped 4 per cent from 40 per cent to 36 per cent and shows an abysmal clear up rate for break and entering of private dwellings of 16 per cent, and as these figures would indicate he was a failure as the Police Minister— What initiatives did he undertake as Minister which afforded Queensland families wdth any further protection than they had prior to him becoming Police Minister?" Mr COOPER: I should point out that the crime clear-up rate of 36 per cent is similar to that in other Australian States, and in fact our new commissioner, Noel Newnham, has acknowledged that it is higher than the Victorian clear-up rate. The member for Chatsworth and the ALP are continually knocking police and now he is implying that they are not trying hard enough. That is mbbish. As to achievements during my brief term as Police Minister, I list the following initiatives— • introduction of random-breath testing (120 836 tested); • rapid growth of Neighbourhood Watch (82 programs; 120 000 people covered); • civilians employed in many centres to release police from office duties; • increased staff and resources for Dmg Squad; • computerised command and control system approved for police operations centre, which wdll result in faster responses and more detailed information avaUable to officers; • domestic violence training program established to allow officers to better handle domestics; • computerisation of fingerprint system, which will lead to detection and appre­ hension of known criminals and suspects; and • initiation of procurement of body armour in the most comprehensive fashion. Perhaps the member for Chatsworth might now like to apologise to the Queensland police force, because these very impressive results wdll certainly continue.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Fitzgerald Commission Report Recommendations; Premier's Comments in Rockhampton Morning Bulletin Mr GOSS: I refer the Premier to his comments in Rockhampton, which were reported in the Morning Bulletin on Friday last week, that the pubUc is sick and tired of the Fitzgerald commission's recommendations and reforms, and I ask: is that the Premier's view and, if so, wdll he elaborate to the House on this view and particularly tell the House the factual basis he has for making that claim? 1436 17 October 1989 Questions Without Notice

Mr COOPER: I must begin by saying that not aU newspapers get it right, and in this instance the newspaper did not get it right. I have never said that people are sick and tired of the Fitzgerald recommendations and revelations. I have said that people are certainly tired of the confusion surrounding the Fitzgerald recommendations, and the disgraceful manner in which the members on the other side of the House have been playing politics and tearing the recommendations and revelations apart. They have been doing as much damage as they possibly can, which is most definitely against the public interest. The Govemment has extended this session of Parliament in order to clear up the Fitzgerald recommendations and put them into properly presented legislation that hopefuUy members of the Opposition wdll support. Adoption of Quality Queensland as Queensland's Economic Development Strategy Mr GOSS: I refer to the Premier's answer to a question from me in this House on 28 September, when he said that his Govemment had also adopted the document Quality Queensland as the Govemment's State economic development strategy. I refer to page 46 of the strategy document, which states that the Premier's Department should be responsible for "the co-ordination, implementation and monitoring of the strategy", and I ask: why, in the first three weeks of his Govemment, has the Premier abolished the State Economic Development Strategy Division of his department, a division which his predecessor established as the central mechanism for implementing Quality Queensland? Mr COOPER: It was never to be on a for-ever basis. The SEDS unit is certainly wdthin the Premier's Department and was established, in the first instance, in order to oversee the implementation of Quality Queensland. Advice from the Premier's Depart­ ment in only the last few days was that the unit would be redeployed, anyway, by about Febmary or March next year. All that has been done by establishing an independent economic advisory unit is to advance that move. So far as we are concemed, we have upgraded and enhanced the economic advice coming to the Premier's office. The advice of that unit wdU still be used, and some of the people in the unit wdll be redeployed to activities that wdU enhance their role. Airline Pilots Dispute Mr STEPHAN: I refer the Premier and Treasurer to the continuing pUots dispute, which is the Federal Govemment's growth industry, and ask: in view of the failure of Mr Hawke to resolve this problem, what progress has been made by the Queensland Govemment in obtaining charter aircraft from overseas to help overcome the problems confronting the Queensland tourist industry? Mr COOPER: The Queensland Govemment has been taking as many measures as possible to alleviate the great difficulties wrought upon the tourist industry by this dispute. I refer not simply to the big operators but also to the little people all the way down the Une and those in the industries servicing them. It is incredible how widely the tourist industry spreads. It was extremely unfortunate that, in the first or second day of this dispute, the Prime Minister painted himself into a comer, thus eUminating any chance of negotiation and settlement at an early stage. It was his action more than anything else that has prolonged the dispute, which is affecting not only the people, who are probably of most importance, but also the economy of this State and nation. I believe that the action taken at that time was absolutely reprehensible. When the Prime Minister was the boss of the ACTU, he used to wait till everybody in a dispute was absolutely exhausted and then move in months later on his white charger and clean up the problem. On this occasion he moved in too early and has caused unbelievable hardship as well as economic disaster in this State and nation. The Queensland Govemment has taken measures in the areas of pay-roU tax, liquor licence fees, QIDC loans and Small Business Development Corporation loans at low Questions Without Notice 17 October 1989 1437 interest and, in order to do something more tangible, has endeavoured for quite some time to charter planes from overseas to transport tourists in areas that have the greatest need. Because there is not as much need for air transport in the south-east comer, the tourist industry there is not affected as badly as the industry in the north, particularly the Whitsunday area, Proserpine and Caims, where occupancy rates are extremely low. I am pleased to be able to say that the Minister for Tourism is presently overseas endeavouring to charter a Boeing 737 and it is hoped that we can be successful in chartering more aircraft.

Chairman, Electoral and Administrative Review Commission Mr STEPHAN: I ask the Premier and Treasurer: has he received any indication from Mr Tom Sherman that he now wdshes to be reconsidered for appointment as chairman of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission? Mr COOPER: I understand that Mr Tom Sherman has reappUed for that position. As honourable members realise, applications were called some time ago for the positions of chairman and part-time members of the EARC. In the intervening period, the Fitzgerald recommendations have been used as a political football, and the air needs clearing. Mr Sherman applied and was not accepted but I now think that, as the EARC legislation has been drafted and has been introduced in this place and as the Criminal Justice BiU has been introduced and that commission has a chairman elect, once I have discussed the matter with the implementation unit, it might be proper to recall applications for chairman and part-time members of the EARC. I wdU definitely take this matter up wdth the implementation unit as soon as possible.

Notices of Intention to Prosecute Current or Former Ministers Mr MACKENROTH: I refer the Premier and Treasurer to the notices of intention to prosecute which have been sent to four current or former Ministers of the National Party Govemment and I ask: did Mr Ian CaUinan, QC, brief Cabinet on how to respond to Dmmmond queries about Ministers' use of their expense accounts, credit cards and cash advances? Who paid Mr CaUinan's fee for this briefing? Is it correct that the four Ministers or former Ministers who were sent notices of intention to prosecute have individually retained legal counsel? If so, are their legal costs being met by the Queensland Govemment or are they being met by the individuals involved? Mr COOPER: The first question was whether Mr Ian CaUinan has briefed Cabinet. The answer is, "No." If the people who have been sent letters requiring some form of explanation have sought legal advice, I say, "Good luck to them." It is their business. The matter of payment of costs has not been considered.

Appointment of Superintendent John Huey to Criminal Investigation Branch Mr MACKENROTH: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to comments attributed to the spokesman for the Minister of PoUce in this moming's Courier-Mail on the appointment of Superintendent John Huey as second-in-charge of the CIB in which the Minister's spokesman said— "The position cannot change in the short term. But after a month or two, if the CIB was not working wdth Huey as second-in-charge, the Police Commissioner, Mr Nevmham, would need to do something to rectify the situation." I ask: is that an accurate reflection of his Govemment's position on how long Super­ intendent Huey wdll remain in the position to which he has been appointed? Does he believe it is proper for his Minister to begin to issue directions on personnel appointments within the force to the interim commissioner designate, Mr Newnham, when appoint­ ments of that nature are properly the prerogative of the interim commissioner himself? 1438 17 October 1989 Questions Without Notice

Mr COOPER: Someone has had some fun writing that question out for the honourable member. It would be interesting to discover who writes and types up the questions for the honourable member. Mr Mackenroth: Answer the question. Mr COOPER: I wdll. There is no way in the worid that the honourable member has the intelUgence to write anything Uke that. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier wdU wdthdraw the comment. Mr COOPER: I withdraw. Superintendent Huey has been appointed according to the strict vetting procedures that have been introduced. There is no reason to change that appointment. All officers who are promoted wdll be subject to the vetting procedures. Those procedures revealed nothing that detracts from Superintendent Huey. The placement of Superintendent Huey in the CIB has led to a certain amount of concem from the Police Minister, because he wants to see that things operate smoothly in the interests of the police force and the public. I understand and share that concem. Nevertheless, the Minister knows as well as I do that, when the new commissioner takes up his role, he will be responsible for appointments to all positions. I understand that Superintendent Huey has been placed on a 12-month probationary period, in which time his performance will be monitored. From the overall point of view, the Govemment, the Police Minister and I want the police force to be mn properly. We will take all measures to ensure that everything is above board and operates as smoothly as it possibly can. We wdll not be sidetracked or distracted by comments made by Opposition members.

Government Spending on Advertising Mr HYND: I ask the Deputy Premier and Minister for Finance: following recent advertisements which were necessary to ensure wide public understanding of legislation covering the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission and the Criminal Justice Commission, what does he think of Labor Party claims that such advertising was unnecessary? How do such claims rank against the performance of Labor Govemments in Australia? Mr GUNN: The Labor Party displays a contemptible attitude—which is not unusual, I might say—on this issue. This House is considering two of the most important pieces of legislation flowing from the Fitzgerald inquiry. However, Labor claims that there is no need to explain that to Queenslanders. The Labor Opposition is trying to mislead the people of Queensland with grossly exaggerated claims of State Govemment spending on advertising. Figures for the period April 1988 to March 1989 show that Queensland spent $11.7m on advertising, compared with Federal Labor Govemment spending of a massive $81m. In the same period, the New South Wales Labor Govemment spent $22m and the Victorian Govemment spent $21m. Even taking into account the huge amount of Govemment advertising carried out in support of World Expo 88, in that period Queensland spent $3.27 per head of population, which was lower than New South Wales, which spent $3.37; Victoria, which spent $3.97; and Westem Australia, which spent $3.63. In the six months to April 1988, the New South Wales Labor Govemment spent more than $ 19m on costly campaigns, which included $1.9m on the Health-line campaign, which was designed to promote the public hospital system. The public hospital system in New South Wales is in such a mess that waiting-time for operations is up to two years. One would have to be in pretty good health to stand that. The New South Wales Labor Govemment spent $755,000 on the Tangara campaign to advertise the new Notice of Question 17 October 1989 1439 suburban train Unk. AU honourable members know that transport in that State has broken down. It spent $925,000 on the Neighbourhood Watch campaign in an endeavour to cloud the massive police problems in New South Wales. It spent $658,000 on a campaign to encourage home-buyers. The problem was that no-one could afford a house in New South Wales. A survey conducted by the trade magazine Ad News showed that, as a result of the Unsworth Labor Govemment's advertising budget blow-out. New South Wales jumped from being the 64th largest advertiser in Australia in 1987 to the 29th spot in 1988. Labor Party Govemments elsewhere have tumed Govemment advertising into virtually an art form. Criticism of Queensland Govemment advertising by the Opposition ignores the facts.

Freeholding Special Leases on Cape York Mr INNES: I ask the Minister for Land Management: will he undertake not to allow the grant of any new freeholding special leases on Cape York before the State election this year? Mr HARPER: I give an undertaking that as Minister for Land Management I wdll fulfil my commitments in the customary manner—wdth integrity and responsibility. An Opposition member: Another kangaroo court. Mr HARPER: I did not catch who said that, but the honourable member should be careful. Perhaps you heard it, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr HARPER: I assure the honourable member for Sherwood that any applications that are being dealt with wdU be most closely monitored.

Awarding of Contract for BaUistic Vests for PoUce Mr INNES: I direct a question to whoever is handling the PoUce portfolio today. I refer to the announcement of the awarding of the contract for police ballistic vests to an Israeli company and to tests conducted on vests manufactured on the Gold Coast, the resuhs of which were attached to the tender documents lodged by that company and showed that these locally produced vests met all the stringent intemational standards required under the tender. I refer to the physical tests of this armour, witnessed by the member for Stafford and the member for Southport, and I ask: in the light of this evidence, wdll the Minister explain and justify his statement that the Queensland vests are ballistically inferior? Will he also explain why this contract is reportedly to be placed with an overseas company which lodged a non-conforming tender? Mr HARPER: On behalf of the Honourable the Minister for PoUce, who is absent today but will be back in the House tomorrow, I ask that the question be placed on notice. Mr INNES: I place it on notice.

NOTICE OF QUESTION Mr MENZEL having given notice of a question— Mr MENZEL: I table the newspaper report to which I have referred. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. 1440 17 October 1989 Questions without Notice

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Federal Government Decision on Stage 3 of Kakadu National Park Mr MENZEL: In directing a question to the Minister for Mines and Energy and Minister for Northem and Regional Development, I refer to criticisms of the Hawke Govemment and a decision by a member of that Govemment, Mr Kerin, regarding Stage 3 of Kakadu national park, and I ask: what impUcations are there for Queensland in the admission by Mr Kerin that the Hawke Govemment made a decision based on "environmental hype", which is wiping out opportunities for Australians on the basis of perceptions? In addition, in what ways do the policies of the National Party Govem­ ment and those of the Labor Party in this place reflect environmental hype? Mr KATTER: This has got nothing to do wdth Queensland. It may not have come to the attention of members of the Opposition in this place that, as a result of the actions of the Federal Govemment, something like $ 1,000m per year worth of mining projects in this State are being delayed or are not going ahead. I wdll quote one of the heroes of members of the Opposition, Mr Kerin. A newspaper article states— "He also said he had yet to see the federal environment department's review of the BHP Environmental Impact Statement ..." This is the Federal Minister for Resources! The decision was made wdthout his even having seen the environmental impact statement. That is an absolutely incredible course of events. The article goes on— "for Coronation HiU"— and the important point is that this is not a member of this Govemment; it is Mr Kerin, a Federal Cabinet Minister— "... which endorsed the environmental integrity of the mine." So we have a Federal Minister saying that it should go ahead and a report by the Federal Environment Department saying that it should go ahead, but Mr Richardson— the nation's greatest wrecker in history after Mr Whitiam—says that it cannot go ahead, so it does not and $500m worth of export eamings is thrown in the garbage-can. A Government member interjected. Mr KATTER: I do not know all of the things that have been knocked back in the Northem Territory. However, I know that mining at the Ranger uranium mine in the Northem Territory—one of the biggest uranium deposits anywhere in the world—was also rejected. So $850m a year in export eamings for this country was lost on account of the actions of Mr Richardson. The stage has now been reached at which it does not matter if the environmental impact statement says that this mining should go ahead; it does not matter if the Federal Department of the Environment says it should go ahead; it does not matter if the Minister himself does not even see any of the reports. Still it will be stopped because Mr Richardson and a handful of kaftan-wearing greenies who mn around after him say that it should not go ahead. The disgrace of this is that last month this nation saw $2,500m more go out of the country than came into the country. The economists tell us that as a consequence interest rates wdll rise by another 2 per cent or 3 per cent. People throughout Australia are being thrown out of their homes. Small businesses are going to the wall. This year there have been twice as many bankmptcies as there were four years ago. AU of that suffering and misery has been heaped upon the Australian people because this fellow wants to wdn a few votes at the next election. Mr Speaker, you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but Mr Richardson will mn straight into a brick wall very shortly because you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Nfatters of Publiclnterest 17 October 1989 1441

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Performance of Queensland Government Mr GOSS (Logan—Leader of the Opposition) (11 a.m.): The fiiture of this State hangs in the balance. Today I propose to sum up the past and also point to the future under the next Labor Govemment. Mr Speaker, in what is to be the last week of this ParUament I am reminded that you and I and many others were first elected to this place six years ago this month. I am reminded of—and I want to quote from—my first speech in this place, which I think summed up the legacy at that time of 26 years of National/Liberal Govemment and still today accurately sums up the legacy of 32 years of conservative Govemment. I said— "Queensland is a State of great wealth, rich in both natural resources and talent, yet impoverished in its system of govemment and the way in which it provides for its people. With each passing year, powerful interests accme more power, and patronage and favouritism increase—at the expense of the Uving standards and freedoms of average Queenslanders." Six years ago that was the legacy of 26 years of National/Liberal Govemment. Today it is the legacy of 32 years of National/Liberal Govemment, including, most recently, the Cooper Govemment. It is a legacy of shame—a legacy highlighted by unparalleled cormption and cronyism, as revealed by Mr Fitzgerald, by electoral cormption, by the worst-funded education system in the country, which is doing tremendous damage to the future economic wealth of this State and to the future of our children, and by non-existent environmental policies that put our children's future and our heritage at risk. That is the legacy of 32 years of National Party/Liberal Party Govemment in this State. We have not seen govemment of the people, for the people, by the people; we have seen govemment for the benefit of Sir Robert Sparkes, Sir Edward Lyons, Sir William AUen, Sir Charles Holm and "Sir" Fred Maybury, who is six weeks too late. They are the persons who have derived the benefits from the administration of this State. In six weeks' time, the wheel of history will tum a full circle as Queenslanders see and realise, as the polls are reflecting, that they have the capacity to change this State for the better and to change the future direction of this State and the future of their families and children. Six years ago, in my maiden speech in this Chamber, I referred to the difference between the public relations and the performance of the National Party and the Liberal Party. I quoted the following from T. S. Eliot's The Hollow Men— "Between the idea And the reality Between the motion And the act Falls the shadow." In Queensland, the shadow is wdde and dark and full of guilty secrets. The people of this State can see the wide and dark shadow full of guilty secrets that has been hidden behind the closed doors of Executive Govemment and behind the doors of the bunker in which the deals are done and the strings are pulled. The shadow is wide and dark, but in six weeks' time the people of this State wdll step out of the shadow and into the light. They wdll step out of the past and into the future. The National Party/Liberal Party legacy is a betrayal of tmst. To be a member of the Govemment—more particularly, to be a Minister of the Crown—is to hold a position of tmst. That tmst has been betrayed. The personal standards of Ministers and their 1442 17 October 1989 Matters of PubUc Interest use of public fiinds are a betrayal of tmst. The standards of our public institutions are a disgrace. When again are we going to have major public institutions in this State, such as our ParUament, our Executive Govemment, our judiciary, our public service and our police force, that the ordinary member of the community respects and m which he has confidence? Those major public institutions have broken down under the cormpt administration of 32 years of conservative Govemment. It took Fitzgerald to clear away the blockage and to reveal the betrayal of tmst by the Nationals and the Liberals. Given the statement last week by the Leader of the Liberal Party, the choice for Queenslanders is now clear. The Liberals have finaUy come clean and admitted that they cannot be in Govemment except in coalition; they cannot be in Govemment unless they do a deal wdth the Nationals. In other words, Mr Innes is going to do a deal with Sir Robert Sparkes. The Opposition asks, "What sort of a deal? WiU it be m the interests of the people of this State?" The choice is clear. The choice is between a Labor Govemment and a hung ParUament; between a Labor Govemment and a constitutional crisis; between a Goss Govemment and another election wdthin three to six months. Mr Innes has admitted the Liberals' position. This so-called master-stroke strategy that we saw just one week ago has already fallen apart. Because they have no shame, we should look at Mr Innes and the Liberals. Let us look at the precise words of Mr Innes. Of the Nationals, he said, "The Liberals wdll not be dragged down by the Nationals' dirty underwear." What did Mr Cooper say in response? He said, "This threat would be on the Liberals' head." I shudder at the thought. We have heard these bleatings before from the refugees from the cocktail circuit. Imagine the refugees from the cocktail circuit last week at Liberal Party headquarters, sitting around in the Jacuzzi, sipping their Campari and soda and asking themselves, "How can we make respectable this coalition notion?" As they sipped their Campari and soda, they asked, "How can we get over this problem?" They came up with this senior-partner strategy, which has already fallen apart. Of course, what they do not tell the public and what they do not even admit to themselves is that, after the strategy is out of the way, there wdU be a knock at the door. As they sip their Campari and soda in the Jacuzzi, who will come in—Sir Robert Sparkes. He will wander up to them and say, "Move over, boys." As the Liberals crowd into one comer, what they will not realise and what they wdll not admit is that they wiU straight away be back in the black lagoon of the coalition where they were for 26 years. It wdll be another dishonourable coalition. A Labor Govemment offers the people of this State progressive reform. It offers the people of this State a Govemment based on economic growth. It wdll provide to ordinary working people and ordinary families of this State the most fundamental form of welfare, that is, the ability of ordinary working people to support themselves and their own famUies through jobs, and better paid jobs. My Govemment will recognise the primary role of the private sector in generating investment in employment. It wdll raise Queensland's education system to the national standard and implement the comprehensive set of environmental policies that have been pubUshed and are ready to go, which wdll protect the future heritage of this State. Lastly and most importantly, it wiU clean up the mess of cormption and cronyism—this Govemment's legacy. The Nationals and Liberals may think that the spirit of Queenslanders is blind, dead and cold. It is not. They may think that Queenslanders are so blind to the legacy of shame that they will ignore it. They are wrong. The Nationals and Liberals may think that Queenslanders are so dead in their imagination that they wdll not speak up for reform. They are wrong. The Nationals and Liberals may think that ordinary Queenslanders are so cold in their hearts that they lack the courage to stand up for change. They are wrong. Queenslanders are hot for change, they are live for reform and they can see the legacy of the past. In several weeks' time Queensland will change, and it wdll change for the better. Matters of Publiclnterest 17 October 1989 1443

Primary Production Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (11.09 a.m.): The Leader of the Opposition delivered the same speech as the former Leader of the Opposition delivered three years ago when he said that Labor would wdn 48 seats in Queensland. At that time the members of the Labor Party said that they would go out into country areas and gather in all of their votes. The Leader of the Opposition did not go past the last street light on the outskirts of Brisbane, but he believes that the people of Queensland wdll vote in the same way as his constituents do. At the next election, the Leader of the Opposition wdU face the reality that the people of Queensland will not wear what Mr Hawke has been handing out to the rest of Australia. They wdll not wear increased taxation. Do Opposition members remember Mr Hawke's comment that the Labor Party had ploughed the fields and that it was going to gather in the results? Mr Yewdale interjected. Mr STEPHAN: Opposition members are trying to distance themselves from Mr Hawke. The Leader of the Opposition said to Mr Hawke, "Don't come to Queensland. Keep away from Queensland. Don't come near us. The rest of Australia knows only too well what your policies are. They might conflict wdth what we are saying. They might conflict wdth our rhetoric." That rhetoric wdll catch out the Labor Party, which has only just discovered the environment and that there are trees growing out there. For a long time the National Party has been well aware of the environment, and its supporters have made their living from working wdth it. I tum now to primary production in Queensland. Mr Yewdale made a comment about this earlier, but it is strange that the Labor Party is disowning people such as Mr Davis, Mr Yewdale and Mr Shaw. I wonder why that has happened. The Labor Party is not saying too much about that. It has built up its middle guard and its mudguard and has tried to keep them under control, but they are starting to rattle. Rural production wdll continue to mean a great deal to Queensland. For example, during the 1987-88 financial year Queensland produced crops worth $ 1,824m. The value of livestock disposals was $ 1,405m and livestock productions amounted to $705m. In that year the total value of agricultural commodities produced in Queensland was $3,935m. Opposition members cannot ignore that. Because of the dedication of country people and what they have to offer, the value of our agricultural commodities is increasing. Mr Davis: The Federal Labor Govemment. Mr STEPHAN: That is occurring despite Federal taxation, which I wdU mention later. When they use poisons and chemicals to maintain crop production, primary producers are well aware of the environment. It is an emotional issue. People do not like to think that there are chemicals on every apple and tomato that they consume. In fact, because the residue of many chemicals disappears after a couple of days, it is mbbish for people to think that. At present the COD is undertaking a number of positive strategies in response to consumer criticism of the presence of chemicals on fhiit and vegetables. The strategies include funding research wdth the overall aim of reducing pesticide usage; urging Govemment to increase residue testing; increasing resources to the National Health and Medical Research Council; undertaking more research into the development of chemical altematives; and educating the community about the safeguards that exist for chemical use. Grower awareness and education schemes are very important. Mr Davis: I am eating organic food. Mr STEPHAN: I hope that the honourable member eats organic food. However, if he expects to feed the rest of AustraUa on food that is organically produced without 1444 17 October 1989 Matters of Public Interest chemicals, I am afraid that he is in for a very lean time. The gmbs, moths and worms do not understand that language. The honourable member wdll discover that vyhat he wants to do and what he is able to do are two entirely different things. I wdsh him well in his endeavours. However, it should be home in mind that not every primary producer wdU have behind him a superannuation scheme, similar to the one that the honourable member has, to fall back on. The honourable member wdll become a hobby farmer and I think that wdll give him a great deal of pleasure and enjoyment. The National Party wdshes to ensure that the economically viable family farm remains a vital part of Australia's mral production. That concept cannot be ignored, and it is one that the National Party does not wdsh to ignore. Within the Umits of supply and demand, primary producers should receive a retum on their capital, labour and management which is equitable and consistent wdth the retums received by other sections of commerce and industry. Mr Vaughan: What about the Cattiemen's Union? Mr STEPHAN: What about the Cattiemen's Union? What about any of the primary producer organisations? They are an integral part of primary production and they have their say. However, the fact remains that primary producers must be able to make a viable contribution and they must be able to make a living out of what they are doing. That is something that the Opposition does not want them to do. The hours that they work, the experience that they have gained and the capital that they have outlayed should all be taken into account. They play a very, very important part in this State, and that should be recognised. Marketing is also very important. The producer must have the right to legally market, sell or deUver his produce wdthout obstmction from individuals or various groups. The National Party believes that producer-controlled co-operatives should be economically and administratively efficient. I also want to spend some time speaking about taxation. The National Party supports a tax stmcture that offers greater equity for all tax-payers and one which wdll lead to increased national savings and the elimination of taxes on productive investment, thus creating greater incentive throughout the economy. The Opposition does not want to create incentives wdthin the economy. Instead, it wants to continue increasing excise and taxes on producers and to make it very, very difficult indeed for them. Let us look at what the Opposition's friends in Canberra have offered. They could be referred to as Labor's incentives. On 23 June 1987, Mr Hawke referred to what a Labor Govemment offered for the following three years. He said that there would be genuine reductions in taxation, lower inflation, lower interest rates, higher pensions and more jobs. He used the same sort of rhetoric as we heard from Mr Goss today. But those things that Mr Hawke promised have not come to pass. The fact is that reductions in taxation have not compensated for increases in indirect taxes, bracket creep, high inflation and high interest rates. The Federal Govemment has not been able to keep up wdth its rhetoric, in the same way as it has not been able to deliver. Mr Hawke said, "We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the very near future we wdll harvest the crop." What was his crop? A crop of increased interest rates. They have risen from 15 per cent to 17 per cent to 19 per cent to 23 per cent. That is the crop that is being harvested now. That is what has become of the promises that were made by the friends of Opposition members. Mr Hawke also said, "We look to 1987 wdth a cautious optimism about the economy, including a faU in interest rates in 1987." In 1988 he said much the same thing. He said that interest rates would not rise; that they would fall. Before the Westem Australian State election he said that interest rates would not increase. However, after the election he forgot that when he said, "We can't really see that we can take interest rates down." 1 notice that Mr Casey is walking out of the Chamber. It is an indication of the interest that Mr Casey displays in mral production and the mral areas of Australia. Matters of Publiclnterest 17 October 1989 1445

Tax on mUk and fhiit juices has also been increased. Time expired. Opposition by National Party to Introduction of Poker Machines Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (11.19 a.m.): Today in this Matters of Public Interest debate—the last before the coming election—I want to discuss one of the lowest, sleaziest and most dangerous decisions the National Party is about to make. Most people are well aware of the constant opposition to poker machines by the National Party Govemment. For years the Nationals, supported by the Liberals, stood in the way of the introduction of poker machines and the benefits they would bring to our State's club industry and, in particular, to many country and provincial centres. In recent weeks we have seen the Liberals trying to jump on the bandwagon by supporting poker machines for Queensland. I have here a letter, circulated by Terry White, the Liberal spokesman for business and economic development, which states— "I would like to take this opportunity to advise you on behalf of the Liberal Party that we wdll urgently approve in govemment the operation of a system of mechanical or electronic games for prize money in licensed clubs and hotels. The precise system wdU be determined after the proposals have been evaluated from the point of view of both equipment and of govemment control systems. The evaluation wdll be completed within six months and a system wdll be adopted." What an absolute insult to people's intelligence that a letter such as that could be written by a member of a minority party which, firstly, pretends that it has any chance of being in Govemment and, secondly, has done absolutely no work and has no idea of what it is talking about, as I wdll prove in a few moments. That policy is like many other reforms that the Liberals are now promising. The Queensland community is quite rightly cynical about their motives and their capacity to deliver in any National Party-dominated coalition. Why did not the Liberals ever support poker machines when they were in Govemment for 26 years wdth the Nationals? Yesterday State Cabinet made a non-decision on the introduction of video gaming machines into hotels and clubs. Let us be clear about one thing: video machines are poker machines by another name. There is no difference. A person puts money in, pushes buttons and takes his chances. In other words, the Nationals are about to do a massive U-tum and aUow video poker machines into clubs and hotels. The Cooper Cabinet supposedly wants to postpone any decision for three weeks to allow the National Party central council to discuss the issue. But that is not the real story. The real story is a twisted and sickening tale of National Party opportunism, greed and a total disregard for good govemment or proper standards. Last week in Bundaberg, Premier Cooper mled out totally the introduction of poker machines in Queensland. I have a clipping from the Bundaberg News-Mail of last Wednesday, 11 October, which states— "The possibility of introducing poker machines to clubs which are stmggling financially, was mled out by Premier Mr Russell Cooper yesterday. During his visit ... he said Queensland would definitely not consider the altemative of poker machines to bolster club takings." Last week Mr Cooper was opposed absolutely to poker machines, just as his predecessors had been. But in the last few days things have changed. In a breath-taking attempt at clawing their way out of their political grave, the Nationals are about to do yet another backflip. Yesterday's Cabinet decision sets the scene for the approval of video poker machines—before the State election. This is not only a massive exercise in political opportunism but also one of the most dangerous, panicky decisions any Govemment could make. By mshing into such 1446 17 October 1989 Matters of PubUc Interest a decision, in its attempts to shore up votes in areas such as the Gold Coast, the National Party is again opening wdde the door to its favourite pastime, cormption. If this plan goes ahead, approval for video poker machines wdll be given before the end of the year; but, more importantly, the machines will be introduced wdthout any effective legislation, without any controls and wdthout any security checks. In other words, the National Party plans to let crooks and spivs in on the ground floor of the State's poker-machine industry. It plans to allow cormpt elements into this new industry from day one, just to buy votes. The National's plan is to allow poker machines into clubs and hotels wdthout the benefit of special controUing legislation and wdthout proper security checks. The National Party is planning to let them in even wdthout assessing the manufacturers' ability to supply machines or the suitabUity and background of manufacturers. And who is responsible for this decision? None other than the Justice Minister, Ian Henderson- better knovm as "Judge Roy Bean", the hanging judge. What a sell-out for a person claiming to be a guardian of community standards! It just goes to prove the depths of the panic that has set in within the National Party Govemment as it stares defeat and the certainty of a Labor Govemment in the face. It was Mr Henderson who took the submission to Cabinet yesterday supporting video poker machines. He tried to argue that the machines were different from poker machines because they required a degree of skill to play. What a joke! Mr Davis: The only poker machines are the ones at Jupiters. Mr R. J. GIBBS: Exactly. What a joke! As I said before, these machines are poker machines. It is Mr Henderson— Queensland's answer to the Reverend Fred Nile—who wants to open the floodgates to criminals and cormption wdth this ill-planned response to the National Party's self- created political dilemma. It was Mr Henderson's Cabinet submission that the machines should be allowed into clubs and hotels without special legislation and wdthout proper security checks. Mr Henderson wants them controUed by regulation. That means virtually no control—no control over the manufacturers of the machines; no control over clubs buying and instaUing the machines; and no control over the servicing and monitoring of the machines. Each of those areas offers room for cormption and criminal activity in the form of slings, pay-backs and rorts; yet Mr Henderson says it is okay by him, as long as there are votes in it. The club industry in this State has been losing at least $500m each year to the New South Wales clubs that have poker machines. That has been happening for years, yet only now—in an election year—do the Nationals wake up and decide to do something about it. What is their motive? Is it to help the club industry? Of course not. Their motive is to save their own political hide at the election. Today I strongly reaffirm the Labor Party's long-standing commitment to the introduction of poker machines in Queensland under the strictest security controls. Labor's plans call for tough controlling legislation to stamp out the possibility of rorts and cormption in the industry by having a central, high security, computer-monitoring system for all machines. That system alone will take three to five months to install, yet the National Party wants to introduce the machines before the election. The Labor Party will institute a system whereby the Govemment is responsible for acquiring poker machines from reputable manufacturers. The machines wdU then be sold on to clubs and hotels that meet strict standards in terms of their management training, the background of their management personnel and the standard of facUities offered to members and the public. Unlike the Nationals, Labor wdU not allow cormpt elements to infiltrate this new industry. Matters of Public Interest 17 October 1989 1447

During the last month, I have had personal discussions not only with a number of manufacturers of poker machines but also wdth my parliamentary committee Mr Harper: Who wdth? Is Mr Lamont one? Mr R. J. GIBBS: No. My parliamentary committee has had a thorough briefing on the security system that is now in operation in Nevada, which has been trialled successfully in two clubs in New South Wales. The monitoring device is controlled by computers wdth back-up systems and is able to keep an accurate record and check of every coin that goes into a machine. Every time a machine opened, it would be read at the security's central control point in Brisbane. The system has the capacity to deal wdth 135 000 machines and is able to read what is happening to each machine in a period of no longer than seven seconds. At club level it is impossible to tamper wdth the machines. If any such attempt is made, the device wdll immediately close the machines dovm and lock them from the inside. Unlike the National Party and the Liberal Party, the Labor Party has examined this proposal in minute detail. The only way that the club industry can save itself in this State is by making a firm commitment and by voting for Labor later this year at the State election. Allegation against Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen by Member for Sandgate Mr PERRETT (Barambah) (11.29 a.m.): The member for Wolston spoke about sleazy actions, but I wdll relate to the House the daddy of them all. It is my melancholy duty to draw to the attention of the House the untmths uttered by the member for Sandgate, Mr Warburton, shortly after 12.20 a.m. on Friday, 6 October. The honourable member aUeged incorrectly that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen would be charged by the Special Prosecutor. He and other Opposition members were so carried away wdth false allegations that they held up Courier-Mail newspapers as proof of their notorious allegations, thus compounding their collective complicity in the allegation. It tumed out to be a bad day for Mr Warburton, because the very next edition of the Courier-Mail carried a retraction of its banner headline story to which Mr Warburton had tied his now tattered reputation and attempted to float in this House under privilege. The retraction stated that Sir Joh was not set to be charged and that no final determination had been made about him. It declared that Sir Joh had heard nothing from Special Prosecutor Dmmmond about the alleged charges, that it was untme to suggest that Special Prosecutor Dmmmond had written to Sir Joh about any alleged charge and that the first Courier-Mail article was not accurate. Therefore, by deduction, the claims by the honourable member for Sandgate were also untme. The Courier-Mail, and especiaUy its employee Mr Phil Dickie, have mud aU over their collective faces. This particularly applies to Mr Dickie because he was the first to state the untmth and published it as an exclusive. The only source which could confirm or deny the Dickie allegation quickly identified it as a falsehood. No doubt Mr Dickie, to retain his honour, will now retum his Walkley Award as compensation for his bungle and Mr Warburton wiU prostrate himself before the Privileges Committee seeking forgiveness for his part in this nefarious journalistic con. Two joumalists featured in the promotion of the offending allegation about Sir Joh, Neil Doorley of the Brisbane Sun, and Phil Dickie of the Courier-Mail. Doorley led with the allegations that politicians would be charged, and Dickie refined the news with the allegation that Sir Joh would be charged. Those joumalists represent competing publishers; hence the source of the allegations must have the ability to manage news spread. Both joumalists were privy to the news source, especially Dickie, who announced his allegation as an exclusive. At first sight the Dickie allegation is false, and therefore Pariiament has the right to call him before the bar of the House to be examined on the publication of an infamous allegation which the pertinent source has since denied as a falsehood. 1448 17 October 1989 Matters of PubUc Interest

PhU Dickie is tiie master key to the "Joh to be charged" allegation in the Courier- Mail. He has reported widely on Queensland cormption aUegations, and his reporting agenda would now appear to be founded on the false "Joh to be charged" allegation To Dickie the "Joh to be charged" allegation is simply the latest in a long line of cormption articles which beg an answer and imply by their thmst that somehow Sir Job was cormpt. Mr Dickie is also the author of The Road to Fitzgerald and Beyond. His general joumalistic duties and his publication workload would have brought him into contact wdth most of the key figures involved in the cormption inquiry and, because of that contact, he would have developed an easy entry to those who may now be leaking material to him about the inner and confidential operations of the Special Prosecutor. Dickie's writings reek of the assumption of cormption and, therefore, he would believe the allegation that Sir Joh would be charged. This beUef might have clouded his journalistic values, prompting him to leave in the article what normally he would have left out. Mr Dickie is one of the few who have vigorously promoted the bluff about the so-called separation of powers, a theme which Mr Warburton's party would delight to see estabUshed in Australia in response to its republican and presidential centralist ambitions. Dickie was prepared to mn wdth this Labor Party hoax. He not only displayed his guUibility, but also set a precedent by pushing a Labor Party hoax. I now challenge Mr Warburton to deny that he was the prime source of Mr Dickie's false allegations and that he and the Labor Party were briefed prior to the publication of the story on page 1 of the Courier-Mail. This would explain why members opposite had the offending edition in their hands so quickly and in such quantities. Mr Gately: Mr Warburton came through the annexe with a bundle under his arm. Mr PERRETT: Yes, and that certainly proves that all the Opposition members knew about it. Mr Dickie might well cast some light on the strange antics of Mr Warburton, who should immediately be made accountable to this House and the Privileges Committee of this House. Warburton repeated the allegation under privUege in the House. The time of his delivery and the publishing times of the newspaper in question would have given him sufficient time to obtain this information from the Courier-Mail and repeat it in the House. Opposition members had a liberal supply of copies of the Courier-Mail to display in the House as proof to back up Warburton's allegation. It is fair to assume that Labor members knew of the story before it went to press and were prepared to obtain newspapers for exploitation in the House. However, on the evidence available, the allegation is patently false and the member must be held accountable to the House for his unfortunate selection of words. At this point it is purely hypothetical to suggest that one fed the other; that Warburton fed the media, and then used the House to cover that information splash with credibility; and that the media men in question fed Warburton, and Warburton used the House to cover their actions and exploit an obvious advantage to his side of politics. The problem for both is that the only credible source available to them has now denied the allegation and both are hung up on their own misadventures. I have heard nothing from Mr Warburton's side of the House to explain away his uttering of an untmth in this place; an untmth so infamous that it casts aspersions on the good name of public servants, and puts under a dark cloud the honesty, loyalty, propriety and good name of public servants who, in this instance, have been given a higher service and who, by this service, have a higher degree of ethics to perform credibly. The Labor Party is playing politics wdth justice. Mr Warburton has shown the Labor Party's tme colours. He is seeking trial by innuendo, mmour and the media. Elements in the media are playing right along wdth him, but this time they have been too smart for themselves and have been caught out by the very people they hoped would sustain their allegations. Their hatred of Sir Joh has been so great that it has clouded their reason and they have been caught out tmly and simply. Matters of Public Interest 17 October 1989 1449

Now it is time for them to come clean. Were they set up wdth nefarious information? Did they pay for it? If they did, they did not get much of a bargain. Or was it aU a deliberate fabrication to orchestrate their malice in a gullible media? Or did Dickie set up the Opposition in the hope that he might cover his ovm tracks of disinformation? If he did, he also set up his own publishers wdth an exclusive that has tumed into a ticking time bomb for them. Or was Dickie himself set up? What aU of this has shown is that members on the opposite side of the House wdU stoop to using all forms of sleazy tricks, lies and innuendoes to further their own cause. I now chaUenge Mr Warburton to come clean and attempt to mb off some of the mud that has been thrown back onto his face as a direct result of his "Joh wdll be charged" bungle. Crisis in Non-Government School Sector Mr BRADDY (Rockhampton) (11.39 a.m.): A crisis is looming in the Queensland non-Govemment school sector arising from the Queensland Government's irresponsible behaviour. In the State Budget, the National Party Govemment, wdthout prior consultation wdth the teachers unions or the non-Govemment school authorities, announced details of salary increases for Government teachers. This grossly irresponsible behaviour was motivated by political grandstanding in an attempt to buy teacher votes at the forthcoming election. The Queensland Labor Party has long supported the need for a substantial increase in teacher salaries, associated wdth some career restmcturing in both Govemment and non-Govemment schools. With low teacher morale in this State, improvement in these areas is vital. The Queensland Govemment was first and foremost responsible for the low morale. In concert wdth the Liberal Party, throughout its long term of office the National Party had substantially neglected education. Faced wdth electoral defeat, the National Party has panicked and put out glossy propaganda in the most unprepared and non-consultative manner possible. This glossy propaganda was a substitute for proper policies and proper consultation. The non- Govemment schools and parents now have been left to pick up the new pay increases wdthout having had any sensible opportunity to sit down and discuss salary and award changes. The Commonwealth and Queensland Govemments substantially subsidise the non- Govemment schoolteacher salaries. These schools, particularly CathoUc schools which make up about 75 per cent of the non-Govemment school sector, may be forced to increase school fees by up to 40 per cent to match teacher salaries now being negotiated in State schools. The negotiations in the State schools are now taking place, foUowing the release with the Budget papers of the glossy pamphlets supposedly setting out what the new pay stmctures would be. Without supplementation from Federal and State Governments, many Catholic famUies in particular would be looking at school fee increases of more than $300 per year for one child. At the same time the Queensland Govemment, to which in these circumstances the Catholic and independent schools are entitled to look for salary support, has refused to supplement the salary increases. I table a copy of a letter to the staff and parents of Brisbane Catholic schools, written by Mr Vince O'Rourke, director of the Catholic Education Office in Brisbane. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr BRADDY: That letter clearly and systematically sets out the difficulties arising from this Government's action, and sheets home the Queensland Government's irresponsibiUty. A Goss Labor Government wiU act immediately to remedy this shabby treatment of Catholic and other non-Govemment schools by this Govemment. Mr Goss, as Leader of the Opposition, and I, as shadow Minister for Education, have already had discussions 1450 17 October 1989 Matters of Public Interest wdth CathoUc school authorities and wdth Mr Dawkins, the Federal Minister for Education, to find a way out of the morass created by the National Party Govemment. These discussions wdll today be expanded to include representatives of the independent school sector. Mr Harper: Don't you support increases in wages for State schoolteachers? Mr BRADDY: If the Minister were Ustening, he would know that I have afready said that I do. Mr Goss and I wdll continue to teU the Commonwealth Govemment and Mr Dawkins that the Catholic and other non-Govemment schools should not have to bear the burden created by the capricious and irresponsible actions of the National Party Govemment, because any non-Govemment school fee increases wdll result from the National Party's faUure to go about the business of teacher award improvements in a rational and consultative manner. This failed and falling Govemment has, in its inept handling of this matter, again demonstrated that it is incapable of implementing much- needed reforms in education. A party so fragmented by division and hatred, and so tom by continual Cabinet changes, is unable to put together a stable and fair education reform program. By contrast, the incoming Goss Labor Govemment will not aUow the present chaos to continue. Immediately on election, a Goss Labor Govemment wdll— 1. Secure a commitment from the Commonwealth Govemment to the principle of that Govemment's supplementing salary increases to non-Govemment schools which are within the 6 per cent scale and in accordance wdth the national wage guide-Unes. 2. Request the Commonwealth Govemment to supplement Queensland non- Govemment teacher salaries which are greater than those set out wdthin the basic national wage guide-lines. This supplementation should be considered in Queensland, which has had teacher salary levels lower than those in other States. This supplementation would be in the context of discussions about increased efficiency in the non-Govemment schools and teacher service. 3. Convene an urgent conference between the Federal Government, the Queensland Govemment and the non-Govemment schools sector to sit down and sort out the problem by arriving at a decision as to what supplementation should be paid to the non-Govemment schools by the two Govemments. The Queensland Labor Party has a good relationship wdth Mr Dawkins, the Federal Education Minister. It does not engage in the mindless Canberra-bashing which has been a signpost of the Queensland National Party Govemment for so many years. With that good relationship and a determination to provide good educational programs and schools in Queensland, I am confident that a satisfactory solution to the teacher salary increases for non-Govemment schools wdU be found. I assure those Catholic parents and school authorities who are worried by the information set out in Mr O'Rourke's letter and by the National Party Govemment's behaviour that a Queensland Labor Govemment wdU not let them dovm. Within the framework outlined in this speech, a Goss Labor Govemment wdU ensure that there are no crippUng fee increases in Catholic and other non-Govemment schools arising from the irresponsibiUty of the Ahem/Cooper administrations. In Opposition, we have estabUshed good relations wdth the non-Govemment schools. In Govemment, our good relationship wdth the Federal Govemment and the non- Govemment schools wdll enable us to provide a sensible and rational outcome to the problem of providing much-needed teacher salary increases without crippling school fee increases. Matters of Public Interest 17 October 1989 1451

Liberal Party Candidate for Curmmbin; Attack on Labor Party Mr GATELY (Curmmbin) (11.47 a.m.): I raise the serious matter of the differing views of the Liberal Leader and of Trevor Coomber, the Liberal candidate for Curmmbin, who stated in the Daily News Gold Coaster on Thursday, 12 October— "We want to get on wdth introducing one vote one value." On the other hand, his Liberal Leader, Angus Innes, when interviewed on the Rod Henshaw program the day previously, said— "You won't find me saying one vote, one value." The Liberal candidate for Curmmbin, Mr Coomber, has been effectively repudiated by his Liberal Leader on that issue. If Coomber and Innes differ so widely on such a fundamental issue, how can the electorate of Curmmbin be expected to tmst Coomber on Liberal Party policy on other important issues? Not only is Mr Coomber out of touch wdth the needs of the electorate; he is clearly out of touch wdth the policies of his newly adopted party. Mr Coomber's credibility and tmst must be severely questioned, wdth his chequered foray into the political arena as a failed National Party preselection candidate in 1986, then as an Independent candidate and now as a bom-again Liberal. I am sure that the people of Curmmbin do not know whether to laugh or cry, particularly when the same party has stated in this House that the Wolffdene dam should not be buUt and is prepared to sell its soul for political gain. The front page of the same Daily News Gold Coaster of 12 October had a photograph of Mr Coomber dancing between sewage-effluent-treated water being sprayed onto the Mallawa complex and a caption about water restrictions. The question that needs to be answered by Mr Coomber is: if Gold Coast City and the Albert Shire have sufficient water as a result of the latest increase in the size of the Hinze Dam, why are there water restrictions? Why do not Mr Coomber and his party have the intestinal fortitude to make decisions that will provide sufficient water in the long term for the expected growth rates of Brisbane and the Gold Coast? They should show some credibUity. Honourable members should examine where the new-found Liberal candidates are coming from. They should take note of how many of them are representatives on local authorities. Honourable members should also take note of the rhetoric that Liberal Party members have used in this House in holding themselves out as the paragons of honesty and tmst. The Liberal candidates are misusing the public relations sections of local authorities. I wiU cite an instance. An employee of the Gold Coast City Council approached me and asked if it would be fair for the alderman for Ward 9, Alderman Coomber, to have an article that was written by a journalist, who put Mr Coomber's name on it, printed for him as a letter to the editor of the local paper. Should we aUow the misuse of rate­ payers' fiinds in that manner throughout the State? Mr Smyth interjected. Mr GATELY: I have something for the honourable member. He should not mention the Labor Party. I now tum to Mr Bums, the shadow Minister for Housing. Yesterday, on Radio 97 he was critical of the Govemment's efforts to provide further housing for the people of the Gold Coast and the rest of Queensland. Mr Bums and his Labor cohorts should question severely their attitude and the Federal Govemment's lack of adequate funding to Queensland. Mr Hamill interjected. Mr GATELY: I will take the honourable member's interjection. Recently in this House, I asked him when he had ever asked publicly for additional funding for Queensland 1452 17 October 1989 Matters of Public Interest roads, as he guaranteed at Coolum to do. When did he ever ask for that publicly? Where did he do it and how much did he ask for? Mr HamUl: Do you want me to produce the press references? Mr GATELY: Where, when and how much? Mr Hamill: It was done again last Friday. Mr GATELY: Where, when and how much did he ask the Federal Govemment to provide to this State? How much did he ask for? Mr HamiU: The Whitsunday Times, the Courier-Mail, the Sunday Sun, the Gold Coast Bulletin, the Townsville Bulletin. Mr GATELY: How much did he ask for? We want honesty. Mr Hamill: I told you. Mr GATELY: He gave an undertaking. He should tell this House how much he asked for and whom he asked. Mr Hamill: You don't like the answer. Mr GATELY: The honourable member cannot give the information. Goss taUcs about the pubUc stepping into the light. We realise that his statements have no substance, because members of the public of this State know that the light that Goss sees at the end of the tunnel Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member has suggested that I have never caUed on the Federal Govemment for additional road-funding. I have given him the evidence in this House. I ask for an apology from the honourable member for Curmmbin. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wdU not accept that as a point of order. The honourable member's comments are noted. Mr GATELY: The light at the end of the tunnel that Goss talks about—and he does not realise it—is a train coming at him at 100 miles an hour, a train carrying aU the voters who are going to mn right over the top of him and who wdU be supporting conservative Govemment in this State. "Goebbels" Goss and the gloss wdth which he tries to glitter all are gliding Queensland into more disaster than an out-of-control hot-air baUoon. However, I must wam the voters of Queensland that Labor in Queensland wdU wreak more havoc than an uncon- troUed nuclear device. All I have to say about our friend Mr Goss and his glitter is that the people of this State should seriously question a party-leader who has as part of his party's platform the legalisation of homosexuality in Queensland, the decriminalisation of marijuana use and the repeal of certain sections of Queensland's industrial legislation, particularly in the area of essential services. Home-owners, smaU business operators and mral producers are fully aware of the attacks that are being made upon their incomes by the Federal Labor Govemment and of the excessive taxes and the oppressively high interest rates that are being imposed upon them at the behest of the Labor Party. Goss is Labor. He is as embroidered into the same tapestry of socialism as his Labor brothers. Mr Speaker, neither you, I nor this great State can afford to have thmst upon us the repression of further socialisation in this nation. The same Labor Govemment, through Hawke and Keating, recently gave $200m to four banks which made a profit of $3.7 biUion, supposedly to keep interest rates down. What do we see? More and more of the same. Then Hawke gave $100m to the airUne companies to assist them. That money was being misused. The airline companies were supposed to pay their staff five days a week. What were the staff getting? They Matters of Public Interest 17 October 1989 1453 were getting one day's pay a week. If they wanted pay for the other four days, they were told it would have to come out of their holiday leave, long service leave or Z-days or flexi days, or they could have the days off wdthout pay. I want to know why. This nation is being ripped off. Then there is the $60m that the Federal Govemment gave to Kodak in Hawke's own electorate. Ho, ho, hum! How are we going now under Labor? This has taken all the gloss and glitter off the Leader of the Opposition. He does not even have a smile now. Mr Goss: It's boredom. Mr GATELY: The Leader of the Opposition should answer that. The only reason he is bored is that he cannot stand it. He cannot teU the public of Queensland what he and his Govemment in Queensland and his coUeagues in Canberra will really do. As soon as he jumped off the plane after arriving back from overseas, the Leader of the Opposition ran dovm to Canberra and stitched up a deal with his mate Hawke. I challenge him to deny that in this House. He said to Hawke, "Don't give the correct amount of funds to Queensland." Whenever the Leader of the Opposition is put on the spot, he sits there grinning like a Cheshire cat. He will not answer the question. He should answer it when he speaks in this House on the Criminal Justice Commission legislation. The Leader of the Opposition should teU the people of Queensland about his conspiracy wdth the Prime Minister of this nation to rip this State off so that when he gets into power—he thinks he can wdn this election—he wdll have all the funds that he wants. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has been up to. He knows it, I know it, and so does Mr Hawke. Goss cannot stand scmtiny, and that is what it is aU about. The people of Queensland are much wiser than the Leader of the Opposition thinks, and they wdll see that the gloss goes off Goss. Comments by Opposition Education Spokesman on Non-Government School Sector Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (Condamine—Minister for Education, Youth, Sport and Recreation) (11.57 a.m.): I want to reply to comments made by the Opposition Education spokesman, Mr Braddy. It is interesting that he should be making comments about the funding for non-Govemment schools because, when the Queensland Govem­ ment put forward its proposal in the Budget for teacher salaries, the first comment from Canberra came from Mr Dawkins, who said, "There wdU be no Federal money." Obviously he reacted in a fit of pique. After he said that, he reaUsed that he was in fact in a very precarious situation, so he qualified that statement by saying that he wdU fund teacher salaries across Australia if there is an upward movement in the award wdthin the wage guide-lines. Last week it came to the notice of the ALP in Queensland that there is concem in the non-Govemment sector about the lack of money and commitment from the Federal Govemment to meet that process; so the ALP is now saying that Mr Dawkins has said that in fact aU the money will be made good by him. He could come out and make that statement publicly but, of course, he chose to make it through Mr Braddy in this Chamber today. That shows that education is becoming a political football. The people of Queensland should be made aware of where the ALP stands in regard to the non-Govemment school sector, which is being very severely squashed. In fact, it is being pulled apart. The ALP is reducing the funding. If a non-Govemment school were to establish in Queensland or anywhere else in AustraUa, instead of the amount of funding being provided as it previously was, the Federal Govemment would provide funds at only 70 per cent of the previous rate. If that is not meant to cut the throat of the non-Govemment school sector, nothing is. People are going to take note of the sort of promise made by Mr Dawkins that the money wdU be made good. If that is the case, why is it that new schools should be funded at 70 per cent? 1454 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BUI

Mr Goss is a great man! He goes around the State, making all sorts of statements. A couple of weeks ago he flew into Charieville and made a promise that he would provide residential places at a TAFE college out there. If he is so good for education in Queensland, why cannot Mr Goss ask John Dawkins for more funding for tertiary places aU over Queensland? Mr Goss is nothing less than an opportunist Mr Goss: Your Govemment has mined the TAFE sector. Mr LITTLEPROUD: That is an interesting point. In the last two years, under Vince Lester, there has been a bigger increase in TAFE funding than ever before in Queensland. In line wdth its commitment to technology, this Government announced last week that it will be delivering tertiary and technical education in 40 different places throughout Queensland in the next two years. Currently there are 20 outiets. That is the sort of initiative that is being taken by the Govemment of Queensland wdth its funds. Shame, shame, shame on the ALP! In its 1988 Budget, the Queensland Govemment had to put in quite a number of mUlions of dollars of its ovvn money to shame the Federal Govemment into providing some more tertiary places in Queensland. Mr SPEAKER: Orderi The time allotted for the debate on Matters of PubUc Interest has now expired.

ELECTORAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 5 October (see p. 1381). Mr GOSS (Logan—Leader of the Opposition) (12 noon): It was good to see, at last, the introduction of this legislation. Basically, members of the Opposition are most anxious and concemed to see at least some legislation passed so that we can start along the very long road to reform set by the Fitzgerald agenda and eventually clean up the mess of cormption and cronyism that has spread through the whole fabric of public administration in this State. However, we have grave concem about the whole process surrounding this legislation and its effective implementation. That revolves around issues such as consultation—the failure to consult, or to consult in good faith. Yesterday, members of the Opposition were given copies of various amendments. We still do not know for sure what amendments wdll be moved at the Committee stage. It is pretty poor when the Leader of the Opposition and other members who wish to speak in this debate must comment on the legislation wdthout seeing its final form. Members of the Opposition understand that the Govemment has been considering some form of entrench­ ment, or double entrenchment. Mr Harper interjected. Mr GOSS: It is simply not good enough. The Govemment has had a long time to prepare the legislation and, when we are at the doorstep of debating and passing it, the Govemment stiU does not know what the final form of the legislation will be. Perhaps the Leader of the House knows, but he is not telUng members of the Opposition. I refer particularly to entrenchment or double entrenchment. Is that to be included in the legislation? Can the Leader of the House tell me that? Mr Harper: No. That is an amendment that wdU come in. Mr GOSS: Exactly! The Leader of the House cannot tell me. That is a very poor position in which Opposition members have been placed, particularly on that very important amendment. Members of the Opposition are concemed about the personnel—the chairperson, the part-time commissioners and the other persons who will be employed. Reference to them is simply not contained in the legislation. Mr Sherman, the only person who met all the criteria for appointment to the position of chairperson, withdrew his application Electoral and Administrative Review BUI 17 October 1989 1455 because of the disgraceful political interference in the process by the National Party and because of the so-caUed independent commission that was appointed to somehow supervise the process. It is correct that Mr Sherman has indicated that he is prepared to reapply for the position. From media reports, I understand that he has reappUed on two bases: firstiy, he has been told that Kennedy wdll not be able to supervise or mle over EARC—and it is good to see that back-down by the Govemment—and, secondly, in his opinion, the legislation is apparentiy broadly in keeping wdth the Fitzgerald guide-lines. I think that it appears increasingly clear to honourable members that, even though Mr Sherman is the only person on the Govemment's list who meets aU the criteria, this Govemment wUl not appoint him. Obviously the Govemment is shopping around for somebody who will be more reliable in accordance wdth the National Party's agenda. FinaUy, of course, the central concem that members of the Opposition have about this whole Fitzgerald process and about this Govemment goes back to that fundamental question of tmst. The Govemment's track record is that it cannot be tmsted to deUver honest, open and accountable govemment. Mr Harper: We were the only Govemment in Australia that was prepared to put it before a public inquiry, weren't we? Mr GOSS: The Govemment was forced into it by public pressure and because Bill Gunn was naive enough to think that he could get the lead of cormption out of his saddle-bags in his drive for leadership when Joh left. That is how it came about. The National Party was so grateful to Bill Gunn and so supportive of the stand that he took that, immediately that inquiry started, his Premiership prospects went on a massive downward slide and he was never considered again. That is how much the National Party supported Fitzgerald. The Premiership prospects of the person who ordered the inquiry were sunk. Sir Robert Sparkes used to give the riding instmctions to the Leader of the House before they feU out. The riding instmctions for the current Premier are to sabotage Fitzgerald. One can see the concerted campaign of public statements by those people who are undermining Fitzgerald personally and the quality and the nature of his reforms. Members of the Opposition express those four areas of concem. Fundamentally, the bottom line is one of tmst. At the end of this week, we wdll end up wdth form wdthout substance—the bones wdthout the meat. We wdU have a shell of potential reform. I sound a clear waming to honourable members and to members of the public that if by some stroke of luck these characters were given an opportunity to be retumed to the Govemment benches, propped up by the junior partners, the Liberal Party, that shell would be so fragile that it would be easily and quickly shattered. The tmst—the vehicle— would be easily and quickly broken by these people, because their whole track record is inconsistent wdth honest and accountable govemment. My colleagues wdU deal wdth particular aspects of the legislation. The member for Ipswdch wdU deal in particular with the subjects of electoral reform, political donations and the like. Let me deal wdth the commencement of Mr Cooper's Premiership. After three days of prominent and extensive publicity, wdth Sir Robert Sparkes directing that there be a change, Mr Cooper came on the scene. What we saw was a mthless and cynical strategy by the bunker which wanted to ditch the "lock, stock and barrel" commitment. The only effective way to ditch "lock, stock and barrel" was to ditch the man who made that very commitment. That is what they did. The very first day that Mr Cooper was in the chair, in relation to reform, and particularly to electoral reform, he said, "We wiU have the review." But he broke the promise of guaranteeing electoral reform. On the other issues he said, "We wdU have a review but we wiU not guarantee any change." After seven or eight days of intense media, public and Opposition pressure, the Premier backflipped and reaUsed, whether he liked it or not, that he had to step up to the line and produce some legislation. Then we saw that panic decision to announce that Bills would be introduced and that Parliament 1456 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BUI would sit again today. Of course, if the Premier were genuine, he would have indicated that from the beginning. Something happened. Opposition members do not know lor sure the reason for the last-minute conversion—whether it was Kennedy, Bingnam or the poUs. However, the Premier's comments in Rockhampton were quite plain: tne members of the Govemment are doing it under pressure and they are reluctant to do so. If they get the chance to break the sheU—to break the framework—they will surely do it. Because of the pressure of a public opinion poU, the Premier has been forced reluctantly to take some action. Unfortunately for the National Party—but very appropriately—the first seven days of dissembling, or undermining, of the Fitzgerald recommendations and the first seven days of dithering by this Premier have marked him, in terms of the public perception, as someone who is not genuine about the reform process. The public has seen through the National Party's strategy. After this week there wiU be no parliamentary committee, which Fitzgerald recommended. Even if the National Party went through the charade of appointing a committee, that committee would be dissolved when ParUament is dissolved. As to the reform process—the people of Queensland are left wdth a shell—a vehicle with no personnel. Honourable members know the National Party's track record. In the absence of that committee the National Party wdU be in charge, subject only to the shonky and dubious consultation process that has existed in the past. It is quite inappropriate that I should speak on this issue wdthout knowing the final form of the amendments, particularly in relation to entrenchment, and without knowing what came out of this moming's very extended party room meeting of the National Party. As to entrenchment—I do not know what wdU be offered, if anything. For two reasons the Labor Party does not accept the entrenchment. Firstiy, apart from being Labor Party opinion, advice from the Fitzgerald implementation unit is that the entrenchment offer is of dubious legal and constitutional validity. Mr Cooper: You are afraid of it. Mr GOSS: I am not afraid of it at aU. It is like you; it is a shonk. The advice of the implementation unit and Mr Murray is that it is shonky. You may care to deny it in your response or you may care to deny it now. Is that your advice? Mr Cooper: You just carry on. Mr GOSS: He cannot answer unless somebody writes it out for him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Order! The Leader of the Opposition wdll address the Chair. There is very little to be gained by cross-fire in the Chamber. Mr GOSS: Unfortunately, the Premier cannot answer a basic question in the House uiUess somebody writes out the answer for him. That is why he dodges press conferences and major fomms in this State and nationally. He cannot measure up unless somebody writes the words for him. The second reason why the Labor Party does not accept the offer of entrenchment is that it does not intend to lock itself into, and commit itself to, a process that is a pig in a poke. The Labor Party wdll not give those characters a blank cheque because, even after this week, the process has still to be made legitimate. Yesterday, during final discussions, the Fitzgerald implementation unit representa­ tives did not know what the entrenchment proposal would be. It comes back to tmst and to the consultation process. When Parliament is dissolved there wdll be no committee. The National Party wdU be back in control, subject to some sort of a consultation process with the Leader of the Liberal Party and me. UntU now that consultation process has not been up to the mark. Either there has been no consultation or the consultation that has occurred has not been undertaken in Electoral and Administrative Review BUI 17 October 1989 1457 good faith. That was demonstrated dramaticaUy by the appointment of Sfr Max Bingham to the proposed Criminal Justice Commission. When Mr Forster and I interviewed the other short-Usted candidate—apart from Sir Max Bingham—that was supposed to be part of the consultation process. Although Cabinet had already made its decision, it aUowed us to go through that farce of a token interview. That is symbolic, because it demonstrates the quality of the consultation process and the commitment of the National Party to that consultation process. As to Mr Sherman—he was the only candidate who met all the selection criteria. Although the former Premier and I approved of Mr Sherman, the National Party does not want him. It wants somebody from whom it can get a better deal. It is disgraceful that someone who does not measure up to the selection criteria could be appointed as chairman of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission. This Govemment has said nothing about the other people who wdU be interviewed for that position. A statement was made today that the position might be readvertised. If the Government wants to readvertise and slow dovm the whole process, that wdU be completely in keeping wdth its past attitude. The Govemment wants to slow down the whole process to make sure that nothing happens until it is too late. That is what has been achieved today. There is the appearance of reform wdthout the reality and the pubUc relations of reform wdthout the performance. This Govemment does nothing of substance. As to the first of Fitzgerald's key recommendations, namely, electoral reform—the National Party set out on a deliberate, cynical and mthless strategy to avoid electoral reform, to try desperately to steal the Govemment from the people of this State by not introducing the reform and to go to the election on the same old dishonest and cormpt boundaries. Mr Cooper: What about the referendum? Mr GOSS: The Premier says, "What about the referendum?" The National Party backflipped on that issue. That is how genuine it was about it. Mr Cooper: You pulled out. You wouldn't support it. Mr GOSS: Part of the deal between the Premier and Sir Robert Sparkes was that, if the coup was successful, the referendum had to be cancelled. Of course, the former Premier did that after the first failed coup, but the deal still went through. It has always been the object of the National Party to avoid electoral reform and to go to the election on dishonest boundaries. The National Party has achieved its goal, but the public backlash is so bad that not even the shonky boundaries wdU save it. As to electoral reform—it is weU known by independent commentators that between 3 July and the end of the year electoral reform could have and should have occurred. The people should have been delivered the first and most important recommendation of Fitzgerald, namely, the reform of the electoral system. But that did not happen. The Nationals did what this Premier did in his first week in office: they prevaricated, they dithered and they came up wdth aU the excuses. It was only after a massive pubUc backlash that the Nationals had to try to puU some stunt to get themselves out of it. So what did they do? They came up with the master-stroke—the referendum. They were all mnning round the hothouse up at the Sheraton slapping themselves on the back and buying each other drinks. A week later, when they got back to the farm and had a close look at it, they realised that they were going nowhere. At the first opportunity, they dumped the referendum. All the people of Queensland saw that the commitment to genuine reform simply did not exist. Look at the Nationals' track record. Since the reform agenda was laid on the table some months ago, this so-called new Govemment has come to power. What has been seen since then? This Premier and a number of other Ministers and prominent National Party people have undermined, through a deliberate strategy of sabotage and lies, the Fitzgerald reform agenda.

103917—49 1458 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill

Today the Premier blamed the media for reporting comments that he made on his tour of country areas last week that the public was sick and tired of reform. Of course, those comments were completely consistent wdth what others have been saying. Who started it? Who set the lead? Who set the pace? Sir Robert Sparkes! He said that Queenslanders no longer care about cormption and cronyism. He said that it was not an issue. Sir Robert Sparkes sets the lead for this Govemment. He puUs the strings. He mns the State. Who foUowed him? People such as Mrs Chapman said they would decide which Fitzgerald reforms were brought in. They said that they had better judgment than Fitzgerald; they would decide; they would second-guess him. The Attomey-General, Mr Clauson, said that people were sick of Fitzgerald and Dmmmond. He made some comment such as, "Let's get on wdth Ufe." Mr Katter, Mr Stoneman and many others attacked various aspects of the Fitzgerald reform process. The ultimate in cynicism occurred when this new Premier came in and, as required as part of the coup deal, ditched "lock, stock and barrel" and replaced it wdth, "We will bring in only those changes which are appropriate and sensible." Appropriate and sensible according to whose judgment? The Nationals' track record is plain. The pubUc of Queensland should ask themselves today and in the lead-up to the election: why is this Electoral and Administrative Review Commission legislation necessary? Why does this very powerful watch-dog have to be brought into being? It is simply for one reason. Fitzgerald found—and we can all see— that the whole process of honest and accountable govemment in this State has broken dovm. We have seen the worst excesses of Executive Govemment corrupt the very democratic process in this State, including the parliamentary process. That is why this legislation is needed. If one wants that demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt, one has only to look at the Bill and read what the functions of the commission wdll be. The commission's functions fall into three broad areas. It has to reform the dishonest electoral system. The legislation contains detailed references to what is required. That is a job that the Govemment should have done. The Bill contains the definition of "unit of public administration". To keep the Govemment honest, a unit wdll be subject to investigation, subject to questions to which it is compulsory to make an answer and subject to the seizure of documents. The Bill states that a "unit of pubUc administration" means the parUamentary service, every department of the Govemment of this State, the poUce force, the Railway Department and every corporate entity. Surely it is the State Govemment's job to supervise these bodies and to reform them and keep them honest. The schedule of the BiU sets out that the commission may investigate and report on the preservation and enhancement of individuals' rights and freedoms, the practices of the ParUament and the expenditure of public moneys. What could be a more basic responsibiUty of the Govemment of the day than the expenditure of public moneys? Mr Fitzgerald has found that the Govemment cannot be tmsted wdth that very basic task, hence this watch-dog is required to look over the Govemment's shoulder. The commission may also report on the committees of the Pariiament and the functions, powers and resources of the Auditor-General. Surely it is this Govemment's responsibUity to make sure that those bodies are honest and tme. But no, Fitzgerald has said that the Govemment cannot be tmsted, so this commission has to be set up. The commission may also investigate donations to political parties and pubUc notification of those who benefit from decisions made by or on behalf of the Govemment—the cronyism problem. The Government cannot be trusted. That is why Fitzgerald has made these recommendations. The Govemment cannot be tmsted with the independence of statutory tribunals. All of these things are the basic functions of any honest and democratic Govemment. Fitzgerald has drafted a BiU which wdll aUow someone to look over the Govemment's shoulder, because it cannot be tmsted to do those things in an honest and accountable way. Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1459

The commission may also investigate employment in units of public administration, including the creation and eUmination of positions. The Govemment cannot even mn the administration of its ovm pubUc sector. Fitzgerald has to have a watch-dog looking over the Govemment's shoulder on that. Lastly, of course—and very appropriately for this Govemment—the commission wdU be responsible for the protection from victimisation of persons because of statements made by them in good faith conceming dishonesty, misconduct and so on. The Govemment cannot be tmsted to do what any Govemment should do, namely, act on such issues in an honest and accountable way. What does the Govemment do? It shoots the messenger. It penalises and punishes anybody who speaks out in the pubUc interest. All of those things that I have referred to, from electoral reform to the units of pubUc administration, wdll be subject to scmtiny. All of those things referred to in the schedule represent the very heart and soul of the job of the Govemment. But because this Govemment cannot be tmsted wdth the very job of government itself, this commission has to look over its shoulder and keep it honest. PubUc confidence in our major public institutions and their very efficacy has completely broken down, as a result of which these new commissions have to be introduced to restore them to some degree of integrity and efficiency. It is the job of govemment that this Govemment has failed that has made the Fitzgerald inquiry necessary and that now makes this the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission and the Criminal Justice Commission necessary and inevitable if there is to be any prospect of good and honest govemment in this State in the future. I do not know what the final form of the foreshadowed amendments wdll be. Most of them, brought to the Opposition yesterday by Mr Forster of the implementation unit, are acceptable. In the next two to three days, or however long this place is kept open, the Opposition's priority wdll simply be to get the best form of words—the best legislation—passed so that at least something is on the books and we can try to hold onto that vehicle until after the election, when we can put some substance to the form and put some meat on the bones. The task ahead of Queensland is great. In terms of setting down the reform process, it can be achieved if we stick to the Fitzgerald agenda. There is a long way to go yet and this legislation is very much a first, smaU step. The substance is stUl to come; that wiU be the real test. It is a test that the Opposition believes the National Party—either alone or in coalition—cannot meet and cannot pass. In conclusion, I mention that my colleagues who follow me in this debate will deal with particular aspects of the legislation. As I said earlier, the Labor Party is concemed with fundamental considerations in relation to the consultation process, the amendments, the personnel of this body and the basic question of tmstworthiness of the National Party. Today and tomorrow members of the Labor Party wdll co-operate to pass the legislation and ultimately wdll finish the job when given the opportunity. Let me stress again a final note of waming that, at the end of this week, Queensland wdU not be in possession of a reform process. It wdU simply be left with the very fragUe sheU and the fragile framework that should not be left any longer than is necessary—certainly not after the election—in the hands of those who have created the very problem and the very circumstances that make this extraordinary legislation necessary. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Leader of the Liberal Party) (12.24 p.m.): It is interesting to follow the leader of a party which currently has as one of its members the only Minister in Australia who is in gaol for cormption. The sarcasm and hypocrisy that falls from the Ups of members of the Labor Party attempt to hide the reaUty that their party has been associated in this State wdth cormption more often than any other party. Cormption has to be fought where it is found. Mr Greiner has made a start in cleaning up the State of New South Wales. Mr Hamill: He is finding that it is in the National Party. 1460 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill

Mr INNES: He is finding that cormption is almost one for one—one Labor Party member, one National Party member. It is the old system. The reaUty is that cleaning up this State requires a sensible, logical and effective approach. Right from the outset, the Liberal Party said that, following the Fitzgerald revelations, matters should proceed in a relentiess, sensible and logical order. At the time, members of the Liberal Party rightly complained—and that complaint has not been addressed—that the very debate on the Fitzgerald report, which cost the community $24m and which laid bare a picture of problems in the public sector, police and Govemment departments that caught the attention of the whole nation and particularly those who live in this State, was adjoumed without being completed. It is clear that the ParUament should have started its role of checks and balances, investigation and constmctive comment—hopefuUy—in relation to reform at the time when the report was received. However, after two days of a special sittings, the debate was adjoumed. Members of the Liberal Party were given parts of that very substantial report to deal wdth in detail. My colleagues and I wdshed to make a contribution to the debate on the Fitzgerald report in this House. The debate was adjoumed and, to this date, has never been completed, in spite of the fact that it is the most important document about the public sector that has been presented in living memory in this State. This Parliament has debated far less important issues—in fact, some almost trivial matters—since that time. The process should have begun in a businesslike, effective and purposeful way in July when the report was received. The debate should have proceeded to its conclusion by giving every member of this House who wdshed to take part in it an opportunity to make any contribution he or she wdshed. When the draft legislation was put before the House, members of the Liberal Party took what they believed to be an immediate and totally constmctive, sensible position. In July members of the Liberal Party said that the proposed parliamentary committees that were envisaged to operate by virtue of these two important pieces of legislation— the first of which we are presently debating—should have been set up. The Standing Orders of this ParUament provide that committees can be set up and can be superseded or taken over by specific legislation, if necessary. It was clear that those committees would receive special legislative treatment. However, from the word go the stmcture of the committees could have been, and should have been, set up. The process of consultation that is supposed to take place and that, clearly, Mr Fitzgerald believed was absolutely vital and important to the success of the reform exercise could have been facilitated. Instead, there can be no question that the process has broken down and that it has been bedeviUed by partisan politics and by a political-footbaU approach that could readily have been foreseen in an election year. If the two committees had been set up, some of the totaUy partisan activities that took place in the interim could have been reduced. I point out that partisan political activities have confused and set back the process. The two pieces of legislation should have been prepared earlier. If people of quality are to be attracted to take up these commissions, one would expect that they would already be engaged in worthy occupations. People of quality who would leave positions of significance—positions that members of the Liberal Party beUeve should be held by people who are quaUfied to be appointed to these commissions—want to know what the job description is. Clearly they also wdll want to know what they have to investigate and what their Unes of responsibility and communication are. That is the most elementary and simple approach to a job. Members of the Liberal Party said from the word go that the fact that that was not done would cause problems. Liberal Party members have not taken part in the consultation process leading to the selection of individuals for appointment to these positions because we believed that it was not logical, proper or businesslike to have the selection process under way before the legislation was in place, before the job description was brought into existence and before the lines of responsibility were clear. Not only was that common sense, but also the wisdom of it was demonstrated by Mr Sherman's personal situation. I have had no Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1461 consultation wdth Mr Sherman. I suspect that many years ago I met him at law school, but I cannot remember. I have had no contact wdth him for the last two or three decades and do not know a great deal about him. The Liberal Party said that it would not participate in consultation untU the legislation was ironed out. There has been poUtical controversy over what the legislation would contain, whether the motives were whole-hearted or whether there was some intemal problem in the National Party. As a result, the whole process became bogged down and political processes took over. This Govemment—which has had its troubles— found it was necessary to appear to be acting and foUowdng the relentless wisdom of the Fitzgerald recommendations, and it went about the process of advertising for people and evaluating them before the legislation was finalised. The Liberal Party predicted that what happened wdth Mr Sherman would in fact happen, because people of quaUty wdll not be attracted by poUtical furore and circumstances in which it is unclear what their work wdU involve and what their powers and lines of responsibility will actually be. Because of its basic view, the Liberal Party could not be satisfied that, in the circumstances, the best people had appUed for the job. Notwdthstanding the Fitzgerald report, the best people would mn a mile from another political shemozzle in Queensland, the political furore wdthin the National Party and the poUtical furore that is constantly fuelled by the actions, attitudes and invective of the Opposition. Any system which starts wrong has a habit of staying wrong. This is a simple lesson that everyone should have learnt from the Fitzgerald report. Effective, simple, straightforward mechanisms had to be put in place to clean up this State. The Liberal Party believes that the thmst of the Fitzgerald recommendations must be followed and that anyone who does not follow them wdll be haunted by that substantial document. Those recommendations must be underpinned by suitable and satisfactory electoral reform. From the word go, the Liberal Party pointed out that it was fascinating that Mr Fitzgerald had come back to the combined wisdom of the people and the people's representatives by underpinning the reforms by putting more tmst and power in all- party committees than in Cabinets of whatever poUtical hue. The electoral system is very important because it underpins the way in which the representatives of the people are selected. Because this legislation is off the rails, it has been difficult to get sensible contributions and proposals for reform through and for the pubUc to understand what has been going on. This is the second piece of EARC legislation and there has been confusion over two similarly worded pieces of legislation. To add to the Liberal Party's confusion, poor Mr Forster has tmndled around with the latest stack of amendments at the eleventh hour before Parliament sits. It has not been a satisfactory process at aU, and the Liberal Party predicted as much. The consultation process is farcical, and that is no reflection whatsoever on Mr Forster. The Liberal Party stated at the outset that, because of a history based upon facts and evidence and not merely on political fear, the process of consultation in the hands of the present Govemment was unlikely to be satisfactory. I wdll give the House some instances. Everyone knows that last year a solemn undertaking was given that there would be consultation on appointments to the judicial commission. That undertaking was broken, even though the undertaking was given after the Liberal Party's assistance was sought in the speedy passage of the legislation. That assistance and co-operation were given, but the undertaking was not kept. More recently I heard the Premier say— and I suspect he did not intend to mislead, but clearly he did not understand what the word "consultation" meant—that I had been consulted over the appointment of the Commissioner of Police. Twenty-four hours earlier I had been told that the Commissioner of PoUce would be appointed, but I had not been told specifically who was the person to be recommended for the final nomination. I heard the report of a press conference and witnessed the Premier saying that I had been consulted, when in fact I was deliberately not told which one of the three possible candidates would be selected. In fact, I had not 1462 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill

even been given the names of the three candidates from which that single candidate would come. Mr ArdUl: Some consultation! Mr INNES: Yes, some consultation! It is fascinating to note that Sfr Max Bingham—a person on whose integrity I make no reflection—has been described as the commissioner elect to the CJC. He is a man who has been given a titie before any legislation to back that titie has been passed by this ParUament. It has been a crazy process. This State wdll not be straightened out unless we proceed in logical and orderly fashion. The Liberal Party alone has stated what the correct order and sequence should be. The Leader of the Opposition participated in this consultation process and later confessed to being embarrassed by his participation in the selection process because of the nonsense that went on, the way in which the claim of consultation was used and the upheavals over the legislative process. Members of the Liberal Party have adopted a very simple attitude. We have said from the word go that the Govemment could have put in place the all-party committee. That could have been taken over by the legislation when it was passed. We said, "Pass the legislation. Make clear what the job is. Then and only then does one determine the people to man it." We have said that we refuse to take part in the consultation process untU the legislation was clear. We made two substantial objections to the first EARC legislation. We required, and we StiU require, a provision for the approval and support of the representatives of aU parties—either the all-party parliamentary committee or the leaders of the three parties. This applies particularly to the EARC. Matters of criminal breach are fairly clear. A standard is laid dowm. Matters of administrative breach can be fairly clear if there are policies and mles with regard to administrative action. But matters relating to electoral reform are highly subjective. Honourable members have professed widely diverging views. If we are to get the whole system right, we must have total faimess and impartiality in the review of electoral boundaries. On page 127 of his report, Mr Fitzgerald said that a review must be done by people of integrity and independence. He said they must be people whose judgment wdll be acceptable to aU parties and to the people generally. We in the Liberal Party say that, unless the people who are appointed are acceptable to all parties, the judgments of those people are not likely to be acceptable. We want that acceptability placed in the legislation. We believe, particularly wdth regard to the EARC, that the first chairman and four part- timers must be acceptable. Therefore, the legislation must provide support for the appointments by all members of the all-party pariiamentary committee or, if that committee is not in place, by the leaders of all parties. It is quite possible to get that support and approval. However, there wdll be problems. A single commissioner wdll be appointed first and he wdll be chauman. We know that his advice is to be sought. The packajge of potential commissioners could include a captain of industry, a leader of trade unions, a person of commerce and a person of the law, but I suspect that we would prefer to see first whether the persons who wdU make up the commission have a balance in background necessary to do this very sensitive, political task. It does have significant political ramifications. That is why we expressed the sensitivity. The Liberal Party wdll propose amendments to the legislation to ensure the approval of all members of the parliamentary committee or, pending the appointment of that committee, the leaders of aU parties, not just the Liberal Party. I understand that the parUamentary committee is not to be appointed untU next year. That is what we have been told. Sir William Knox: It could have been appointed months ago. Mr INNES: We called for its appointment three months ago and it could have been in situ; it could have been operating. If it had been appointed, it would go out of action on the prorogation of Parliament. How many commissioners wiU be appointed Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1463 by that time? Are we just going into limbo, into no man's land, because of the stupidly politicised process which has taken place in the last three months since the presentation of the report? Mr Ardill: They have a faU-back position. The Premier assumes the power. Mr INNES: The power resides in the Minister advising the Govemor in CouncU as to who the commissioners wdll be. We do not mind. I am now moving away from the argument that there must be unanimous support of aU members of the committee or, altematively, of all political leaders. I now move to the logic of the legislation. While some bipartisanship, but not tripartisanship, is secured by saying that, when the all-party committee exists, there wdll be at least one person from a non-Govemment party involved in the appointment process and whose support is necessary, there is nothing about the intervening procedure wdth the leaders. There is no requirement for the approval of at least one other party leader. Therefore the Govemment can act alone in appointing. That is a rigged jury—it is bodgie—and we wdU have no part of it. We feel that it is fatally defective. We have made our point clear. We made it clear three months ago. I moved amendments in this Chamber three months ago. I have repeated that position right through. We cannot get away from the logic of it. It is clearly flawed in approach. The other objection that we raised at that time was to the review of the electoral system being confined to 89 seats. That was the Liberal Party's objection and we welcome the fact that the logic of that objection has been accepted. We do not beUeve that any shackles should be put on a review of the electoral system. Four years ago we did not support the increase from 82 to 89 members, and we have not changed our mind. We are the only party that has, in this Chamber over the past decade, consistently objected to increases in govemmental bodies, both at local govemment level when the National Party and the Labor Party combined to increase the size of the Brisbane City CouncU despite the opposition of the Liberal Party and, more recently, at the parUamentary level when the number of members was increased. We welcome the removal of that limitation— that hobble, if you like—on the independence of the commission. To summarise—and there wdll be another contribution from my party—we beUeve that the mess revealed by Fitzgerald has to be addressed, attacked and cleaned up. We believe that the mechanisms of correction—the checks and balances—have to be put in place. We believe that the two commissions that are being set up under this legislation and the Criminal Justice Bill are part of the process of putting the proper mechanisms in place. The Liberal Party also believes that sunset clauses should apply to both pieces of legislation. Mechanisms that are set up initially to deal wdth a special problem might not be necessary later on. Certainly, the extent of resources staff and special powers which are provided might not be necessary on an ongoing basis. When the evils are corrected and the checks and balances are put in place, hopefully we can retum to a more orderly method of business, which is less expensive and less bureaucratic. Certainly wdth electoral reform, once the initial legislation is straightened out, there is no reason to believe that EARC's electoral review processes for fiirther reviews and further reforms of the electoral system wdU be required. It is appropriate to have a sunset clause in the legislation. That is not to say that we believe that there wdU not be ongoing residual powers and mechanisms. It is important that the Parliament review the special powers and the special resources that wdU be given initially to the two commissions. After a period to allow them to be effective and to propose the checks and balances for the future, they should be reviewed by a sunset clause. That wdU aUow the ParUament to debate the extent to which the stmctures and the two commissions should continue. It wiU provide a welcome opportunity for this House to peg back any bureaucratic empire that has developed in response to the two initial attempts to cleanse the State. The Liberal Party wdll propose to the two pieces of legislation amendments which provide sunset clauses and which attempt to correct the appointment procedures of the 1464 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BiU initial commissioners. It believes that the electoral review is of high political sensitivity and has no accepted standards against which to judge behaviour. Therefore, the background and fitness for appointment of those people is particularly important and cannot be secured by the Govemment's having the sole right to appoint the members of the commission. If that were so, the jury would be rigged and the reports which those members bring dovm would not be acceptable to aU political parties and to the people of Queensland generally. Mr BURREKET (TownsviUe) (12.48 p.m.): I support the legislation. Before entering ParUament, I was a member of a local authority and I was prominent in pointing out the need for checks and balances at local govemment level. When I entered ParUament, I was surprised to find that the Govemment was operating wdthout a number of the necessary checks and balances to keep it on the straight and narrow. The legislation is essential and I support it strongly. Any Govemment that is using the people's finances should be responsible to the people. The only way to be effectively responsible is to put in place a commission such as the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission. At present, the Auditor-General conducts an audit of Govemment expenditure. However, Govemments need more than merely an audit to be kept on the straight and narrow. In his report, Mr Fitzgerald emphasised the importance of the media. Much criticism has been made of the media. I have heard comments that the media are beyond the pale and have tended to distort facts and twist the public perception of what is occurring. However, in defence of the media, I point out that they are the conscience of the people. If the media find aspects of govemment that they believe are wrong, they have the right to report those facts to the public. Because over the years the media have not had any effect on the Govemment's administration, they have tumed on the Govemment. It is the Govemment's fault. The legislation addresses the need for checks and balances that should have been put in place many years ago. If the media consistently attack the Govemment, it is not the fault of the people. It is the fault of the Govemment, because it is not taking notice of an urgent need to correct particular problems in the community. I am keen to see a tightening up of law enforcement. The problem in the commuruty is that members of the public have lost confidence in the police. When that occurs in any community, the problem takes a long time to rectify. It has been made worse because, apparently, malpractices have occurred in the police force. Only a court can properly address that. However, Mr Fitzgerald went a long way towards pointing the police force in the right direction. The public must have confidence not only that the Govemment is honest and doing the right thing but also that the police force is working on behalf of the people. I support Mr Fitzgerald's recommendations to sort out the problems in the poUce force. The poUce force needs a quick restmcture so that the police can regain their confidence. I make it clear that not aU police are cormpt. A very smaU proportion of the police force is cormpt. However, unfortunately, the bad apples have affected the morale of the police force and the pubUc's perception of it. Police officers deal wdth the dregs of society. They pick up dmnks, attend serious accidents, puU bodies out of cars, fish bodies out of rivers, deal wdth dmggies and enter dens of iniquity. They spend their lives looking after the interests of the public. They have a rotten job. That is why it is so important to support the poUce force. We have to quickly get the police force back up there so that the public and the Govemment can feel very confident that there will no longer be any more of this nonsense that there appears to have been in the past. In regard to Mr Fitzgerald's report and the EARC—members of the Labor Party have been going round the State saying that Mr Fitzgerald said there has to be a change in electoral boundaries. Mr Fitzgerald did not say that. He said that there should be a review of electoral boundaries, and an opportunity for all parties to come forward with suggested changes to the system. Basically what Mr Fitzgerald said was that the present boundaries, or the present zonal system, tended to give a bias to a Government and Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1465 that, although that may not necessarily have been the cause of what has happened in the past, it is something that has to be looked at and addressed. One of the problems in Queensland is the effect of the abolition of the Upper House. It could well be that the outcome of the EARC is a recommendation to re­ establish the Upper House in Queensland. There is no doubt that the proper watch-dog in any State is the Upper House. Mr Wells interjected. Mr BURREKET: The honourable member should not take it that I am saying that that wdU happen. I am suggesting that it could weU be the outcome of the review. Mr Wells: Is it Govemment policy, though? Does the National Party support it? Mr BURREKET: I think the honourable member is getting carried away. I am suggesting that this may happen and I am putting forward the reasons why, if it does happen, it could be a good thing. Where there is an Upper House, there is an automatic watch-dog to review all proposed legislation. There is another body checking on the Govemment, so to speak. If in fact the problem in Queensland is that we do not have an Upper House—a legislative watch-dog—where does the fault lie? The fault lies, of course, wdth the ALP, which in 1922 aboUshed the Upper House. The re-establishment of the Upper House as a result of the review is only a suggestion. It may happen. It could weU be that the EARC wdll look at the electoral boundaries and say, "We wdU just change the boundaries according to the movement of people from, say, Brisbane to the suburbs and according to the increase in population on the Gold Coast." That may well be the outcome of the electoral review. Mr Gately: When you talk about the abolition of the Upper House in this State, it was after a referendum at which the people said, "Don't abolish it," that the Labor Party went ahead and did it. Mr BURREKET: Yes. I think it is worth recording that, strangely enough, the Labor Party held a referendum on this very matter. It asked the people of Queensland, "Do you want the Upper House abolished?", and the people of Queensland said, "No. We need the Upper House as a House of review. We need a watch-dog in this State." So the Labor Party Mr Gately: The cormpt Labor Govemment. Mr BURREKET: In hindsight, it seems that there was some element of cormption there, which has carried on for a long time in this State. The basis for the abolition of the Upper House appears to have been laid at the time when the Labor Party was in power in Queensland. It went against the wdshes of the people. So the Labor Party in fact left us wdth the legacy that we are now trying to overcome. Mr Wells: I buried that gerrymander Bill and I said that the Labor Party is dissociating itself from its predecessors. Can you do the same? Mr BURREKET: I remember reading a report by the then Premier in 1922, when he was going round Queensland trying to justify the abolition of the Upper House and the introduction of the zonal system. He said at the time that the reason why the Labor Party Govemment introduced that zonal system was to allow for the imbalance of the bulk of the population in the south-east comer and to give some sort of representation to the people who live in the far west and in the north. The Labor Party actually introduced that system, but the cormption of the intro­ duction of that system was the guarantee that the Labor Party would always be in power in Queensland. Thank goodness there was a division in the Labor Party and the sensible 1466 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill

members of the Labor Party—the members of the DLP—sorted out the ALP and walked away, and thank goodness we have had sensible govemment in this State ever since. What I do like about the legislation is that, whatever decisions are made by the EARC and whatever recommendations may be made, they must be presented firstly to the Speaker and then, of course, to the Pariiament. That is important. A Minister will be able to see the recommendations and review them. They wdll be presented to the Speaker and then to the House. Honourable members wdll be able to discuss the recommendations from the EARC. It is to be hoped that in the proper review of electoral boundaries all factors will be taken into consideration and that there may be an adjustment to the poUtical manipulation, if one wants to call it that, that exists under the boundaries introduced by the ALP which have resulted in the problems facing Queensland today. I am very pleased that the commission has been given independence. I believe it is vital; I believe it is essential; and I believe it is necessary, because that independence will ensure that, whichever party is in power after the next election, the commission will not have its decisions influenced or distorted by the politics of the day. That is why I beUeve it is important to appoint the chairman of the EARC and to give him the independence right now. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. Mr BURREKET: Earlier I referred to the time when I was an alderman wdth the Townsville City Council. I had to go back that far because that was my first experience in govemment. At that time, I was amazed at the lack of checks and balances— accountabUity—wdthin the system. For example, the Mayor of TownsviUe was for ever away from the city. As an alderman, every week I used to go to the Town Clerk and say, "Where is the Mayor? Where is he this time?" Aldermen could never get answers to such simple questions. In the council chamber, a number of times I made some suggestions and put forward motions for the adoption of simple accounting procedures and for the implementation of a simple travel register so that an alderman could go along and say, "Where is the Mayor? Where are the other aldermen who are away on official business?" and receive a simple response. However, the aldermen could never obtain that satisfaction. The Labor Party council refused to provide that simple infor­ mation. That is when I received an indication that things were wrong. Of course, we had a tin-pot Mayor. He was probably one of the worst mayors that Townsville has had. I understand that Opposition members have disowned him. That is probably the wisest thing that they have done. That person is no longer the Mayor of Townsville. He is the type of person who brings about abuses of the system. As a very keen alderman, I used to not only check the monthly rolls, but I would go to the auditor's section in the back room and go through individual invoices to check who was going where and who was being charged on a particular invoice. I spent a lot of time gaining for myself a background on accounting procedures. I discovered that aldermen were travelling overseas. For goodness' sake—council aldermen traveUing overseas! Other aldermen could never obtain any information about such travel. Approv­ als were not being submitted to the councU. I said to myself, "There is something wrong." Mr MiUiner: A bit like the Cabinet here now. They've got their fingers in the till— cash advances. Mr BURREKET: If the honourable member had been in the Chamber earlier, he would have heard that I said that I recognise what Mr Fitzgerald has said, that past Queensland Govemment practices need to be addressed. When I was an alderman with the Townsville City Council, I became aware of poUtical appointments to council. As I was fairly naive in local politics at the time, I did not think that those things happened. However, I leamed very quickly. It would be fair to say that a fair number of the key appointments to the Townsville City Council Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1467 have been basically ALP poUtical appointments. I have said that in the House before. I named some persons. There is no doubt that those appointments have been made. There is manipulation not only at the Federal Govemment or State Govemment level, but it has worked its way right down into the local councUs. I support strongly the need for the EARC, because proper accounting procedures are needed. More than anything else, Mr Fitzgerald said, "The present checks and balances in the system are insufficient." He proved that opportunities were presented for people to abuse the system and that those abuses could not be picked up wdth the checks that were in place at the time. The Govemment recognises that; Mr Fitzgerald has proved that. What we are doing now is ensuring that not only have we introduced other accountability procedures into the Parliament; we have introduced a number of committees, such as the PubUc Works Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. The EARC and the CJC wdll ensure that the people of Queensland have in place proper safeguards on the use of public funds. That is what this legislation is aU about and that is why I particularly commend the Premier for taking the very hard decision to introduce this Bill and the one that wdll follow it. I understand very keenly the need for an honest and open press. In the past, accusations have been made by the press that cormption was taking place in Queensland. Mr Fitzgerald has proven that some of those allegations were right. The press cannot be blamed. One must recognise the role of the press to teU the public what is going on in the Pariiament or in Govemment. If the Govemment takes no notice of what the press says, and the press know that it is right, it wdll tum on the Govemment or the person about whom it is reporting. If that is recognised, I am sure that we wdU overcome the problem that we have had in the past wdth press bias. However, facts are facts. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Goss, address public meetings and say, "This Govemment in Queensland is cormpt." Mr Goss is perpetuating the concept of cormption, because he cannot prove what he says. By going round the State and saying, "The State Govemment is cormpt", he is perpetuating this image of cormption. He is abusing the rights and privileges of this Govemment, of this House and of the system of Westminster because no-one has yet proved that there is cormption. If there is proof against one or two members of the Govemment Mr Prest: Come off it—where's Don Lane? Mr BURREKET: Not one of those people has yet appeared before a court of law. Mr Vaughan: It's only a matter of time. Mr BURREKET: It may weU be a matter of time. If a bank is robbed, the honourable member is saying, "You shoot the bank manager." If Mr Goss wants credibiUty, and if he comes into my area and makes those accusations, I will take steps to force him to either apologise or prove his claim. Mr Hamill interjected. Mr BURREKET: The honourable member can laugh. This is the mentality Mr Hamill: Will you pay for it? Mr BURREKET: The honourable member is supposed to be a Rhodes scholar. Mr Hamill: Not "supposed to be". Mr BURREKET: All right; he was. Mr Hamill: I am. Mr BURREKET: All right; he is. One would have expected a more sensible, analytical comment from a person such as the honourable member. As I said, if a bank is robbed, the manager is not shot or 1468 17 October 1989 Electoral and AdminisU-ative Review Bill sacked and action taken against everybody else dovm the Une. Just because there is one bad apple in the case, one does not throw out all the apples. If Mr Goss is going to go around and parade himself as a paragon of virtue, let him get the guide-lines nght. If he is talking about being a person against cormption, let him stop immediately this cormption and the abuse of power by refraining from making comments about the Govemment of this State. Mr ArdiU: They're all tme. Mr BURREKET: That is an example of the Labor Party's mentality. That is what we have to put up wdth and that is why the Labor Party wiU never gain Govemment in this State. It has nothing up top to think wdth. If some members of the Labor Party back bench had half a brain they would be dangerous. I am pleased that the Premier has introduced this legislation because, in the future, the people of Queensland wdll benefit from it. As a fairly new member in my first term in this Parliament Mr Hamill: A oncer. Mr BURREKET: We wdll see about that. I am looking forward to the mn-up to the election. There seems to be a conception amongst Opposition members that they are on the raUs in the home straight and that they are going to wdn the election. But the Govemment has not yet started on the Opposition. The $3m or more that the Opposition intends to spend on its campaign wdll be a wash-out. This Govemment now has credibility and has instituted checks and balances. Mr Hamill: Where is the money coming from? Mr BURREKET: Perhaps the Opposition might lend the Govemment some money at a reasonable rate of interest. Mr Stephan: The honourable member for Ipswdch was going to go to Canberra, too. Mr BURREKET: I would not be so mean as to talk about the ambitions of the member for Ipswdch to go to Canberra. He thought he had the race mn. In fact, he had his case packed and a farewell party was held for him in Parliament House. Lo and behold, a couple of weeks later he was back again. Because it is obviously a sore point with the member for Ipswich, I do not want to talk about that matter. The State of Queensland wdll remain in good hands. I commend the Premier for taking the initiative to introduce this legislation. Its beneficiaries wiU be not only the reputation of the Pariiament of Queensland but also the reputations of everybody in this State. Mr HAMILL (Ipswich) (2.40 p.m.): I could not pass up the opportunity to comment on certain matters that were raised by the member for TownsviUe in his apology for the failure of the National Party to deal wdth the endemic corruption that has brought public administration, the business of the Govemment, the police force and, in fact, every facet of public life in Queensland into disrepute. I was interested to hear the honourable member state that the Leader of the Opposition went to Townsville and levelled a well-made accusation that there has been endemic cormption in Govemment in Queensland. The member for Townsville threat­ ened to take action against the Leader of the Opposition for making those sorts of claims. Mr BURREKET: I rise to a point of order. My statement was that the Leader of the Opposition said in Townsville that the Govemment is cormpt. That is not what the member said. My words were clearly that Mr Goss said that the Govemment is cormpt. Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1469

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Order! I caU the honourable member for Ipswdch. Mr HAMILL: I remember when a number of members of the Opposition made the aUegation that Ministers of the National Party Govemment in Queensland had their fingers in the till. Those remarks prompted a spate of litigation by Ministers of the Crown in this State—aU funded, I mi^t add, from the pubUc purse—to quash the claims of the Opposition that Govemment in this State was cormpt and that Ministers had their fingers in the tiU. What happened to that litigation? The public of Queensland is paying dearly for the political action that was taken by members of the National Party Govemment to defend the so-called good name of the National Party Govemment in Queensland. This year, those writs, which were funded from the public purse, were discontinued because those very same people realised that, if taken into a court of law, those writs would be thrown out. The Govemment sought to minimise the losses to the public purse by paying the costs and discontinuing the actions. However, in itself that very action is quite reprehensible. In his report, Mr Fitzgerald drew attention to the fact that the pubUc purse of Queensland was being plundered by National Party Ministers who were hell-bent on trying to score political points in an attempt to try and quell criticism of their woeful performance. That criticism was levelled by members of the Opposition who were discharging their responsibilities in the public interest. Mr Burreket: If you disagree wdth what the State Govemment does, what do you say then about Mr HAMILL: I wdll answer the member for Townsville. I am saying that if those Ministers felt that their reputation was brought into disrepute because of the justified claims by members of the Opposition, they had the responsibility to take actions to defend their reputation and to put their money where their mouth was; let them fund the actions and let them defend their reputation. Obviously they had neither the wit nor the intestinal fortitude to do that. Rather, they took the usual course that is to be expected from the conservatives in this State, namely, they made the public pay. The public paid dearly for the political action that was taken by Govemment members. I remind the member for Townsville of an incident that occurred before he took his seat for the one and only term that he wdll be a member of this Parliament. I refer to an action that was brought against me by the former Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing, Mr Hinze. In 1985 when I raised criticisms in this House about that Minister's activities in relocating a main road and suggested that the fundamental reason why that main road was relocated was at the behest of and for the enrichment of a family company of that former Minister, what happened to me? I raised those issues here and in public. For my trouble, the Minister slapped a writ on me. Then he proceeded to act upon that writ, alleging that I had defamed him. Mr Burreket: What was the outcome? Mr HAMILL: The member asks about the outcome. I have great pleasure in teUing him the outcome. The Minister settled out of court and he paid my costs. Why did he do that? Were they the actions of a person who believed that he had right on his side? Did he believe that I had tmly defamed him in this place or, indeed, outside it? No! What he sought to do, and what he successfully did, was to frighten the media in this State into not pursuing those issues. He took out writs against me and various elements of the State's media in order to prevent further public comment upon what we all recognised was a gross abuse of ministerial power and responsibility—a gross abuse which was defended in this place by his National Party colleagues and his ministerial colleagues. Not one of 1470 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BUI them sought to question that Minister's activities and the way in which he was discharging his responsibilities. As I say, that former Minister—that discredited former Minister—discontinued those actions and my costs were paid. That is a parallel to those other actions to which the honourable member adverts. I refer to the actions that were taken by Ministers of the Crovm in this place to stifle the legitimate activity of Her Majesty's Opposition to question and to probe the way in which Ministers of the Crown discharge their responsibilities. The subsequent actions taken by every member of the Cabinet—and many of them are stUl Cabinet Ministers—were to plunder the public purse to try to score a political point. All I can say is that justice won out on that occasion; those Ministers reaUsed that they did not have a leg to stand on in the courts of this State and they discontinued the actions. The great tragedy—which Mr Fitzgerald identified—was that public nioneys, which could have been spent on upgrading our schools, on providing more police, on providing more nurses and on carrying out a whole range of projects that would benefit the community, were expended in a poUtical exercise by this National Party Govemment. Mr Burreket: Misuse of public funds? Mr HAMILL: Yes, indeed. As the member for Townsville said: a gross misuse of public fiinds perpetrated by his National Party coUeagues. That is why the National Party has sunk to such a low ebb in the opinion poUs in this State. That is why the member for Townsville wdU, dare I say it, "grace" this House for but a few more days before he faces his political Armageddon at the imminent State election. Before us this aftemoon is a measure to deal wdth the cormption which is identified from go to whoa in the Fitzgerald report. Mr Burreket: You're a hypocrite. Mr HAMILL: If the member for Tovmsville wants to continue his bleating, maybe I should remind him about the Citra contracts wdth Queensland Railways. It was incidental, obviously, that Citra Constmctions obtained contracts worth miUions of dollars. That firm was allowed to tender in a manner which would have been regarded as an incomplete tender and which would have been disregarded, but for the fact that, during the 1983 election campaign, Sir Robert Sparkes, the overt king-maker, the puppeteer of the National Party, received a down payment from Citra to the tune of a quarter of a miUion dollars. When I look back at the princely sums that my campaign committee expended to ensure my election to this place in 1983, can I say that the Citra Constmctions donation would have retumed me to this place some 50 times or more. It is quite extraordinary that sums of that magnitude should change hands and that the donors to the National Party should be so richly rewarded when they have such untrammelled control over tendering processes which, in Queensland, have become quite notorious. In recent times we have seen that nothing has changed. We saw it in relation to the matter about which I asked a question this morning—the mnway at the Caboolture Airport. No tenders were called, but $100,000 was made available by the Treasury of this State. It can be seen in the letting of tenders. I wdll cite another example of that. Only recently it was announced that Walkers in Maryborough would be awarded a railway contract worth many millions of doUars. I have nothing against Walkers. I think that firm operates a very effective business; it is a very worthwhUe enterprise. In fact, it is one that has demonstrated its capacity to provide very satisfactory rolling-stock for Queensland Railways. But is it not extraordinary that the Queensland Govemment can hand out the contracts like confetti and not subject them to public tender? Mr Ardill: There's a new Minister there. Mr HAMILL: A new Minister; an old face recycled and the old value system recycled. Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1471

The sort of value system that brought the National Party into disrepute is aUve and weU today. One of the fundamental issues which we in the Opposition must address in considering this legislation is the absence of tmst, the absence on the Opposition benches of a feeUng that the National Party has changed its spots. In fact, what we see before us is an example of back to the fiiture. What we have before us is a Ministry which is imbued wdth all of those values, aU of those attitudes and all of those practices which Mr Fitzgerald indicted in his report. One has only to look at the pubUc record. In the wake of the tabling of the Fitzgerald report and particularly Mr Fitzgerald's identifying the issue of electoral cormption as one of those fundamental issues which needed addressing, the member for Flinders, as Minister for Mines and Energy—or whatever portfolio he has this week—tried to discredit the report on the question of electoral reform. Everyone's deputy, the honourable member for Somerset, Mr Gunn, said in relation to electoral reform, "WeU, we'll have the inquiry and a review and set up a boundaries commission." It was a classic case of muddying the waters. The recycled Attomey- General, the honourable member for Redlands, Mr Clauson, stated pubUcly that the people of Queensland were sick and tired of hearing about Fitzgerald. He said that he was not really interested in Fitzgerald reforms. How can one have confidence in a National Party Govemment when its chief law officer says that he is not interested in the process of reform, even though it was so very adequately set down by Mr Fitzgerald in his report? Mrs Chapman disparaged Mr Fitzgerald and suggested that he was not perfect. She said that the Govemment would not be bound, chapter and verse, by the recommendations of the report. Indeed, even the present Premier during his first week in office endeavoured to throw overboard the baggage of a Fitzgerald report. Mr Cooper: Rubbish! That is absolute rot. Mr HAMILL: It was only after he resurrected the Kennedy shield in an effort to manage his disastrous media impact during his first week in office that he embraced the Fitzgerald report in much the same way as one would embrace a cactus. He endured the short-term pain in the hope that he might be rewarded by some longer-term benefit. I say to the Premier that he wdll be stuck on the Fitzgerald report as he would be stuck on a cactus. This Govemment's administration is classic back-to-the-fiiture stuff. The old attitudes and cliches are back. The old demeanour of Govemment is back and the attitude of members of the National Party is, "Well, we may not have won the majority of votes at the election but we have the majority of seats in the Parliament. Therefore, that gives us carte blanche to do what we like." I can tell members of the National Party that those days are over because the public of Queensland will not tolerate that attitude. They have seen the abuses and excesses of this Govemment. They have seen the Mr Burrekets and the Mr Menzels and those more successful members of the National Party who have spent some time seated on ministerial leather. Quite frankly, the people of Queensland have had enough. They are sick and tired of the delays and subterfuge that have occurred over the last four months in relation to the process of reform in Queensland. It was as recently as August that members of this Parliament debated EARC— Mark I, I presume. One of the provisions of EARC Mark I was the establishment of a pariiamentary committee. Since then. Parliament has been in session, but where is the committee? There is no parliamentary committee but, in spite of that, the Govemment is in the process of making appointments to the commission that wdU be estabUshed by this legislation. I suggest that the proper course, as set out in the legislation before the House today, is that the pariiamentary committee ought to have the role of making the appointments. Some of the amendments that have been foreshadowed set up a process whereby the three parties represented in this Parliament—and perhaps additional parties that may be represented in the future—may be able to arrive at a consensus in relation to appointments to the committee. The legislation also provides a fall-back position whereby 1472 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill the interests of a minority might be protected. I congratulate the Govemment on taking those steps. I give praise where praise is due. Those measures are one of the benefits of the process of consultation that has been engaged in relative to the provisions of the Bill. It is a shame, however, that the process of consultation has not been extended to the overall implementation of Fitzgerald reforms. One might ask why Labor Party members are sceptical of the bona fides of this National Party Govemment. Mr Schuntner: I did not get much feeUng of co-operation and warmth from your leader's speech. It was vitriolic. Mr HAMILL: A coalitionist speaks from the back bench. As a former militant union leader, the honourable member for Mount Coot-tha wdll not have to bear the ignominy of having to saddle up wdth the National Party because he wdU be a member neither of the Govemment nor of the Opposition. Mr Wells: He took the teachers out on strike against the children. Mr HAMILL: Indeed. Perhaps when the Liberal Party produces in its advertising its own version of the Black and White Minstrel Show, the honourable member for Mount Coot-tha wdll be shovm in the hue to which he is justly entitled—as one of those demonic, black fellows who is at the core of militant union leadership in this State. What a farce! I wdU deal wdth the farce that is the Liberal Party a Uttie later. The member for Mount Coot-tha correctiy observed that the Leader of the Opposition was not greatly imbued wdth a sense of tmst when he commented on this legislation; nor ought he be. Mr Fitzgerald brought down his report and identified electoral cormption as lying at the heart of many of the problems of public administration in this State. It is obscene that members of the National Party occupy the Govemment benches as the majority party in this Parliament, having polled only 39 per cent of the primary vote at the last election. I know that members of the Liberal Party would like to join them, but the fact is that the National Party retained the majority of seats in this Parliament and made sure that members of the Liberal Party did not join in the ecstasy of Govemment. Members of this Parliament have been shown the manner in which the process of electoral reform could have been carried out before the imminent State election. It was obvious that the timetable was possible and that it was no more difficult a timetable than that adopted in 1977 when the coalition Govemment refined the gerrymander into the four-zonal system. Mr Burreket: Whose gerrymander was it? Mr HAMILL: It was the Liberal Party/National Party's gerrymander. The four- zonal system was introduced in 1971, refined in 1977 and further refined in 1985. The fact of the matter is that the timetable existed to bring about fundamental reform that the people of Queensland have been clamouring for. The people of Queensland do not want to go to the polls this year on cormpt electoral boundaries, but the National Party does. The National Party's tactics have been to procrastinate and delay the process of reform to ensure that the old electoral cormption was in place to protect the political hides of its members. One might ask why the Opposition questions the bona fides of the National Party in this place to deliver on the important process of reform. If one looks at the Fitzgerald report, one sees that it is only electoral reform that has been targeted for particular attention by the EARC. I have already mentioned the question of political donations, and members' pecuniary interests fall into the same category. If this Govemment had any intestinal fortitude it would not throw this issue over to the EARC to determine the correct and proper attitude to be taken towards reforms conceming the disclosure of political donations, members' pecuniary interests or ministerial cash advances and expenses. Common Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1473 decency dictates that this Govemment should fall into line with the wdshes of the public and legislate in its ovm right to require proper disclosure of political donations, pecuniary interests and proper accounting and accountabUity wdth respect to ministerial expenses and the use of public funds. Sadly, those issues are not on the National Party agenda. It is also wdthin the writ of this Parliament to clean up its own act conceming the establishment of a proper committee system of this Parliament. Today I have advocated the need for an all-party select committee on road safety to address important public issues conceming road safety, thereby enlisting the expertise that lies not only in the Opposition, but also on all sides of the House. In recent times the faltering steps towards such a committee system that have occurred in this place concem the establishment of the Public Accounts Committee and Public Works Committee. However, Mr Fitzgerald also identified the fundamental flaws in the legislation establishing those bodies and the time-frame imposed upon the inquiries that were to be made by those committees; a fact that members of the Opposition also identified. These committees cannot delve back into the past because the members of the National Party fear that the murky past will come back and haunt them. That is why the legitimate activities of those committees have been circumscribed by legislation and this drew criticism from Tony Fitzgerald, QC, in his report. I retum to the electoral system. In 1985, in this House I spoke strongly in opposition to the final Bjelke-Petersen refinement of Queensland's four-zonal system. It is an obscenity that electors in my electorate of Ipswdch have one-third of the vote of the electors in the Premier's electorate of Roma, and I can drive to his electorate from mine in four hours. It is an obscenity that the member for Caims represents many more people than the member for Mulgrave. Their electorates adjoin, but are made distant by the zonal boundary which separates them. It is an obscenity that the people of Wujal Wujal, who are wholly surrounded by the Douglas Shire, are extracted from not only the seat of Barron River but also the provincial city zone and are located in the electorate of Cook. No doubt this is to give fulfilment to the requirement in the legislation for community of interest. In this case the community of interest is that the people of Wujal Wujal vote Labor and are black and there are more black Labor voters in Cook than in Barron River. What a perversion of electoral justice perpetrated by Queensland's four- zonal electoral system! This system is designed to subvert public opinion to ensure that the minority view represented by the National Party is exaggerated in poUtical representation in this House. Today, the tme effect of that system can be seen in this Parliament and it wdll be seen again at the State election this year. I am pleased that a very able Deputy Speaker has taken the chair; 1 will be nice to him now. I was interested in the analysis published this week in the Courier-Mail following what you, Mr Deputy Speaker, might consider to be a disastrous poll result at the week-end. The Opposition believes that the result was rather good. The Kenning poll indicated that the Australian Labor Party was drawing 50 per cent of the vote across the State and 55 per cent of the vote in the metropoUtan area. Mr Lee interjected. Mr HAMILL: This result will despatch the honourable member for Yeronga to the playground of the former members' room, where he wdll be ably represented by my colleague the member for Brisbane Central, who is prepared to sign him up already. That opinion poll and its ramifications for political representation in this House proved to be very interesting. I saw the purported computer analysis done by the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party claimed that the Labor Party could win 42 seats—despite an almost 10 per cent swing across the State—and the Liberal Party would win something in excess of 30 seats. Will any honourable member bid more than 30? Mr Lee: Up, up. Mr HAMILL: No, I could not do it. 1474 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BUI

An analysis of that poU demonstrates that Queensland's cormpt electoral boundaries would ensure that the National Party would remain the senior partner in coalition, that is, the coalition in opposition. The four members of the Liberal Party who currently grace the Liberal Party benches during this debate, the members for Nundah, Yeronga, Stafford and Mount Coot-tha—and we might be joined by a couple of their colleagues— wdU be facing a political Armageddon. Certainly, the Liberal Party might win a few extra seats in this election, but what a Pyrrhic victory! Angus wdU lead the majority of the parliamentary Liberal Party to defeat and pick up a few gains at the expense of the National Party on the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast, but the National Party wiU maintain its whip hand—albeit in Opposition—over the squabbling and fractious con­ servative parties. The Liberal Party computer analysis must have been carried out on Friday the 13th and its computer must have been infected by the vims that has caused so much concem elsewhere in the business world. It is a lot of bunkum and nonsense. The Liberal Party is destined to play only the "me, too" role in this House and a "me, too" role in Opposition. The Liberal Party wdll never dictate the terms whUst the cormpt electoral system that the Liberal Party was prepared to support in coalition remains on the statute-book of Queensland. The people of Queensland wdll not buy the protestations of the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Innes, that all wdll be different. Where did Mr John Moore stand on the important question of electoral reform? It is aU very well for Mr Innes to gesticulate and say that the pariiamentary Liberal Party wants to be on top of and not undemeath the National Party, but Mr Moore, the Liberal Party President, is on record as saying quite clearly that electoral reform was not—I stress, "was not"—a non-negotiable condition of any coalition. Mr Moore was staying around as party president so that he could hop into bed wdth Sir Robert Sparkes and determine the carve-up of spoils under which the Liberal Party might snuggle back wdth the National Party in the comfort of Govemment. I have news for them. If ever there was a pipe-dream, that was it. The National Party does not want the Liberals and the people of Queensland wdU not wear them. The hoUowness of the Liberal Party claims has been amply demonstrated by the reaction to them from the community. Over two-thirds or 67 per cent of the population in Queensland either saw through or would not believe Angus Innes. I notice the honourable member for Mulgrave nodding in agreement because he knows as well as I do that Mr Innes cannot be believed on questions of coalition, and he and the Liberal Party cannot be believed when they claim that they have tumed over a new leaf and have discarded the baggage of the last 30 years. It is little wonder that the Opposition mistmsts the National Party and, indeed, the Liberal Party wdth respect to the measures before us. As was rightly said by the Leader of the Opposition, our concern is that although the framework is being put in place this aftemoon it is the process of the appointment of the commissioners so that reform can be brought about that is the cause of our grave concem. Our tmst has been consistently and continuaUy abused by the National Party in this place. We have been calling for the implementation of Fitzgerald; the National Party has consistently delayed the process in order to meet its short-term political needs in trying to save the political hides of its members at the forthcoming State election. Mr MENZEL (Mulgrave) (3.10 p.m.): It is natural that the Labor Party would be very happy wdth this recommendation from Tony Fitzgerald because, in my view and the view of many other people, Tony Fitzgerald seemed to lean towards the ALP in making quite a few statements and recommendations that are probably ALP policy. Before going into detail I wish to reply to something said by the honourable member for Ipswdch. I did not rise to a point of order because I did not think it was worth while to do so but, for the record, his speech was so boring that, momentarily, I dozed off; so I did not nod my head at all in agreeing to something he said. I apologise for getting drowsy but I had no option, having had to listen to him for 30 minutes. Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1475

The member for Ipswich compared the number of voters in my electorate wdth the number of voters in Caims. He did not compare Mulgrave wdth Mourilyan, which is next door to my electorate and has fewer voters. According to the latest roll, my electorate of Mulgrave and the electorate of Caims have almost the same number of voters. In any case, my electorate takes in a large area of Caims. He does not know what he is talking about. He is right out of touch wdth the electoral system. Of course electorates wiU vary in voter numbers. He did not refer to Cook, which is a Labor electorate wdth fewer electors. Mr Hamill: I didn't mention Cook. I spoke about Wujal Wujal. You must have been asleep. Mr MENZEL: I said that the honourable member did not mention Cook, which is a Labor electorate wdth not many electors. He would say that the Labor electors in Cook have an advantage over the National Party electors in Mulgrave, which has three times the enrolment of Cook. Possibly that wdll have to be addressed. The zonal system has helped to decentralise Queensland. It has helped the people of Queensland. It is a system that is in effect in aU democracies in the world. The Labor Party makes a great thing out of the latest opinion poll. In my opinion, the only reputable opinion poU is the Morgan Gallup poll. From time to time the newspapers conduct polls. Of course, the newspapers predicted that the referendum would be carried by an overwhelming majority and we know what happened to the four questions right throughout AustraUa. It is all very well to be on cloud nine and to listen to Channel 9 and read the Courier-Mail. Everyone knows that, for some time, the Courier-Mail has been mnning a political campaign against the Govemment. One of Fitzgerald's recommendations has resulted in this Bill. I have reservations about some of Fitzgerald's comments but, to be fair to him, he did not say that the boundaries were cormpt; he recommended that they should be reviewed. That is fair enough. However, the Labor Party is going on wdth all this nonsense about cormpt boundaries and is misconstming or misusing the words of Tony Fitzgerald who, I guess, is a friend of the Labor Party, anyway. I have one criticism of Fitzgerald. I was concemed at the comments on the 7.30 Report about Inspector Huey, now Superintendent Huey. I am concemed that officers in the branch to which he has been assigned took a secret ballot and 100 per cent voted that they had no confidence in him or were opposed to his appointment. Last night on the 7.30 Report allegations were made that written evidence of past conduct of Inspector Huey was given to the Fitzgerald inquiry, yet the allegations were never investigated. If allegations have been made against Huey, they should be investigated. BUnd Freddie could see that he was conducting a vendetta against certain people. Mr Vaughan: In this moming's paper Mr Bingham said they had been investigated. Mr MENZEL: Not according to what was said on TV last night. Mr Vaughan: This is the latest news—this is this moming. Mr MENZEL: Because of the open way in which those allegations were put forward, I believed them. We hear many reports about cormption in Queensland. However, I instance allegations of cormption against Jackson in New South Wales and Lionel Murphy. What about Lionel Murphy? Fortunately, his reputation was saved by his untimely death. Of course, no-one would wdsh that on anyone. Cormption wdll not be stopped in any country in the world. Some Opposition members would glorify the Soviet Union by claiming that it has a system of tme socialism, yet every day we hear of cormption there that needs to be cleaned up. It is human nature to be cormpt. However, we must do the best we can to clean up cormption. Two Bills on the notice sheet provide for the setting up of two quangos. In the past, the Labor Party has claimed that Queensland had too many quangos. It is now 1476 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BUI

claiming that we need a few more. I am reasonably satisfied wdth the Bill in its present form, but I was disturbed at Mr Fitzgerald's recommendations for the form that the Bill should take. Quangos should be answerable to the Pariiament. At least the Govemment is bringing forward legislation to make that possible. Politicians are answerable to the people through a three-year contract; sometimes it is less than three years. Every three years, politicians are answerable to the people at an election. We do not want a situation in which people become untouchable. Everyone must be accountable. If we are to have a democratic system of govemment, the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission and the Criminal Justice Commission should be accountable to the Parliament, and therefore to the people. Mr Fitzgerald did not recommend that system. I commend the Premier and the Cabinet for taking a brave and responsible step with this legislation. The public of Queensland, regardless of their political colour, did not want the Govemment to set up a body which was a monster and was not accountable. A great issue has been made of accountability. Many half-tmths and lies have been spoken for political reasons. It is time that the facts were brought forward. Honourable members have claimed that additional funding should be provided for more police and more nurses. What did the Fitzgerald inquiry achieve? It cost approx­ imately $25m. When the Pariiament debated the Fitzgerald report, I stated that taxi- drivers had told me that they read the advertisements in the Sun newspaper to locate where the brothels were and take their clients to them. It has been said that Mr Fitzgerald does not walk on water. I endorse that remark. I am not ashamed to say that Fitzgerald does not walk on water. I do not care what the Labor Party or anyone says, Fitzgerald did not wipe out prostitution in Queensland, which was one of the tasks that his inquiry was set up to do. It launched a political attack on the Queensland Govemment. A smear campaign was begun and Opposition members were very pleased. However, the Fitzgerald inquiry failed to stamp out prostitution in Queensland. There is no-one in the press gallery at present, but I am disappointed that the media has not highlighted that fact. It has highlighted other facts for the political advantage of opponents of the Govemment. The Govemment spent $25m of tax-payers' money, yet prostitution continues. Taxi-drivers have informed me that there are still SP bookies; there always will be. And there always wdll be a problem wdth prostitution. Fitzgerald set out to stamp those problems out, but he has failed to do so. I wonder whether he should not be asked to be accountable for not achieving that goal. The electoral review commission should investigate the joint Commonwealth/State electoral roU, the setting up of which was a backward move. From my experience of the last Federal election, I have no doubt that the Federal Govemment is not policing the electoral system in a fair and honest manner. Strange things are occurring with the Federal roU. Unfortunately, because it is a joint roll, the problem is being repeated in the State roll. It may be that it is more streamlined that way. However, people have told me that in the seat of Leichhardt at the last election 500 votes were cast by people who did not exist. The Labor member would have been elected even wdthout those 500 votes, but they were certainly great insurance. I was also told that Federal ballot-boxes were not locked during the day and that a lot of baUot-boxes were made only of hard cardboard. I believe that they should be made of wood or steel. I also believe that at 8 a.m., when the polling-booths open, the ballot-boxes should be opened in front of scmtineers from all available political parties— certainly at least two—then locked and kept locked. Mr Elliott: It's an old Labor tradition—vote early and often. Mr MENZEL: That is right. Labor voters are certainly conscientious; we know that. The present system is not fair. As far as I am concemed, it is a cormpt system of voting. We hear a great deal about cormption, and that is a cormpt system of voting. Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1477

On the day of the election in Cairns I contacted the Commonwealth poUce because I had received complaints from scmtineers that people were going from booth to booth and voting each time and they certainly were not National Party voters. I got no satisfaction whatsoever. Obviously, the Commonwealth poUce knew full weU that they had better keep quiet or they would be transferred or otherwdse end up in big trouble. I contacted the police because these people were openly going from polling-booth to polling-booth and obviously were at least partly responsible for those 500 extra votes that were cast in Leichhardt. I hope that this new electoral commission investigates aU sorts of rorts that are going on such as people being on the electoral roll who should not be on that roll. People have come in to see me in my electorate office wdth aU sorts of complaints. One chap came in and said that he has been given a show-cause notice five times and has been stmck off the roU five times in, I think, the past 12 months. I think they made a bit of a mistake there because I understand that at least up until then he was a Labor voter, but he has probably changed his mind. That followed a canvass that was carried out, from what I have been told, by the Federal retuming officer. A door-to-door canvass was carried out in my electorate Mr Elliott: Did he forget some of the dead ones? Mr MENZEL: Apparently he was taking some of the live ones off the roll and forgetting the dead ones. I believe that that is scandalous. It should be stopped. Mr Hamill: What did they do wdth you—leave you on or take you off? Mr MENZEL: To the best of my knowledge, my name is still on the roU, and I am not dead. Mr Hamill: They could have been excused for thinking otherwdse. Mr MENZEL: After listening to the honourable member's speech today, I nearly did drop dead. The honourable member went on wdth a lot of nonsense. He did not even speak about the Bill. As Queensland has a joint electoral roll wdth the Commonwealth, I just hope that the rorts that are being perpetrated by the Federal Labor Party wdll be stopped by this State body. Mr WELLS (Murmmba) (3.26 p.m.): It is important at this stage that honourable members pause to consider what they are repealing as well as what they are legislating, because we already have an Electoral and Administrative Review Commission Act. It is part of the law of the State of Queensland and it is being repealed, in part, by this piece of legislation. I refer honourable members to clause 1.2 of the Electoral and Administrative Review Bill, which states— "The provisions of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission Act 1989, other than sections 1.1, 1.2, 2.9, 2.12 and 5.7 thereof, are repealed." So we have repealed the Act except that we have got aU of these dangling clauses which are not part of an Act but which are nevertheless part of the law of Queensland. What do these clauses say? They are very interesting clauses. Clause 1.1, of course, is the title of the Electoral and Administrative Review Act. Clause 1.3 is the Interpretation clause, which gives a whole lot of definitions. Section 2.9 talks about the immediate functions of the commission—a commission which, of course, does not exist. Section 2.12 talks about the effect of the commission's recommendations. They were going to be automatic under this piece of legislation, but, of course, the commission does not exist. Then we come to section 5.6, which says, "You cannot repeal me or any other section mentioned herein"—referring to section 2.12—"without a referendum." Basically, what we have left of the first Electoral and Administrative Review Commission Bill is a whole lot of clauses which are not clauses of a Bill; they are 1478 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BiU sections but there is no Act of which they are sections, hanging around, cluttering up the statute-book, saying nothing more than, "This is the title. These are the definitions. You cannot repeal me." These sections, which might be referred to as constitutional danglers, are there, part of the statute-book, part of the constitutional heritage of the State of Queensland and a living testimony to the legislative incompetence of this Govemment. Who ever heard of a Govemment that set out to pass a Bill, botched it so completely that it had to repeal it and then was so incompetent that it could not in fact repeal the Bill? Why, we might ask, is it that this Govemment is hesitating to try to repeal those dangling clauses, those constitutional danglers that are left on the statute-book of this State? The reason is that the Govemment fears that it would not have the power to do it. It has this notion that it does not have the capacity to remove these sections because they were entrenched in the Constitution. The device that it used to purportedly entrench these sections in the Constitution was to say in one section, "This section cannot be amended wdthout a referendum.", and then to say in another section, "That section cannot be amended wdthout a referendum." This simplifies it somewhat, but this is the procedure known as double entrenchment. The Govemment has stopped short of purporting to repeal or attempting to repeal those sections because it wants us to believe that it really believes in its capacity to doubly entrench such sections. The Opposition does not believe that the Govemment has the power to doubly entrench those types of clauses. Eariier in the second-reading debate, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Leader of the House, "At the Committee stage, are you going to introduce the double entrenchment provisions?" The Minister either did not know or would not say. He used that beloved, time-wom phrase—I do not say "time-honoured"—of the National Party, "You just wait and see." We have the sheer effrontery of the Govemment in adopting that attitude and saying to the Opposition, "We are not going to tell you whether we are going to introduce this very major amendment at the Committee stage. You just wait and see, and we wdU let you know in good time when you have two or three minutes to think about it." Instead of adopting that attitude, the Govemment ought to have adopted a more responsible attitude and said, "Yes" or "No". Surely the Minister who was leading the House at the time would have known whether the Govemment was going to do something purportedly as substantial as that. No! He said, "You just wait and see." The Opposition does not need to "just wait and see" in order to understand what the effects of such an attempt to doubly entrench provisions are. Members of the Opposition are aware of the law on the subject. We are aware of the advice that the Govemment has received from sources near and afar. We are also very well aware of the dubious nature of any such attempt to doubly entrench any provisions. The Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865 states— "... every representative legislature shaU, in respect to the colony under its jurisdiction, have, and be deemed at all times to have had, full power to make laws"— and this is the important bit— "respecting the constitution, powers, and procedure of such legislature; provided that such laws shall have been passed"— and this is another important phrase— "in such manner and form as may from time to time be required by any Act of Parliament, letters patent. Order in Council ..." That section was also saved in the Australia Act. Words importing similar meaning can be found in the Australia Act, so that concept remains part of the constitutional law of this State. The Australia Act, No. 142 of 1985, states— "... a law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a State respecting the constitution, powers or procedure of the Parliament of the State shall be of no force or effect unless it is made in such manner and form as may from time to time be required by a law made by that Parliament..." Electoral and Administrative Review BUI 17 October 1989 1479

The situation that obtains as a result of the saving of the provision of the Colonial Laws Validity Act is that every representative Legislature—that, of course, includes Queensland—has full power to make laws respecting the constitution, powers and procedure of that State; that is to say, every State Legislature has the power to bind itself by an entrenchment clause such as the one that was used in the previous BUI and which the Govemment has been talking about applying to this Bill, provided that certain things occur. It is important that honourable members read the mandating part of the section with the proviso— "... every representative legislature ... has full power to make laws respecting the constitution, powers, and procedure of such legislature; provided that such laws ... have been passed"— in the manner and form required by the Act of Parliament. If this Parliament purported to bind itself and its successors—if this Parliament purported to say, "You cannot change the law that we are about to make now without having a referendum."—it would be valid according to the Act as long as it was a law "respecting the constitution, powers, and procedure" of the Parliament. It does not appear that the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission Bill is a law that relates to the constitution, powers and procedures of this Pariiament; it is a BiU that relates to an electoral commission. The authority for that proposition can be found in a case that appears in 1976 Queensland Reports. In that august volume, the case of the Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Limited v. Attorney-General stands for the proposition that the Govemment cannot do what it has been going around the place saying that it might do but will not tell us about until the Committee stage of this Bill. In the case to which I referred, an agreement between a company and this State was authorised by the State. The agreement was given the force of law and related to the activities of that company, namely, mining. The Supreme Court of Queensland held at that point that this was a law relating to mining; it was not a law relating to the constitution, powers and procedures of the State or of the Legislature. Therefore, that case stands for the proposition that unless one is dealing with a law relating to the constitution, powers and procedures of the Legislature, one cannot entrench a provision. In other words, unless one is dealing wdth a law relating to the constitution, powers and procedure of a Parliament, one cannot purport as a Parliament to bind oneself or one's successors. One cannot say, "Here is a section that you cannot change unless you hold a referendum." I know that this is something that sounds a little bit obscure to some honourable members opposite, but to others it is a very important point. Mr Hamill: I was riveted. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Ipswdch. I have no doubt about his capacity to follow close legal argument. What the Govemment is trying to do in saying, "We might be introducing an attempt at double entrenchment", is something which, according to the precedents—according to the statutes—will not work. The Govemment's little frill or furbelow of failing to repeal those sections of the first botched Electoral and Administrative Review Bill is entirely wasted on this House. The Govemment did not need to leave those constitutional danglers hanging around. It did not need to leave a Bill half repealed; it could have repealed the BUI in its entirety and been on safe constitutional grounds. However, the Govemment chose not to do that in order to give some superficial colour of plausibility to the proposition that it has been spmiking around the State that it might doubly entrench provisions in this BiU. The Minister said, "You just wait and see", when asked whether the Govemment will doubly entrench any of the provisions of this Bill. The Opposition wUl wait and see. But, if the Govemment does that, I am teUing it now that that will not work. The next aspect of the Bill that I shall address relates to the establishment of the committee. This Bill requires that a committee of this Pariiament be set up to supervise its functions. The committee would have a number of very significant powers. It would 1480 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BUI be able to oversee and supervise the functions of the commission, make reports to the Parliament and do aU manner of things. However, because this National Party Govemment has introduced this legislation at the eleventh hour, there will not be a committee. The Premier was a last-minute convert to the proposition that there should be any Fitzgerald reform at all. Possibly Mr Cooper did not know what the Fitzgerald reforms were until he became Premier. Mr Hamill: I don't think he's converted. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Ipswdch, but I am astonished that he doubts the sincerity of the Premier on this point. Mr Hamill: It is fair comment under the circumstances, given what he said publicly. Mr WELLS: On many occasions the Premier has said that he is deeply committed to the Fitzgerald reform process. But if we disbelieved him once, it would be a strain on our credulity to disbelieve him 15 times. Nevertheless, I accept that the member for Ipswdch may be making a valid point; but let us give the Premier the benefit of the doubt. The Premier was a last-minute convert to the cause of reform. In the process of his last-minute conversion, the Premier managed to delay the introduction of these Bills for a much longer period than was necessary. The party of which the Premier is a member could have introduced this reform months and months ago. After all, it is now three and a-half months since the Fitzgerald report was released. If this legislation had been introduced much earlier, fuller community consultation about its provisions could have occurred and the committee could have been established. Now there wdll be spurious reform. This is Claytons Fitzgerald. The Criminal Justice Commission and the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission wdU be established without a committee to supervise them—the very democratic safeguard that Fitzgerald regarded as absolutely cmcial to the whole exercise. The EARC wdU be the creature of the National Party Govemment. The members of the commission wdll not be appointed after consultation wdth the committee, as the statute requires, because there wdll be no committee to consult. Instead, the Premier wdll be consulting wdth those whom he chooses to consult and they will be given such information as the Premier vouchsafes to give them. The EARC and the CJC, which are being set up by this legislation, are the creatures of the National Party. We cannot tmst the Nationals to appoint people to the CJC and the EARC. We cannot tmst them to appoint anyone to anything. The quangos of this State are absolutely chock-a-block wdth National Party clones, stooges, cronies, placemen and time-servers. The quangos are absolutely chock-a-block wdth people who are there to do the bidding of the National Party Govemment. In recent times the Govemment has been diligentiy stacking the upper echelons of the public service with similar people in order to do its bidding. Mr Clauson: Like Mick Young and Qantas. Mr WELLS: The Minister recentiy appointed somebody to a non-existent depart­ ment of the Attomey-General. Goodness knows how many people he will appoint to that non-existent department whose function is merely to supervise three officers, namely, the Solicitor-General, the Director of Prosecutions and the Special Prosecutor. The Attorney-General wants to put a departmental stmcture on top of that. Is it beyond the capacity of the Attomey-General to liaise with three different heads of three different offices? Mr Hamill: Yes. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Ipswich for his Parthian shot. Mr Clauson: You haven't heard of Heritage and the Arts? Electoral and Administrative Review BUI 17 October 1989 1481

Mr WELLS: I understand that the Attomey-General recently leamed of them when that part of his portfolio was slung to him as a consolation prize. Without that committee the CJC and the EARC wdll not have the democratic safeguard that was all important in the context of the Fitzgerald process. This piece of legislation is not the fulfilment of Fitzgerald's vision; it is nothing but a con and a trick. There wdU be the Fitzgerald form wdthout the Fitzgerald substance and the machinery without the democratic controls. Even if the required parliamentary committee were set up at this stage Sir William Knox: Only last a fortnight. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Nundah for his interjection. Indeed, it would last for only a fortnight because, under the legislation, it would last only until the dissolution of the Parliament. I understand that, during the Committee stage, a number of last-minute amendments will be moved. Some of them wdll place the courts beyond the scmtiny of the CJC and the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission. Any signs—any resemblance— of obeisance from the Govemment benches to the principle of the separation of powers is of course welcome. For the Govemment to recognise the independence of the judiciary by taking on board all of the suggestions which the judge has made to it about amending the BUI is a sign of a belated realisation of the need for preserving that important Westminster principle of the separation of powers. However, the Opposition has some concem that the functioning of the courts, the efficiency of the legal system, the manner in which cases are brought to the courts and the whole legal system which surrounds the judicial process wdll not be something that the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission can consider. To the Opposition, it seems that that would be a useful role for the commission. The courts are suffering from an enormous backlog of cases. It may be that further efficiencies injected into the legal system—efficiencies that could usefully be suggested by a body such as the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission—might be of some benefit. Nevertheless, the Opposition wdU not make much of that point. However, it raises the matter in order to simply draw attention to it. It regrets that the Govemment chose to go so far wdth the amendments that wdU be moved at the Committee stage. Many members on this side of the House wish to speak in this debate; I am not anxious to encroach upon their time. However, for the benefit of the honourable member for Cunningham, who would have some incapacity in understanding what I said unless I repeated it in words of one syUable, I would like to sum up. This BiU leaves certain matters unrepealed. By leaving them unrepealed, the statute-book of Queensland wdll be littered wdth constitutional danglers. These constitutional danglers demonstrate that the legislative process in this State has been reduced to a complete farce by this National Party Govemment. Why does it litter the statute-book wdth these constitutional danglers? It is in order to give some plausible colour to its otherwdse unbelievable proposition that it was going to doubly entrench certain provisions if we in the Opposition did not look out. We look forward to the Committee stage of the debate to find out whether these purported double entrenchment provisions Avill be introduced. Mr Scott: Would you say that Mr Ahem is a constitutional dangler now? Mr WELLS: I think that the honourable member for Landsborough is a man who would not have got his Govemment into the situation that the Honourable Premier has now got the new, that is to say, recycled Bjelke-Petersen-type Govemment into. The honourable member for Landsborou^ wdll go down in history as a man who at least tried to clean up the legacy of the mess which had been left to him by his predecessor. He wdll go down in history in a way that wdll command much more respect than either his predecessor or his successor commanded. The exercise into which this Premier has entered of introducing an EARC piece of legislation and a CJC piece of legislation without any capacity to introduce a parliamentary committee, of introducing the form 1482 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill of Fitzgerald wdthout introducing the substance, of introducing the machinery wdthout introducing the safeguards—the mudguards—which were going to protect the democratic element and of introducing an institution wdthout democratic control is not one that the honourable member for Landsborough would have undertaken. I thank the honourable member for Cook for his helpful suggestion on that point. The legislation setting up the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission and Criminal Justice Commission does not implement Fitzgerald's recommendations, because provision is not made for the committees and the safeguards. At least the Govemment is putting up the shadowy form, but it wdll be left to a Goss Labor Govemment to put on the substance. Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (3.51 p.m.): In rising to take part in this debate, I reply firstly to the suggestion that has been made by the previous speaker that the Govemment is not committed to this reform. If he really has a good look at the legislation that is before the House, he wiU come to the conclusion that, quite frankly, the National Party is the only party in this House that has committed itself to honouring the umpire's decision in relation to any recommendations that are brought down, and either of the other parties can correct me if that is not the case. My understanding is that the only way in which the other parties are prepared to accept the recommendations is if they are brought dovm in the format of one vote, one value. Mr McElligott: That is not tme. Mr ELLIOTT: The honourable member says that that is not tme. Mr McElligott: Mr Goss has said pubUcly that we wdU accept the umpire's decision. Mr ELLIOTT: That is not what I have heard him saying. Mr McElligott: That is what he said. Mr ELLIOTT: Basically I understood him to say that unless Mr R. J. Gibbs: Do you want a telegram sent to you, or something? Mr ELLIOTT: That would be handy. The honourable member can organise it for me afterwards. The other parties should be prepared to accept the umpire's decision, as the National Party is. Quite frankly, it is not good enough for them to support the recommendations only if it suits them, that is, if they recommend one vote, one value. The end result of one vote, one value would in fact mean that aU power would be concentrated in one part of the State, as occurs in most other States now. I do not know how long it has been since members of the Opposition have endeavoured to transact business in Sydney or travel round Sydney during peak hours; but if anyone wanted to advocate Sydney as a good example of the way in which this Govemment should foster further development in this State, I would urge him to think again. Sydney has become so large and unworkable that it is a nightmare to travel from one side of the city to the other to transact business. I hope that, regardless of which political party is in power in Queensland, decentralisation of this State wdll continue. The development of Brisbane as a city the size of Sydney would be disastrous from the point of view of financial administration or every-day practicality. The cost of garbage disposal alone would be astronomical. One would only have to be caught in a car on the Sydney Harbour Bridge in peak-hour traffic and calculate the waste of money caused by people being paid $20 or $50 an hour to sit in their expensive motor vehicles, instead of being at work, to appreciate what I am talking about. Surely people do not want to see in Queensland the development of another conglomerate that would become totally unworkable. Although people might say that problems of getting to work can be overcome by efficient public transport, that suggestion becomes a nonsense unless an integrated Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1483 transport system has been planned from the word go. The stage has been reached in New South Wales at which people refuse to travel by public transport. The Greiner Govemment is about to close a number of its rail lines, firstly, because they are uneconomical and, secondly, because vandalism and thuggery render public rail transport unsafe. Those social problems are by-products of the idea of developing huge cities. I am sure that many other honourable members have visited large cities in North America. HeU's bells, the absolute end of the earth would have to be New York. Honourable members should try to transact business there, or try to travel round that city and see what that is like. It is easy to find fault; it can be found in almost any situation. I suggest that this State has many social benefits that many other States—Tasmania being one possible exception—do not have. Even Tasmania does not have Queensland's beautiful cUmate. In terms of a good environment in which to bring up children and of ensuring that business is able to develop and work efficiently, everything that Queensland has to offer is very important in modem life. Irrespective of the political party that is in power in Queensland, the State's natural resources—particularly those natural attractions that wdU result in Queensland's becoming a major tourism centre in Australia, despite the airline pilots strike—must be carefuUy managed and intelligently developed. For goodness' sake, Queensland should not allow, for reasons of self-interest on the part of political parties, power to be concentrated totaUy in the south-eastem comer of the State. Because of their philosophical convictions, people may begin moves to increase representation in the south-east comer of this State. However, human nature being what it is, if the majority of politicians are centred in a small area of Queensland, the end result will be that those members of Parliament will try to bring benefit to their electorates. I acknowledge that, because members are primarily responsible to their electorate, that is their right and perhaps even their duty. I try to get benefits for my electorate, and I am sure that the honourable member for Wolston does also. Mr R. J. Gibbs: I have been very successful, even though I am in Opposition. Mr ELLIOTT: That is good, and that is the way it should be. I am concemed, however, that people who espouse a particular ideology or phUos- ophy wdll finish up imposing on this State a system that is impracticable and totaUy unworkable. To illustrate the point I am making, I cite the example of New South Wales, which has developed as the result of a concentration of power. I urge all honourable members to carefully consider this Bill and not simply go off on a tangent and say, "There is no other way of mnning the electoral system except on the basis of one vote, one value." I point out that many other countries have seen the light in relation to electoral faimess. Regularly the Westminster system is held up as a model of a democratic system by members of all parties in this ParUament, but there is an element of electoral weightage in the Westminster system of govemment which reflects the different needs of different areas. Mr De Lacy: What mbbish! They don't have weightage. Mr ELLIOTT: The honourable member does not know what he is talking about. He is obviously not a student of political history. Mr De Lacy: The next thing you wdll be saying is that there is weightage in the system in the United States. Mr ELLIOTT: I am telling the honourable member that the Westminster system, which is constantiy being held out as an example when National Party members are criticised over Queensland's electoral system, includes electoral weightage. Mr R. J. Gibbs: That's only because we are such good royalists. Mr ELLIOTT: Yes, I understand that. 1484 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill

I do not want to labour the point. Other countries wdth longer histories, which have had greater success in their political systems, have accepted that electoral system and do not feel that it disadvantages people in different electorates. People who live close to capital cities have many advantages over the people who live in far-flung areas in terms of resources, transportation and recreational facUities. It is nonsense to suggest that an electorate such as Cook, which is held by the Labor Party, should have 20 000-odd electors, the same representation as a 10 square kilometre area in the middle of a city. Country people wdll not have adequate representation and wdll move away from those far-flung regions into the cities where they wdU have access to better facUities and better education for their children. No-one can be in any doubt as to the National Party's committment to this legislation. It is very clear. The EARC BUI is absolute proof of this Govemment's commitment. People have tried to make out that the Govemment wdll not embrace Fitzgerald's recommendations for reform. That is nonsense, because there are no hidden agendas or back doors in the Bill. In the main, the Fitzgerald inquiry recommendations and the EARC are concemed wdth the electoral system rather than the boundaries. The commission must firstly make a recommendation to the parUamentary committee. It must decide whether one vote, one value would suit and assist this State, whether the existing four-zonal system is a good or not, and, if not, whether some compromise can be reached that wdll work well in this State. Analogies must not be dravm between other parts of AustraUa, because the systems foUowed in other States wdU not necessarily be the best system for Queensland. If any member has any doubts about the Bill, he or she must look at its provisions. Its main function is to estabUsh the commission and it directs the commission to immediately carry out this reform. That is contained in the legislation in black and white for everyone to read. Also, it allows for public comment and input into the whole review procedure. That is a very laudable aim and is a democratic process which must not be overlooked. The legislation requires full implementation of the recommendations contained in the commission's report, which must be fumished by 31 March 1990. All of those requirements are put in place under the legislation, and I was surprised by the remarks made by the previous Opposition speaker. No-one doubts that he has quite a bit of knowledge on this subject, but he engaged in semantics to raise doubt in people's minds as to whether the Bill currently before the House wiU in fact do what Fitzgerald has suggested. I gained the impression that the honourable member beUeves that this legislation does not set up a parliamentary committee. That is not my understanding at all. Under clause 5.1 the legislation sets up a parliamentary committee for electoral and administrative review. Mr Ardill: It enables it; it does not set it up. Mr ELLIOTT: Yes, it enables it, but that indicates very clearly that a committee will be estabUshed. Surely the honourable member does not think that the Govemment wiU not do what the Bill prescribes? Mr ArdiU: In the mean time, the commission is set up wdthout the benefit of the parliamentary committee. That's what we are complaining about. Mr ELLIOTT: Obviously the parliamentary committee wdll be set up after the election. Mr R. J. Gibbs: You can bet on that! Mr ELLIOTT: Yes, the honourable member can bet his life on that. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise. I do not have any particular concems, but I wdsh to reiterate the remarks that have been made by speakers from this side of the House. People are pleased that this Govemment is ensuring that the ultimate buck-passing ends wdth this Parliament. Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1485

Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (4.07 p.m.): This aftemoon I rise to participate briefly in this debate. The Electoral and Administrative Review BUI is a very important piece of legislation not only for the people of Queensland, but also for the people of this nation, because it will establish for aU time a system of proper electoral review. I am hopeful that the end result wdll be a fair electoral system for all people in Queensland. The Bill refers to administrative reviews. Administrative reviews are needed into certain aspects of Govemment administration in Queensland. Yesterday, in a farcical performance, the Cabinet deferred a decision on the introduction of poker machines or, should I say, draw-poker machines, which is what they really are. There is no difference between what are called poker machines and the video gaming machines which the Govemment intends to allow in clubs and which are currently in use in two casinos in Queensland. It is farcical for anybody to suggest that there is any difference between those two machines. I cite one instance of the need for administrative review in this State. In past weeks, because of my party's commitment to the introduction of poker machines, my Opposition committee and I have been having discussions wdth the manufacturers of certain excellent types of machine Mr Elliott: And collecting the fees. Mr R. J. GIBBS: No. I wdU take that interjection. I have no doubt that for years the honourable member's party has been eUciting donations to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation from the licensed clubs over the border to keep poker machines out of Queensland. There has been no such approach to the Labor Party. At no time during my discussions with manufacturers has there been any aUusion to campaign donations being required by the Labor Party. That brings me to the point that needs to be raised in this House this aftemoon. When, in our discussions wdth one manufacturer, we were talking in some detail about the need for security devices per se and the need for total security to ensure that criminals, members of the underworld and other undesirables are kept out of this industry in Queensland, I suggested that the best procedure would be for the machines in Queensland to be put under the auspices of the Casino Control Division, which is currently in charge of the machines in Jupiter's Casino and TownsviUe's Breakwater Casino. It is interesting to note that there is no security device in relation to the actual use of those machines. The security in those casinos is visual security on the floor of the casinos and on the catwalks above. It came as a terrible shock to me that my mention of the Casino Control Division received a very lukewarm reception from those two gentlemen from the manufacturing company. They made no bones about saying not only to me but also to my three parliamentary coUeagues that they had had dealings wdth people from the Casino Control Division and, on the last occasion, there was no doubt in their minds that the fangs were being put in for money. I wdU repeat that. The people from the Casino Control Division were saying to them, "If you want to deal wdth the Queensland Govemment in relation to a certain situation, we wdU require some money—Ulicit moneys—to be paid for that service or for that favour to be granted for you to get the contract." That is an absolute indictment of the Casino Control Division. I believe that those comments were made to us in absolutely good faith. I have no reason to disbelieve either of the two gentlemen involved. I put to them that that issue should be proceeded with further and their response was that, basically, they had grave doubts about pursuing it further because of the sort of victimisation that has taken place in this State in the past when people have been prepared to come forward, namely, losing contracts or never being successful in gaining any Govemment contracts. One has only to look at the record of the Thiess organisation to know what I am talking about. It is absolutely imperative that administrative reviews be made in Queensland, regardless of which party is in office in this State. 1486 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill

It is my beUef that, in the next couple of weeks, the National Party wdll make a decision bom not out of any desire to assist licensed clubs but, as I said in this House this moming, out of the need for the Premier and his cronies to try to crawl and claw their way back to some electoral respectability. I have no doubt that Cabinet wdll decide to aUow the video gaming machines in this State. I know that, in the Cabinet meeting yesterday, the Minister for Justice, Mr Henderson, put forward the proposition that there was no need to legislate in the Parliament conceming this matter; that aU that was necessary was to introduce regulations and put the matter under the auspices of the Department of Justice. Any such suggestion is an absolute farce. An exclusive unit should be in charge of and should oversee the introduction of these machines. The unit should be composed of scmpulously honest people who have been given a thorough security check. Then very tight legislation should be put through Parliament in relation to overseeing the introduction of the machines and ensuring that only the Queensland Govemment could sell the machines. The Govemment should purchase the machines from the licensed manufacturer at a contracted price on a 12- monthly basis and should sell them to the clubs and hotels which desire to participate in the business. By doing that, the middle man is cut out and the rorts that are currently taking place in New South Wales are cut out. In New South Wales, a machine that is valued at $6,000 may be sold to a club in which the manufacturers have exclusive rights. A behind-the-door deal is done wdth crooked club management and the machine that is worth $6,000 is sold for $5,000, which aUows club management to skim $1,000 off the top. When people speak of a pay-out of 85 per cent from a poker machine, that is not so. In New South Wales, in a club with 50 poker machines, the 85 per cent pay-out is worked out on an average according to predicted tum-overs and retums. That is not understood by the people playing poker machines. In Queensland, wdth the security system that I speak about, it wdll be possible from a central computer point to keep track of every coin that goes into the machines and of every coin that comes out of the machines. The system wdU track accurately and record any attempt to interfere with or to open a machine. It wdll ensure that the pay-out on each machine instaUed in a club or a hotel wdU be 85 per cent. The 85 per cent wdU not be calculated on an overall average. The security system wdll be defined so weU that, when hooked up to clubs and hotels, it wdU have the capacity, wdth 135 000 machines on line, to give a read-out every seven seconds for any given machine in Queensland. If a breakdovm occurs at the central computer point, there wdll be a secondary computer back-up. Communicators wiU be fitted outside each clubhouse, which wdll also store the information. If an attempt is made to break down the land-line or to sabotage it, the system can mn for 56 hours storing the information. Once it is relinked to the central computer, it can feed that information back to the computer so that the data is up to date at all times. If an attempt is made to interfere wdth the link between the club and the outside monitoring system, the outside monitoring system wdU immediately close down every machine in the club or hotel and, through a fitted device, automatically lock every machine from inside. The system makes tampering impossible, except if the machine is attacked wdth a crowbar or some similar object. Because of the huge capacity of the poker-machine industry, any suggestion of cormption or improper practices in areas such as the Casino Control Division should be investigated wdth urgency. It is not conceivable that such a huge industry could be introduced into this State if there were any suggestion of illicit practices. I assure the people of Queensland that the Labor Party is the only party that has done its homework on this issue. It wdll ensure the introduction of poker machines on a professional, competent and honest basis. The previous speaker spoke at length of his concem about electoral reform. When I hear members such as the honourable member for Cunningham and other Govemment members who wUl shortly speak in the debate saying how genuine they are about reform Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1487 and how keen they are to implement the Fitzgerald recommendations, particularly on electoral reform, I must say that I cannot ever recall seeing a more sickening group of hypocrites in the Pariiament. They sat there for years and were prepared to accept the dictum of Bjelke-Petersen. They were never interested in electoral reform. If honourable members were to read Hansard and see some of the remarks made in this Parliament by Govemment members on electoral reform, their hair would curl. For years they were never interested in electoral reform. For years they were quite happy to continue wdth a system that was not only electoral cormption but which ensured, aided and abetted the type of cormption that was exposed in the Fitzgerald inquiry. If honourable members were to visit country areas and speak to the average people— not poUticians or members of the National Party—they would find that those country people would not argue that they feel they were being discriminated against if there were more seats in the south-east comer than in the country areas. They are not interested in that argument. In the 12 years that I have been sitting in the Labor caucus and Opposition, I have not met one Labor member who has ever made the point either in a debate in this House or in a debate in the privacy of a party room meeting that in Govemment there would be any discrimination against people who live in the country. Mr Booth: Ha, ha! Mr R. J. GIBBS: The honourable member cannot provide any proof of that. It is my view that we are all Queenslanders. Labor Party members have no interest in discriminating against people who Uve in the country. Mr Gygar: What about your environment policy where you say you are going to resume famUy farms? Mr R. J. GIBBS: The member for Stafford would not know what the environment is. I wdll teU honourable members what his experience of the environment was: it was dropping Agent Orange in Vietnam. We all know what the honourable member was about. That sort of an accusation is absolute garbage. The simple fact is that an electoral system which ensures a weightage for people in country areas does not in any way benefit country people. It does not benefit the schoolkids in the electorates in the country and it does not affect the people who are living on the land. The only people it benefits are those in high places, who benefit from an entrenched, cormpt electoral system which ensures that they survive in office; that they survive in the corridors of power to wheel and deal in the way that was revealed by the Fitzgerald inquiry. The speaker who preceded me talked about the attitude of the Labor Party to the referee's decision. I do not believe that I am talking out of school when I say that the matter was even raised at yesterday's Labor Party meeting. I want to make this point very clear: the Leader of the Opposition made it very clear to every one of us yesterday in the party room that the umpire's decision wdU be accepted. Naturally, I certainly support and wdU continue to support electoral reform, and I will put forward a case that electoral reform should be on the basis of one vote, one value. I have no doubt that that wdU be the general attitude of my party and wdU be the basis of the submission put forward by my party when submissions are made to the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission. Let us have none of this nonsense about Mr Harper: Like they do it in Westem Australia? Mr R. J. GIBBS: I am not interested in how it is done in Westem AustraUa; I am interested in Queensland. It amazes me how visionary people such as the Minister suddenly become whenever they get into a debate in which they cannot stand the heat. They suddenly tum from being Queenslanders into being Australians, which is a rarity. They suddenly become concemed about what is going on in the rest of Australia. It never worries them on other occasions; it only worries them when the heat is on them. 1488 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill

The Minister asks what is happening in Westem Australia, or what is happening in Victoria. Let us talk about what has happened in Queensland. Because he has been part of it, the Minister knows what has happened in Queensland. He has been part of the stinking cormption that has taken place in this State for years. He is as guilty as BjeUce-Petersen and the rest of the Govemment members and some of the Liberals in this place who have tried to deny their involvement but who were part of it for 26 years. It does not matter how desperately they try to get away from it; the Liberals are painted wdth the same bmsh. That radical ex-trade union official sitting on the back bench, the man who was responsible for causing so many industrial disputes in the Queensland Teachers Union, is a Liberal. Yet today his leader had the nerve to stand up and talk about ex-union officials serving in the Labor Party. What a sickening hypocrite he reaUy is! Mr Harper: Do you remember Ned Hanlon? Mr R. J. GIBBS: No. I do not mind the interjection because, quite frankly, I do not remember Ned Hanlon, and I consider myself to be an extremely fortunate member of my party not only because I did not meet him but also because I had nothing to do with him and was never part of his administration. I believe that the electoral system that he introduced was cormpt and rotten. However, that is something that took place more than 30 years ago. I know that that is quite wdthin the Minister's memory; but those of us who are a little younger than the Minister were not around, we were not part of it and we do not accept the responsibility for it. Mr Harper: But it was stiU the Labor Party. Mr R. J. GIBBS: Actually, I do not think it was a Labor Party. I consider that it was more of a DLP-type party. In my opinion, it was never a Labor Party. I want to refer to what I believe has again been one of the classic abuses which shows the sort of hidden cormption that the public really does not wake up to or does not see revealed so starkly. I am talking about another matter that was raised in the Fitzgerald report, that is, the appointment of people to certain boards and quangos around this State. The honourable member for Cunningham referred to the tourist industry in this State. I would be the first to say that I have what I hope are constmctive criticisms of the administration of tourism in this State and of the direction of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. The corporation is, in my opinion, a classic example of the sort of hidden cormption that perhaps, as I said, people are not awake to but which takes place. The sorts of appointments that have been made to that board over the years have been, quite frankly, disgusting. I have no hassle wdth people being members of political parties and accepting or being given appointments to boards. I find that not a distasteful practice, provided those people are prepared to do a job in that organisation that is based not on their political beliefs but on a desire to get a job done for the State of Queensland. Once they start to use it as a base for whatever party it may be that has appointed them, I believe that they deserve the strongest public condemnation. I have no hesitation in saying here today that one of the most disgusting abuses of such an appointment that I have seen over the years has been Sir Frank Moore's chairmanship of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. He has used it as little more than a furtherance of the base of the National Party. Mr Harper: It's made a profit. Mr R. J. GIBBS: I am not denying the fact that the corporation has made a profit. If the Minister wants to enter into an argument about that, I am quite happy to accommodate him. We could talk about the sleazy land deal at Port Douglas that the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation did wdth Christopher Skase's organisation; the unanswered questions about the acquisition of the land and the unanswered questions about the sale of the land and the "lousy" $25m that was received for it. Electoral and Administrative Review BUI 17 October 1989 1489

For a group of people who talk about being private enterprise, members of this Govemment are the greatest group of agrarian sociaUsts that I have ever seen in my life. They interfere in the market-place. They do not aUow free enterprise to get on wdth the business that it is, designed to do, that is, engage in fair competition in the market­ place. They manipulate the market-place in their ovm favour with virtuaUy unUmited Govemment resources. The Govemment appoints National Party hacks and yesmen to very prominent positions to do its bidding and to fiirther spread the tentacles of its influence throughout the community. That is not what those types of bodies are meant to do. The QTTC is a classic example of that. When Labor wins Govemment later this year, that iUicit practice wdU stop.

Mr Harper: What about Mick Young? Mr R. J. GIBBS: What is the Minister saying about Mick Young, a personal fiiend of mine? Mr Harper: And a friend of mine, too. Mr R. J. GIBBS: I am disappointed, because I always believed that, in regarding me as his fidend, he had fine taste, but I cannot say the same about his caUing the Minister his friend. Mr Harper: What has he been appointed to? You talk about poUtical appointments. Go through Bob Hawke's Ust. Mr R. J. GIBBS: I am not interested in Mr Hawke's Ust. Again, there is the defensive mechaiusm. The Minister can never stand up and address the problems wdth which he has surrounded himself in Queensland. Suddenly the Minister has become an AustraUan and he is very concemed about what is happeiung on the national scene. The Minister should get his mind back to Queensland and accept responsibiUty for what he has done over the years. His administration of drought reUef funds is a classic example. I have dravm a number of examples to the attention of honourable members today. With any administrative review of Govemment bodies or quasi-autonomous non- govemmental organisations—quangos—it is absolutely essential that there not only be an examination of the contribution that those bodies are making to society in Queensland, but also an exanunation of the way they have been used and abused for creating jobs for the boys. The spread of the tentacles—the octopus principle—has been very suc­ cessfuUy exploited by the National Party in this State for a long time. With the same reservations that have already been expressed by Opposition members, I support the legislation. I reiterate my concem about the Govemment's decision to introduce video-game machines, which it will make in three weeks' time. It is interesting that a so-caUed elected Govemment, which does not have the abiUty, the intestinal fortitude or the leadership capacity to sit down and make up its ovm mind, wdU be influenced by, and told what to do when it goes back to its National Party management committee and again wdll receive instmctions from the master puppeteer. Sir Robert Sparkes. Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (4.33 p.m.): I cannot help saying that I was amused by the member for Wolston. It is obvious that what has happened with the video machines or the poker machines has really upset him. He appears to have been talking to people who are seUing those machines. He picked out the type of machine that would be introduced in Queensland, so he is very upset at the thought of someone else putting in a different type of machine. That is the biggest joke honourable members have ever heard in this Chamber. I Uve close to the Queensland/New South Wales border. Poker machines are instaUed in clubs over the border. I could live wdth poker machines and I think that most people in my electorate could Uve wdth them. However, the Govemment must consider their effect on family Ufe and some of the things that happen foUowdng their introduction.

103917—50 1490 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BUI

The Government has to examine the introduction of poker machines before it makes a decision on whether to introduce them into Queensland. Twdce today the honourable member for Wolston has referred to poker machines. He is afraid that the Queensland Govemment wdU introduce the video type of poker machine, whereas he has been deaUng with someone who has tried to seU him something else. Mr Schuntner: He didn't have anything else to talk about. Mr BOOTH: He might not have had anything else to talk about. I think that the member for Wolston has been taken by surprise. It is a joke that someone would speak for so long on such a subject. The commission that wdll be estabUshed under the BiU wdll be most effective. It wiU be able to distance itself from other bodies and arrive at acceptable recommendations. There is no dispute that the zonal system was established by Ned Hanlon's Labor Govemment. Contrary to the impUcations made by the member for Wolston, I think that Ned Hanlon was a decent man. If he were stUl aUve, I do not think he would be on the Opposition side of the Chamber; I think he would be somewhere else. Some of the provisions inserted into the zonal system are stiU appUcable. However, it may be that we do not want a zonal system exactly the same as the present one. Surely the people who Uve in BirdsviUe are entitled to some consideration. Under the Labor Party's one vote, one value concept Mr De Lacy: What about Warwick? Mr BOOTH: I said there might not be any need for some provisions. Certainly in the west there is a need for something. The Leader of the Opposition and, unfortunately, the Leader of the Liberal Party beUeve in the one vote, one value principle. Under that system, the electorates of Warrego, Gregory and Balonne would become one electorate. The member for Wolston said that that would not do any harm to the people in those electorates. Of course it wdU do them harm! He said that only the big blokes would be hurt by the introduction of the one vote, one value system. I ask him: what about schoolbuses? What about isolated chUdren? WUl they be looked after under the one vote, one value system? The honourable member knows damed weU that they wdU not. Mr Ardill interjected. Mr BOOTH: The honourable member for SaUsbury knows as weU as I do that, if about one-third of the area of Queensland was put into one electorate, the people in that electorate would not be looked after. The honourable member is a decent man. I cannot understand why he would want to do such a thing. Mr Ardill: Have a look at Warrego. Have a look at Gregory. It starts dovm at Poeppel comer and goes right up almost to Hughenden. Mr BOOTH: Of course it does. The honourable member wants to make it three times as big as it is at the moment. What a circus! The honourable member says that the people in that area wdll not be disadvantaged. Of course they wiU be disadvantaged. The honourable member knows damed weU that they wdll be disadvantaged. This moming and this aftemoon I Ustened to the whinging of the Leader of the Opposition. I have never heard a worse speech. He said that everyone else was a crook and everybody else was no good; but he adopted a hoUer-than-thou stance. That was the attitude that he displayed in his opening remarks. It was a fooUsh and chUdish effort. Had the honourable member wanted it, a review of the boundaries could have been conducted. He could have supported the referendum. Had he supported the referendum, a review of the boundaries would have been conducted. However, he would not have anything to do wdth the referendum. The Labor Party tossed out the referendum. Because it wdU not win the election, the Labor Party is whinging. But many people wdll not Usten. Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1491

Mr Burns: You weren't game to go to a referendum. You dingoed out of it. Mr BOOTH: Nobody was dictated to. After the election, members of the Labor Party wiU say, "We were robbed. We didn't get a fair go." The Labor Party wanted the electoral boundaries adjusted and the referendum would have been the way to do it. It is no good whinging now. This is exceUent legislation. Mr Burns: Are you suggesting that, if you win the election, you won't change the boundaries? Mr BOOTH: The Government wdll go ahead with that. However, there is no need to change to a one vote, one value system. Westem electorates should be included in another zone. I would be very surprised if a level-headed commission did not agree wdth me. This moming in the House, the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Innes, said, "I foreshadow an amendment to introduce a sunset clause, because once we have one vote, one value we wdU not want anyone to touch that." It wdU be interesting to see whether he moves that amendment. One vote, one value means to Mr Innes something different from what it means to me. Mr Davis: What? Mr BOOTH: People in the isolated westem electorates should have some weightage. Mr Davis: They should have reverse-charge phone caUs. Mr BOOTH: Reverse-charge phone caUs would not do them much good. Because I would be wasting my time, I would hate to make a reverse-charge phone caU to the honourable member. The member for Brisbane Central knows Queen Street and Barry Parade, but he would get lost before he reached Ipswich. He does not know what goes on in the western electorates where people work hard and should be looked after. Mr Lee interjected. Mr BOOTH: There is no doubt that the member for Brisbane Central has a royal background. He is related to Steele Rudd, but poor old Steele would not have wanted to know him. This legislation AviU enable a sensible review of the electoral boundaries. The Federal electorate of Rankin spreads from Inala to Warwdck and CUfton, but where is the community of interest? There is none. The Govemment must ensure that the commission comprises level-headed men who wiU determine electorates with a community of interest. The member for Rankin is often referred to in the local newspapers as the member for Inala. He speaks as if he knows everything about the downs, but he knows nothing about the countryside and mral industries. I am happy that he is the member for Inala; but why should he represent a mral electorate when he does not know a damed thing about it? I am quite happy for people from aU parties to be appointed to the commission, but they should be level-headed people who can determine electorates wdth a community of interest. Much has been said about this Govemment's lack of courage. However, this Govemment had the courage to introduce this legislation. The member for Mulgrave was fairly accurate when he said that the Fitzgerald inquiry was started to chase out prostitution and dmggies. Not much was said about electoral boundaries. However, the Fitzgerald report made little mention of prostitution, which is stiU prospering in the VaUey. I am told that the lights are stiU on outside the brothels, which are stiU operating. Not much has been done about dmg-pedlars, but a heated debate about rigged electoral boundaries has taken place to try to smash this Govemment. 1492 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BiU

The existing electoral boundaries were estabUshed by the Hanlon Govemment, which probably thought that they were justified and in the best interests of Queensland. People now blame the electoral boundaries for prostitution and dmgs, which is a lot of mbbish. Nevertheless, that Govemment showed courage in introducing those boundaries. The approach of the Leader of the Opposition this moming was so bitter that I cannot believe that he is suitable to lead the Opposition. From Ustening to some honourable members one would think that aU the commission wdU do is have one quick meeting and say, "Righto. Every electorate must be cut up in accordance with the principle of one vote, one value." I wdll be disappointed if that is the case. The commission should consider the facts and decide whether the people in those seven or eight westem electorates should have some weightage. Allowance should be made for the larger electorates. Electoral reform is a highly sensitive issue. When has there ever been a redistribution of electoral boundaries without rorts? One honourable member said that he did not know Ned Hanlon or any of the other Labor Premiers. However, I knew them and I would be surprised if any of them led the best Govemment that this State has ever had. When the Country Party Govemment was elected—admittedly in coaUtion—it started considering some of the things that it could do for the people in the country, as a result of which the country areas received great advantages. That is why this Govemment has lasted so long. Mr Harper: It wdll last a lot longer, too. Mr BOOTH: Yes, it wdU last a lot longer. After Ustening to some of the comments made by members opposite, I reckon that the National Party wdll come up hand over hand very quickly. All some members opposite are interested in is bitterness and hatred. That was evident from the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition. I am certainly not in favour of some of the things that he said. Admittedly some members opposite tried to widen the debate a little. The Leader of the Liberal Party said that he wants the legislation to contain a sunset clause. Care needs to be taken about the insertion of such a clause. The commission should not be sitting for just six weeks and then, the minute it recommends something that the opposition parties like, be disposed of The commission needs to be in place in case any other problems arise. Care needs to be taken about the insertion of a sunset clause. Another member—I think it v/as the member for Wolston—spoke about boards. He said that sometimes people wdth National Party backgrounds are appointed to boards. If they are boards that are operating in a country area or are connected wdth one particular type of crop or one particular breed of stock, of course people with some background knowledge should be appointed to them. Mr Davis: They are on the TAB—the lot. Do you know that the members of the Brisbane hospitals board are aU National Party supporters? Mr BOOTH: I was not aware of that. I have heard no complaints about the TAB. I Uve out in the country, where the TAB provides a good service. It has been said that the TAB computers do not work. I can assure honourable members that they work quickly enough when they are taking my money. Every time I place a bet, away my money goes. I have not experienced any problems with the computers. I must admit that, occasionaUy when I wdn, they pay out to me. However, that is not too often. Much of the talk about the TotaUsator Administration Board is mbbish. The board has had a successfiil year. It has kept up a good service. There are one or two things that I would not have done. I would not have aUowed the TAB to operate in hotels. I do not think that is altogether right. However, the machines are in such places and they are working weU; that has to be admitted. This BiU wiU be of benefit to Queensland. It is a result of a recommendation of the Fitzgerald inquiry. Although I am not somebody who thinks that Mr Fitzgerald is Electoral and Administrative Review BUI 17 October 1989 1493 God, I think he probably put a lot of work and effort into his inquiry. Provided his recommendations are handled correctly, they wiU probably be in the best interests of Queensland. I commend the new Premier for going ahead wdth this legislation. Mr SCHUNTNER (Mount Coot-tha) (4.48 p.m.): As I have Ustened to this debate, the strongest impression that I have formed is that very few speakers are reaUy representing the views and interests of their constituents. In criticising various aspects of what occurs in this House, I point out that none of us is perfect and that I certainly make my fair share of mistakes. This debate has not been addressing a central thmst of the report and, indeed, an underlying concept on which the legislation is based. The Fitzgerald report referred to a culture in the poUce force. No doubt that matter wdU be referred to fiirther when the Criminal Justice Commission legislation is debated. I beUeve there is also a culture that appUes wdthin Parliament and helps shape the behaviour of parliamentarians. I saw it evident a couple of weeks ago when the member for Mount Isa found it necessary to rebuke strongly and, I am pleased, very effectively the member for Windsor and the member for Ipswdch for the way in which they were behaving in the debate at that time. It was also seen earUer today in the ridiculous interchange between the member for Curmmbin and the member for Ipswich. We saw it earlier in this debate in the inane personal invective that emanated from the member for Wolston. There needs to be healthy and vigorous debate in any institution such as a Parliament or an organisation in which matters of serious importance have to be decided. I am certainly not opposed to healthy and vigorous debate; but the unnecessarily mde, stupid and childish behaviour that we see or, more to the point, that visitors see when they visit this place is quite beyond the bounds of what the community expects of this ParUament. That behaviom* drags down not only the reputation of the individual and his or her own party but also the institution of ParUament itself Mr Fitzgerald did not explicitly say this; but, in writing his report, he was obviously hoping that we, as parliamentarians, would have the sense and the abiUty to be able to perceive that problem in the way in which ParUament operates. He hoped that we would be able to recognise our severe shortcomings and act to remedy them. Surely aU the members of this House are aware of the enormous level of cynicism in the community about parliamentarians and about ParUament in general. If that is so—and I beUeve it is—what needs to be done? The overriding approach that needs to be adopted wdth the Fitzgerald report and the legislation flowing from it is one of significant co-operation. That has been very evidently missing not only from day one when the report was brought dovm but also right through this debate. I want to quote from a speech made on 6 July this year by the member for Sherwood, the Leader of the Liberal Party, when the Fitzgerald report was being briefly debated. It was debated briefly, of course, because the debate was gagged and ParUament rose at a time when it should not have risen but should have continued in session to debate the report. Mr Innes said— "In other Parliaments the experience is that people who are obliged to work together wdU work together.

Because in the end result people in a smaU group reaUse that they have responsibiUties, and because there is a group loyalty and an obligation to be fair and just and to work together, generaUy fair decisions come from committees such as the Privileges Committee." Later in that speech, Mr Innes said— "Let full faith and credit be given to the recommendations and the stmctures and let the co-operation and involvement of all the parties, aU the members and the ParUament start, if not now, then next week." 1494 17 October 1989 Electoral and Admmistrative Review Bill

I wish to cite the words that I wrote in a letter to the Courier-Mail on 9 July. That newspaper ran tme to form and did not pubUsh my letter. Happily, though, it was printed in a number of other newspapers around the State. The letter states— "We need to put aside the personal vendettas and to reaUse that even our preoccupations wdth party interests must be subordinated to the higher-level need to respond to the Report positively, co-operatively, constmctively and promptly in the interests of aU fair-minded Queenslanders." The report was pubUshed in July and at least some people desired an air of co­ operation to envelop its implementation. Unfortunately, it had a very poor start. The Government faUed to have the report debated fully in Parliament. At that time, no decision was made to estabUsh the committees for the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission and the Criminal Justice Commission. Today's speech by the Leader of the Opposition was very disappointing. I could use a number of harsh words to describe it. Mr Lee: "Sarcasm", "hatred". Mr SCHUNTNER: The words that come to my mind as exempUfying that speech are the types of words that the member for Yeronga has expressed. The speech conveyed bittemess, vindictiveness and hatred. Those are not the bases on which the future of Queensland wiU improve through the implementation of legislation of the type that is presently before the House. A number of contributions made during this debate regui^tated information about poker machines and many other irrelevant matters without addressing the central intent of the legislation. I commend the statement made earUer today in the House by the Minister for Education on the new emphasis in education on teaching young people much more about the roles of Pariiament and the Govemment. It is in that particular direction that I believe the major hope for the future lies. I wish to make some observations—or, more accurately perhaps, repeat some points already made—on the Fitzgerald report. Mr Fitzgerald pointed out that no Govemment has aU the expertise that is necessary for good govemment. He said that ParUament was the place in which rational debate should be conducted so that other expertise could be injected in a reasonable way into the consideration of legislation. It is a great shame that, in the past, earlier consultation with other members of Parliament has not been engaged in by the Govemment in respect of legislation. Some Ministers practise con­ sultation, and I hope that that practice wdU increase in the future. ParUament should be a fomm for expressing differing views. I repeat that vigorous and healthy debate is an essential part of Parliament. Of course, there are lighter moments and some very clever interjections; but, by and large, this Parliament is not the fomm of rational debate that the people of Queensland expect. The Fitzgerald report also states that the role of Parliament can be fhistrated in a number of ways. An instance of that occurred on 6 July when, instead of being aUowed to debate the report, the Parliament was adjoumed, only to be brought back some weeks later. ParUament was adjoumed at a time when the most pressing need in Queensland was for it to debate the report in fuU. Parliament should have continued untU every honourable member who wanted to speak in that debate had an opportunity to do so. The classic way in which the Parliament can be fmstrated was iUustrated at that time when the Leader of the Liberal Party gave notice of a motion that he would move the foUowdng day. Parliament was prorogued before the motion could be moved. That was a classic example of the way in which the proper role of Parliament was fmstrated. Mr Fitzgerald points out that misconduct in a society is much less likely to occur if the objectives of a parUamentary system are honestly pursued. He set out the elements that constitute fair treatment for non-Govemment parties. He said that, if a parliamentary and Govemment system is allowed to operate in the way in which too often honourable members have seen it operate in the past, the fair treatment of non-Govemment parties simply does not occur. Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1495

There is a need for parties that are not in Govemment to have proper access to information and resources. It is not good enough for secrecy to be claimed as an essential element for not providing that information when it is really because of that unnecessary cloak of secrecy being imposed that cormption occurs. The parties not in Govemment are effectively prevented fi^om doing their job. Mr Fitzgerald used the foUowing words— "It is essential that the Govemment is not able to claim that secrecy is necessary when the only thing at risk is the exposure of a blunder or a crime." Let me cite an example from the last couple of years. This Parliament pressed the Govemment very strongly for a statement on guide-lines for expenditure by Ministers. Time after time this Parliament was refused that reasonable request. I say that there was no need for secrecy about those guide-lines and that the operation of Govemment would have been much better if this Parliament had not been denied the information that should properly have been put before it. The Fitzgerald report makes a number of comments about the operation of pariia­ mentary committees. It points out that the modem Parliament is operating in a society that is much more complex than that which ParUaments represented centuries or even decades ago. The way that Parliaments can more effectively deal with those complexities is to estabUsh a number of committees. UntU fairly recent times, this Parliament had established committees only in rather innocuous areas of govemment. It is only in recent years that the ParUamentary Public Accounts Committee and the PubUc Works Com­ mittee were established. I recaU comments made by the honourable member for Landsborough, particularly when the Select Committee on Education was appointed in 1978, about his desire that more parliamentary committees be established. It is a great shame, and certainly not to the credit of the ParUament, that very few parUamentary committees have been estabUshed. I strongly endorse the view put forward by Mr Fitzgerald in his report that there should be more of those committees. Mr Fitzgerald goes somewhat further and gives some suggestions as to how those committees could operate, and operate effectively. Another extremely important part of the report is the reference to Executive Govemment, that is. Cabinet. It would be tempting to talk a little about the doctrine, or concept, of the separation of powers. Obviously Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen knew very little about that concept, and Mr Cooper was somewhat fazed by a question about it in his recent interview on the 7.30 Report. I wdU not digress into that matter in any detail, but the quality of Govemment wiU not be satisfactory if Cabinet does not understand its proper role. It has overaU control of legislative and Executive activity, but it is not the proper role of Cabinet to involve itself in detailed decisions that are properly the role of the bureaucracy. A Une exists between what is properly the role of a Cabinet in developing Govemment policy and its role wdthin the parliamentary context, and the bureaucracy which is charged wdth the responsibility of impartially, fairly, honestly and properly carrying out Government poUcies. The report refers at some length to the electoral laws. I wdll not add much on that matter to this debate because many members have already commented on the electoral laws. Most of the contributions were strongly in favour of what is caUed one vote, one value, a general policy of equality wdth a tolerance of 10 per cent, or a system of weighting. Mr Fitzgerald stated that it is a fundamental tenet of parUamentary democracy that pubUc opinion can be given effect by regular, free and fair elections. It is one of my deepest hopes that an honest appraisal of the electoral system in Queensland results from this legislation. It is nonsense for some speakers to refute allegations that it is only the electoral system that has caused cormption in Queensland. In my opinion, the electoral system certainly has not helped; it has merely assisted this Govemment to entrench itself in office when it should probably have been voted out. Many matters other than electoral boundaries need to be addressed by this legislation. Honourable members must not forget that this legislation is concemed not only with electoral reform but also wdth administrative reform, and I wdll say more on that matter in a few moments. 1496 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill

It is disappointing that the first versions of this legislation brought before the House laid dovm a specification for 89 seats. How can there be a genuine appraisal of the system if the people appraising it are given clear riding instmctions that they must stick wdth the existing number of 89 seats? That provision damaged the credibility of the Govemment at a time when it was trying to impress on the people of Queensland that it was serious and genuine about the Fitzgerald reforms. Mr Lee interjected. Mr SCHUNTNER: The honourable member for Yeronga makes a very good point. The Liberal Party has consistently opposed an increase in the number of poUticians. I tum now to make a few comments about that part of the Fitzgerald report concermng administrative reform. The report suggests that there has been too much poUticisation of the bureaucracy. The Govemment is answerable to the people to decide the poUcy, and the pubUc servants implement that poUcy. I touched on this matter a few moments ago when I said that a Une exists between the two. It must be clearly distinguished not only by the Govemment of the day but also by the bureaucrats of the day. One example of where this went terribly wrong was illustrated in the evidence given to the Fitzgerald inquiry by the previous Police Commissioner, who suggested that there was frequent contact between himself as Police Commissioner and some senior poUtical figures in the Govemment and the organisational wdng of the Govemment party. That is a grossly improper crossing of the line separating the bureaucracy from the Govemment. The boundaries can be blurred, and it is the responsibiUty of Govemments and bureaucracies to recognise that and make sure that they are committed to policies and practices that do not allow those transgressions to occur. In Queensland there can be, and often has been, Executive control over the careers of public servants, causing pressure that leads to decisions being made by public servants that are not in the best interests of good govemment but are in their personal best interests for promotion. It would be a very brave public official who did not give the advice that he or she was expected to give. Public officials should be able to give advice wdthout fear or favour. I am aware of many such appointments; but, in the case of one very senior appointment, one person was passed over for the position and I am absolutely certain that the reason was that on too many occasions he may have provided advice that was somewhat unpalatable to the Govemment. During those times his advice would have been what he thought was the right and honest advice to give. The Fitzgerald report makes many comments about the dangers of the Govemment or individual Ministers having favourites wdthin the pubUc service who are extended favouritism because they give advice that is more political than of a straight poUcy implementation nature wdthout consideration of the political ramifications. The report points out the great dangers when poUticians and bureaucrats act together wdthout separation of the Unes of activity that should be foUowed. The report points out that that leads to wrong decisions and then to problems. The report points out, quite rightly I beUeve, that the extent of those problems will not be knovm because those problems are hidden by the bureaucrats, who realise that the Govemment wants to hear only good news in a poUtical sense, not only from the public at large but also from the bureaucracy. When those difficulties become severe, there are major poUtical problems for the Govemnient of the day. That leads to cover-ups, which are, of course, part and parcel of the misconduct and cormpt behaviour pointed out in the report. The report also points out that the quality of the bureaucracy depends on the quality of the ParUament. There cannot be satisfactory progress towards the ideals of the Fitzgerald report unless Parliament itself leads by example. The report points out that a self-serving, cynical Govemment wdU be reflected in its bureaucracy, and that bears thinking about by a Govemment of any persuasion. It is the legitimate concem of Ministers that there is in place throughout all departments a practice that honest, efficient systems operate in appointments, promotions, transfers, demotions and dismissals. The more important a position, the greater the need Electoral and Administrative Review BUI 17 October 1989 1497 for scmpulous propriety to be apparent. It is important that poUtical favours be not seen as the basis for appointment and promotion. That leads to very dismptive effects in departments. I would venture to say that there are not too many departments in which, over recent years, those feelings of dismption and unfaimess caused by improper political intervention have not been felt. The report makes it very clear that the Minister should delegate, to suitable people wdthin the department, power to make certain appointments, and that those appointments should be expected to be carried out in an impartial and open way. I now move to the advertising of vacancies. Too often in the past—and I hope that this is rectified in the new practices and procedures that I tmst wdU be set in train by this legislation—vacancies have not been advertised. An example was when technical and further education was transferred from the Department of Education to the Department of Employment, Vocational Education and Training a couple of years ago. Many appointments were made wdthout vacancies being advertised. This caused enormous discontent among many of the people who did not obtain positions. The meteoric rises by some people were planned and implemented largely through the Govemment's deUberate decision not to advertise vacancies. The Fitzgerald report recommends the removal of many of the limits on appeals and suggests that it is unnecessary for many of the appointments to be given approval by the Govemor in Council. The report says that it is not immediately apparent why that process is required. Another element of Govemment activity referred to in the report is the letting of contracts, a subject on which I have spoken at length in the past. I do not intend to repeat my comments, but it is critical that the process of caUing and letting tenders not only is fair and just but also is seen to be fair and just. It is acknowledged in the report that the role of the news media in the evolution of cormption in Queensland has been less than satisfactory. I acknowledge that a couple of joumalists played significant parts in unveiling a good deal of the cormption which was subsequently the subject of the Fitzgerald report. I applaud the activity of those joumaUsts and would like to think that more of the intensive, detailed and investigative type of joumalism wdll be applied to rooting out any cormption that still may exist in (Queensland. The media in Queensland should shoulder a substantial share of the blame for what has led to this legislation. There has been a lack of persistence in interviews. Too often when a senior poUtical figure has been questioned, the answer given has been most unsatisfactory and, whUe Queenslanders at large are saying, "Why doesn't he ask such and such?", the joumalist drifts away from his line of inquiry and lets the answer go unchallenged. That is a failure on the part of the media to follow up the responsibUities that are fairly in their court and should be followed up. I was absolutely appalled at the standard of questions asked by some joumaUsts at an event in Brisbane last week. At it were Mr Ahem, representing the Govemment, Mr Innes and Mr Goss. They were addressing a large number of people about the economic future of Queensland and the policies of their parties as they apply to business. Senior joumalists were the first people invited to ask questions. Some of the questions that were asked on that occasion were along these Unes: "Mr Ahem, would you accept a Ministry in a Govemment led by Mr Innes?", and, "Mr Innes, if the position of the Liberal Party on the coalition does not pay off, would you stand dovm or would you resign?" Those questions had nothing to do wdth the very important topic that was the subject of that meeting on that day. That reflects very poorly on the media of Queensland. Mrs McCauley: That's typical. Mr SCHUNTNER: Unfortunately, it is too typical. Members of the media look for some glib, superficial comment that they can blow up into a headline rather than look at the matter of substance that it is their responsibility to delve into and to report honestly and fairly to the people of Queensland. 1498 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill

I read a newspaper column which contains an article with fair comments on its own media coUeagues. The article reported the role of the media sometimes in the past as having been fawning, giggling and subservient. Too often we have seen that type of attitude from the media. I am being highly critical of the actions of some elements of the media in what has occurred over the last few years. The media have aUowed themselves to be used by the Govemment—and by the Opposition, no doubt—in unsatisfactory ways. AU members of this House would be aware that a member of the press gaUery, who had very close Unks wdth a sacked member of Cabinet, used those Unks to serve the interests of both the Minister who leaked the information and himself, the writer of grotty little stories. Time is short, so I wdll not go into that matter any further. Members of Parliament would find it worth while rereading the section of the Fitzgerald report that places some emphasis on the proper role of the news media. The process of parliamentary changes may well be slow. It will also take time to change the attitude of the media to encompass the ideals that were spelt out in the Fitzgerald report. The great hope for the future is the establishment of parliamentary committees, the estabUshment of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission under this legislation and the education of our young people and the community at large who in the future wdll expect and require much higher standards—the sorts of standards that are implicit in the legislation before us. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (5.18 p.m.): I support the BUI. The most important aspect of the legislation is contained in clause 2.9, which sets out that the commission is to provide reports with a view to achieving and maintaining efficiency in the operation of the ParUament, and honesty, impartiaUty and efficiency in elections, public administration of the State and local authority administration. Clause 2.9 (2) further provides— "The Commission is concemed only wdth systems, principles and practices, and not wdth particular instances of alleged inefficiency, dishonesty or partiality except to the extent that such instances indicate or suggest deficiency in existing systems, principles or practices." AU honourable members must support those objects. A move was made to have a redistribution so that the election could be fought on new boundaries. Although the opposition parties came out wdth much froth and bubble early in the piece, the National Party was the only party that ultimately supported a redistribution. The Labor Party did not want a redistribution and an election fought on new boundaries. When it was given the opportunity to have the redistribution carried out, it was not interested in electoral reform. The National Party is not afraid that any genuine and independent inquiry wdU bring in findings to the detriment of the continuing development and balanced processes of the State. It is prepared to submit and argue its electoral system policy before an open, independent Electoral and Administrative Review Commission and accept its mUngs. Both the Liberal and Labor Parties have stated that they wdll consider the final provisions in the legislation before they agree to accept the recommendations of the EARC. The Labor Party is petrified of electoral reform. It is petrified of what might come out in the wash. It is petrified of having to change its poUcy to meet the recommendations from the EARC. The Labor Party did not want electoral reform before the election because the faceless men of the union movement who really mn the ALP distributed the current seats according to factional support—the SociaUst Left, the Old Guard and the AWU. Earlier today, I stated that the Labor Party disendorsed three members because they belonged to the wrong faction. It was afraid that, if the boundaries were changed before the election, infighting would begin and it would not be able to control its members. It ducked away from a redistribution. It was not game to face it. Rather than upset the delicate balance. Labor preferred to abandon electoral reform. The Labor Party had its feUow-travellers—the Citizens for Democracy and the union movement—conduct street marches and sign petitions, authorised by Wayne Goss to demand electoral change. Electoral and Administrative Review BUI 17 October 1989 1499

Mr Bums: Who wrote this stuff for you? Mr STEPHAN: Is the honourable member denying that the Labor Party circulated a petition? Is he denying that there was a move in about July for a petition to be circulated? When members of the ALP found out what the National Party wanted, they changed their minds. They did not want to know anything about it. They wanted to mn in a different direction. Where is the ALP's march for democracy, its rally for change? Where are the petitions that it circulated? Mr HamUl: What did the petition call for? Mr STEPHAN: Members of the ALP wanted a change of boundaries. As soon as they had the opportunity to change the boundaries, they went to water. What hypocrites! When members of the ALP were given the chance and put to the test, they did not stand their ground. They did not have the political stamina or the political honesty to stand up for what they beUeved in. They went to water. They did not like it. Time and time again the Labor Party has not stood up for what it says it beUeves in. In most instances, it wants people to believe that it stands for something entirely different from what it actually stands for. The opposition parties said the electoral boundaries should be changed before the election. They were fiiU of sound and fury but came up with nothing. The ALP leader said, "It would be the ultimate joke if the State Govemment went to the people of Queensland seeking re-election in the forthcoming election on crooked, old boundaries." He said that that would be the ultimate joke, yet Labor itself, because of its attitude and its lack of honesty and integrity, has shown that it in fact is the ultimate joke. I tum to the review processes outUned in the BiU. There is no way that the ALP would support people and organisations across the State who support electoral weightage or any system other than one vote, one value having guaranteed input into the electoral decision-making process. No way in the world would members of the Opposition support that! They are grinning about it, but it is a fact of life. The opposition parties want to deny the broad process of consultation through an independent commission. The Labor Party does not want an independent commission. It has demonstrated that on many occasions. The Leader of the Opposition has said that a Labor Govemment wiU review all appointments to the commission. It is hardly the act of a tmsting fellow when he points out that he wdU review the appointments before they are even made. He wants to put in his ovm men. It is obvious that he wants his ovm union mates, his ALP fellow-travellers and his ovm cronies to head the commission. I draw to the attention of honourable members what the ALP has been doing, and what it is doing at present, in the Federal sphere and in some of the other States. Time and time again it has stacked tribunals with its feUow-traveUers and made appointments that amount to jobs for the boys. I suppose that is why we so often hear members of the Opposition trying to denigrate this Govemment over appointments to the Rural Fires Board and other mral boards because the appointees are so-caUed members or supporters of the National Party. There is every chance that such appointees would be supporters of the National Party. I wdU cite examples of jobs for the boys in the ALP. BUI Hayden was appointed Govemor-General; Brian Burke, Ambassador to Ireland; Gough Whitiam, Ambassador to UNESCO and the Constitutional Commission; Doug McClelland, High Commissioner to Britain; and David Coombe, Senior Trade Commissioner in Vancouver. Honourable members might remember Mick Young, who had some problems on a couple of occasions when retuming from overseas. He has been appointed as a consultant to Qantas. He would know aU about coming through customs, I should imagine. Don Dunstan was appointed to the Constitutional Commission; Tom Veivers, who was a member of this Pariiament for a short time. Commissioner General for the Australian Pavilion at Expo; 1500 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill

NeviUe Wran, CSIRO; David Hill, Chairman of the ABC; Marcus Einfeld, QC, of the New South Wales Society of Labor Lawyers, President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; Brian Burdekin, Commissioner of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; and Bemie Fraser, Govemor of the Reserve Bank. The ALP has hardly demonstrated a proper attitude when it comes to making appointments, particularly appointments to commissions such as the EARC. Is it any wonder that the Leader of the Opposition says that he wdU consider the possibility of changing the commissioners should the unfortunate situation arise of the ALP coming to power in this State? With that attitude, it is no wonder that members of the ALP are ducking for cover. It is no wonder that they want to mn and hide. By the introduction of this piece of legislation, the Queensland National Party Govemment has demonstrated that it has the ability to move forward. It was suggested by Fitzgerald and has been awaited by the general pubUc. The legislation provides for a review not necessarily of the boundaries themselves but of the electoral redistribution system. I beUeve that, because of the increase in population in this State and the growth factor in various areas of habitation, it is time for a review, anyway. However, sight must not be lost of the fact that there are large parts of this State that are unique and in need of representation. Those electors need to be able to contact their member of Parliament and to be able to communicate wdth him on a one-to-one basis; not over the telephone, but face to face. They need to be able to explain their problems, which are very different from those that affect people who live in metropoUtan electorates, where most of the members of the Labor Party hold their seats. Mr McELLIGOTT (Thuringowa) (5.29 p.m.): I want to concentrate on those sections of the Bill that relate to local govemment because I think it is essential that this important third tier of govemment in Queensland, which is now recognised in the Constitution Act of this State, be considered to be a vital ingredient of this Bill. It has not been mentioned to any great extent by previous speakers, and in my capacity as shadow Minister for Local Govemment I want to concentrate on that section of the BiU. However, before doing so, I want to make a few general statements. First of aU, I should indicate that I believe very strongly that the people of Queensland have welcomed the Fitzgerald report. Some people have been so unldnd as to suggest that the cost of the work that was put into it—some $24m—was a waste of tax-payers' money. I believe that the majority of Queenslanders reject that view and accept the view that a very competent individual took upon himself the massive task of investigating public administration in this State. In his report he made some recommendations which, if properly implemented, wdll restore to Queensland the type of public administration that Queenslanders deserve and want. The words "pubUc administration" can be interpreted very widely, and I believe that they have been widely interpreted in the BiU. By "public administration", clearly we bring into account the operations of this place. We also bring into account the operations of the local govemment system that I mentioned, the way in which boards and statutory authorities are elected and the way in which they operate, and all of those matters that go towards the general day-to-day administration of the public sector in this State. The way in which the electoral system operates in this State is receiving a tremendous amount of publicity—as, of course, it should. Govemment members who argued for a continuation of the present zonal system missed the point altogether. The member for Warwdck said that people who live in places such as Birdsville deserve some special consideration. If that is the purpose of the zonal system, it is clearly not working. For example, the member for Gregory lives in Brisbane; the member for Peak Downs lives at Emu Park. If there is a concem in this State about a drift of population to the south­ east comer, it is clearly those far-flung areas of the State that are being badly represented or are being let down by the system. If the system is in place to achieve those sorts of Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1501 results, demonstrably it is not working and it needs to be reviewed, and that is what the Opposition is suggesting. Both the member for Cunningham and the member for Gympie said that members of the Labor Party and members of the Liberal Party had indicated that they would not necessarily accept the umpire's decision. Certainly, I cannot speak for the members of the Liberal Party, but I can say very clearly that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Goss, has stated very clearly that the Labor Party wdll accept the umpire's decision. Whatever the commission indicates Mr HINTON: I rise to a point of order. I have just been advised that the honourable member said that I live in Brisbane. That is not tme. I find it offensive and I ask him to wdthdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Perrett): Order! There is no point of order. Mr McELLIGOTT: The honourable member has a guUty conscience. All of the scandal that is raised in this House does not necessarily refer to Mr Hinton; I was referring to the member for Gregory and to the member for Peak Dovms. On a couple of occasions in this Chamber I have said that the system of local govemment that we enjoy in this State is in need of review. It is important that, in the general discussion on the BiU, local govemment is not forgotten. Recently, wdth delegates from local authorities throu^out Queensland, I attended the annual conference of the Local Govemment Association of Queensland in TovmsvUle. In his address to that conference, the former Premier, Mr Ahem, somewhat casually referred to the legislation that would be brought before the Parliament. A person speaking would have been drowned out by the sound of jaws hitting the floor as the delegates at that conference suddenly realised, apparently for the first time, that the proposals relating to EARC also included the potential to review the operation of local govemment in this State. The Minister for Local Govemment, Mr RandeU, and the Minister for Main Roads, Mr Gunn, addressed the conference and refused to answer questions relating to the proposals contained in the EARC legislation. However, I can assure honourable members that Mr Ahem's reference to EARC caused a panic among local govemment representatives at that conference. The view of the majority of the delegates who attended that conference was that EARC should keep its nose out of local govemment and that local govemment was beyond that type of review by an independent body. Many councils throughout the State are still opposed to any type of investigation by an independent authority. Fortunately, and to its credit, the Local Govemment Association has given cautious support to the legislation. I understand that it has made representations that have resulted in amendments being made to the BiU. Nevertheless, the Local Govemment Association, which represents the councils in this State, gives the legislation its cautious support. I believe that it has been demonstrated over many months that there is a clear need for an independent body to investigate the system of local govemment that exists in this State. I say quite unashamedly that a proposal in the Labor Party's local govemment policy is to set up such a review body. This legislation puts in place the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission that wdll carry out that task. A number of local govemment aspects need to be examined. Members may recall that I asked the former Minister for Local Govemment, Mr RandeU, a question about the way in which divisional boundaries had been drawn. In that question I made the point that, to my knowledge, despite the obvious massive changes in population not only wdthin shires but also between shires, some of those divisional boundaries around the State were at least 60 or 70 years old and had never been reviewed. The Minister could not answer the question. The fact is that no mechanism exists for regular review of those boundaries. I think that on a number of occasions the Minister has tried to resolve the matter by saying that, if any council made a request to have the boundaries reviewed, he would consider it. 1502 17 October 1989 Electoral and Admmistrative Review BiU

Mr Scott: It just doesn't happen as easily as that, either; it is extremely difficuU to have a change made. Mr McELLIGOTT: It is extremely difficult. It is a case of Caesar judging Caesar. It should not be the prerogative of local councUs to decide for themselves whether thefr boundaries ought to reviewed—at least not after 60 years. Qearly, there is a need for an independent body to review those boundaries. There are also wdde variations in electoral procedures around the State. That is a matter to which I have referred previously. Why should Tovmsville city have a system of single member wards, whereas Caims does not? SimUarly, why does Maryborough have a system of single representative wards, whereas Bundaberg does not? Thuringowa has a city councU composed of multirepresentative divisions, of aU things. Why they are not wards, I do not know. The city next door has single-member wards. Clearly a wdde variation exists across the State in the way in which wards and divisions and their boundaries are drawn up. One could argue that a need exists to take account of local factors. That is tme; but I am sure that any responsible person would agree that, if we are serious about recognising local govemment as a genuine third tier of public administration in this State, there should be some degree of uniformity or some justification for any variances that occur. That is clearly not the case at the moment. In the past, boundaries have been determined by the Minister for Local Govemment purely for poUtical purposes. As to the way in which aldermen or counciUors are replaced—whenever a casual vacancy arises, whether it be by resignation, death, transfer or whatever, individual councils make their ovm decisions as to who wdU fiU those vacancies. That is ridiculous. It gives me no pleasure to say that the Thuringowa City Council has yet again made a mockery of the system of local govemment. Since the last local govemment election, which was only 20 months ago, three resignations have occurred. On a previous occasion in this House I spoke about the way in which a replacement was found for a Division 1 alderman. The Division 1 representation on the council is three aldermen. When one of the aldermen who was elected to the last council resigned he was replaced not by the person who polled fourth at the previous local govemment election but by the person who poUed ninth. The person who was appointed in that prostitution of democracy resigned, but he was replaced not by the person who finished fourth at the previous local govemment election but by the person who finished fifth or sixth. It is crazy to believe that that is a democratic way in which to fiU positions on councUs. The person who has now been appointed to that position has done himself no credit by accepting that position. He was a member of the Australian Labor Party. I regard him as Thuringowa's equivalent of Patrick Field. He has forsaken any ideals and support that he had for the principles and philosophies of the Australian Labor Party in order to accept a position on that councU over the head of the person who finished fourth and who is also a member of the Australian Labor Party. Alderman Monde ToUey wdll have to answer to his own conscience. Because of his attitude, he has lost any fidends that he had in this great party in the TownsvUle/ Thuringowa region. Patrick Field wdU go dovm in history as a figure of fun and, in the Thuringowa region, so wdU Monde ToUey. The way in which local govemment planning decisions are made is badly in need of review. It is appropriate that an independent body consider those procedures but greater emphasis should be placed on forward planning. Throughout the State a continual series of bush fires is being lit by developers who make rezoning applications to their local councils. Action groups have been set up to fight those applications, and appeals to the Local Govemment Court are continuing. The system of planning appUcations is serving no useful purpose. Electoral and Administrative Review BiU 17 October 1989 1503 A classic example of that exists on Magnetic Island near TovmsviUe where, for more than six months, a developer has had an appUcation before the councU to constmct a major tourist resort at Nelly Bay. The proposed Magnetic Quays project has dragged on for six months but no decision has been made in the Local Govemment Court. Last Saturday a meeting was held on Magnetic Island to indicate community support for that project. A very active and competent action group is opposing the development and today I do not intend to enter into the rights or wrongs of that development other than to say that it is unsatisfactory that such a major development can be held up for six months within the legal system that covers tovm-planiung matters. Clearly it does the developer and the community no good. In fact, it does no good for the people who object to the project because it costs them a lot of money and causes heartache within the local community. One of the problems in public administration generaUy in this State is the way in which this House operates. Several members have foreshadowed amendments to the legislation. It is rather strange, quaint or chUdish that those amendments are distributed at the very last minute. For the Ufe of me I cannot understand why members who are required to give appropriate consideration to BiUs cannot be given a reasonable oppormnity to study those amendments. The practice of dropping them in front of the Opposition spokesman while he is on his feet is chUdish. Surely we can do better than that if we are serious about making the best decisions for the people of Queensland. Over the years another matter that has received much condemnation in this House is the way in which political appointments are made to statutory bodies such as harbour boards, hospital boards, fire brigades, electricity boards and so on. I do not beUeve that the people of Queensland would consider it reasonable that a port city such as TovmsviUe has no local council representation on the Townsville Harbour Board. Perhaps it was drawdng the longbow to have harbour boards composed almost entirely of local government representatives. It is appropriate that there be some commercial representation or business expertise on statutory bodies. A port and its operations, which have such a major impact on a city, should have local govemment representation on its statutory body. That appUes to hospital boards, electricity-distribution boards and so on. One of the concems that people in Queensland have is that to date there has been no way in which genuine concems about the operations of public authorities can be questioned. The best example that I have of that relates to the operation of the infamous Ward lOB at TovmsviUe General Hospital. Although the way in which that unit operated was well known to many people in the community and although some very, very serious accusations were made, it was years and years before anybody in authority could be persuaded to take responsibiUty to investigate those accusations. No full and open pubUc inquiry into the way in which that place operated has been held. What might now be a reasonable altemative to a fiiU open and pubUc inquiry is an investigation by the health complaints unit, whose report is due to be handed dovm at the end of this month. I only hope and pray—but I am prepared to bet that I am wrong—that when that report is produced it will be made public and that the recommendations contained in it will be open for public scmtiny. I am prepared to bet that that wdll not be the case; that the report wdU be merely filed away wdth the other nine reports that resulted from inquiries into the operation of that place. The other matter that I wdsh to raise briefly in regard to public administration in this State is the incredibly poor condition of the State electoral roU. I think the member for Mulgrave referred to this matter briefly this aftemoon. He chose to somehow try to blame the Commonwealth Govemment for the state of the roUs. My experience is that something is incredibly wrong wdth the State Electoral Office. I do not want to take this matter too far because I may be betraying some confidences. However, I can indicate that one of my associates has taken a personal interest in the State electoral roll for Thuringowa because that roll still indicates that a woman is living in his house and that she has been enrolled at his address since 1982, yet he has not been able to find her. He can find only himself and his wife, but this strange person 1504 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BUI keeps bobbing up on the roU. He has told me that in the court in which he lives there are only 19 houses, yet the roll for that area contains five errors. One that I can recaU relates to a man and his wdfe who are entered twdce on the roll under exactly the same names and exactiy the same addresses. He has made a point of carrying that a Uttie bit further. The electoral office has told him quite frankly that it does not have the resources to keep the roUs up to date. Mr Beard: Did he vote Labor? Mr McELLIGOTT: He does. I am not sure about the woman who is enroUed at the same address but who does not live there. In fact, I looked at the marked roU for the 1986 election and I noticed that she did not even vote in that election. Despite not voting at that election, she still remains on the roll at that address. I do not really understand how that can be so. The information that I have received is that the electoral office is putting new enrolments on the roll but for some reason or other it is not deleting people fi'om it. Mr Hamill: Is she going to vote this time? Mr McELLIGOTT: I do not know about that. The indications are that my electorate, which now contains about 27 500 voters, is overstated by some 3 000 enrolments. I suggest that the electorates of most honourable members would be in a similar state. I think that was proven by the result in the Merthyr by-election, as a result of which people were astounded by the relatively low voter tum-out. The simple reason for that is that a huge number of people did not vote as they no longer lived in that electorate, yet their names remained on the electoral roU. Something is drastically wrong wdthin the State Electoral Office. As an election is due in the very near fiiture, I think it is important that something be done about it. Before I close, I want to refer to a couple of what could be caUed relatively minor matters in the area of public administration. They indicate to me this problem that people perceive in Queensland today, that is, that the public sector departments are just not operating in the way in which they should. People are concemed by a whole lot of little things that are occurring. If you like, they could be called rorts. They are insults to the propriety of the genuine Queenslander who wants to see good pubUc administration in this State. The first one to which I wiU refer very briefly is the use of Queensland police for escort duties to accompany heavy loads, long loads and so on along the highways. I have been told that the people who make a living out of escorting the long loads are required to have special types of licences and all sorts of waming devices fitted to their cars. They are required to carry first-aid kits, fire-extinguishers and aU those sorts of things. Yet, for reasons that are not quite clear to me, the police vehicles that accompany them are not required to have any of those things. I have been told about an incident that occurred fairly recently when a female constable, having been out of training college for only some three months, was sent on escort duty. She went to sleep behind the wheel and wrote off the police vehicle. The other matter to which I have been referred is the way in which costings for those duties are made. I have been given three separate invoices, all for the same job of accompanying a vehicle exactly the same distance from Enterprise Road at the Bohle in Tovmsville to the RAAF base at Garbutt, where some constmction work was being undertaken. The first invoice shows that two policemen accompanied the load, one in a Ford sedan and the other on a Yamaha motor cycle. Each of them charged for one hour of his time. On another occasion a single policeman accompanied the load but charged for one and a-half hours of his time. On a third occasion, two policemen accompanied the load and charged for an hour of their time each and used two police vehicles. The first two invoices showed the distance travelled as 20 kilometres, whereas it is in fact only 7 kilometres. The third invoice shows the distance as being 25 kilometres. Electoral and Administrative Review BUI 17 October 1989 1505

As a result, to undertake the same job over the same distance, the variations in price range from $59.20 to $49.34 to $102.49. I wish to mention a matter that I had intended to raise during question-time. Given that the possibiUty of asking questions in this Parliament is fading faster and faster, I mention the matter in the context of this debate in the hope that somebody—perhaps the Minister for Transport—wdll take the matter on board and respond. Mr Hamill: Send me a memo in a few months' time. Mr McELLIGOTT: Yes, all right. On 14 August at 5 a.m., Lisa Joyce Doig was killed tragically at a place between Townsville and Mingela. She was driving a smaU sedan and was taking her husband to work at the Burdekin FaUs Dam site. She was killed by a dog traUer that was travelUng in the opposite direction. For the information of honourable members, I point out that a dog trailer comprises a prime-mover, a tmck and three trailers. On this occasion the road train was heavily loaded wdth steel. It veered to the wrong side of the road and Mrs Doig was kUled instantly. The point at issue is the licence status of the driver. I understand that at the time of the accident the driver had tumed 18 years of age only some days before. Under Queensland traffic law, a person can apply for an A-class licence at 17 years of age. After holding an A-class licence for 12 months, he can obtain a C-class licence, which will enable him to drive a rigid motor tmck. After holding a C-class licence for 12 months, he can obtain an E-class licence, which licenses him to operate an articulated vehicle. Therefore, the holder of an E-class Ucence would, under normal circumstances, be a minimum of 21 years of age and would have to have gained appropriate experience. I understand that an exception applies and that people can obtain an E-class licence with what is knovm as an 8 condition. The condition states that a person holding such a licence cannot drive a vehicle that is licensed to hire. I am told that a licence to hire is issued only in respect of a vehicle and is not issued to a person. The rig that was involved in this tragic accident was licensed to hire. If the 18-year-old person held an E-8 licence, he should not have been driving that tmck. The question I wanted to ask the Minister for Transport is: did somebody waive the regulations and ensure that that young lad obtained that licence? As a result, that young driver was put in charge of a massive vehicle that he obviously could not handle. His inexperience in driving that vehicle led to the death of another young person. As I said earlier, the vehicle is a road train. Its registered number is 403-PTL and is owned by Johnson Bros. Transport of Jandowae. It was driven by Gavin Keith Johnson, who lives at Jandowae. The question that I believe needs to be answered is: how did Gavin Keith Johnson, at the age of only just 18, obtain a licence that enabled him to drive a vehicle, of the type I have mentioned, heavily loaded wdth steel, at 5 o'clock in the morning that was involved in an accident which resulted in a tragic loss of life? In conclusion, I again indicate the importance of the system of local govemment operating in this State being properly examined by EARC when it is established. It seems to me that some conflict exists between the way in which the Legislative Assembly will decide whether or not particular councUs are investigated and the so-caUed autonomy of local govemment. Concem is being expressed in the community that the powers of the Legislative Assembly should not be interfered wdth and members of the Opposition would support that contention. I hope, however, that not only for the good govemment of this State but also for the recognition of local govemment, any concems felt in the community about the way in which local govemment operates—and I believe that there are many- should be put to rest once and for all by a full investigation of the system by an independent body such as EARC. In its investigations it should include matters such as the way in which councils are elected, the way in which they operate, and the way in 1506 17 October 1989 Electoral and Admmistrative Review BiU which they consider tovm-planning matters. I regard that as important in ensuring that not only is constitutional recognition given to local govemment but also that represen­ tation in local govemment is based on a system that is fair and equitable. Matters such as divisional boundaries should be subjected to regular review. On previous occasions I have given examples of what appear to be absolutely incredible situations. Perry Shire comes to mind because 270 voters elect nine councUlors. Two divisions in that local authority area have 21 and 22 voters respectively, yet each elects a counciUor. Obviously something is drastically wrong. I am not in a position to investigate that matter or make accusations, but an investigation should be carried out. I believe that the commission that wdll be set up by virtue of this legislation is the appropriate body to carry out that investigation. Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 7.30 p.m. Mr HINTON (Broadsound) (7.30 p.m.): Tonight I have pleasure in contributing to the debate on this very important piece of legislation, which the Queensland public has been looking forward to. A great deal of doubt has been cast by our poUtical opponents on whether this legislation would be forthcoming. The legislation is before the House this evening and the Govemment is fulfilling its commitment. I wdsh to cover two points. Firstly, the Council of Agriculture has made a submission outUning its concems regarding the BiU. Secondly, I want to mention the rather hypocritical position that the Labor Party and Liberal Party have put themselves in conceming electoral reform. I wish to refer to the comments made by the member for Thuringowa before the dinner recess. He mentioned the problems regarding the electoral roUs, particularly the Commonwealth electoral roll. I want to mention the problem of false voters in Capricomia. The problem in Capricomia has also been raised in the Federal House by the Federal member for Dawson, Mr Braithwaite. It concems the number of dead people whose names are on the rolls and the number of people who vote twdce. Significant numbers are involved and it is a pity that no action has been taken by the Federal Govemment. I am concemed about the number of people in my electorate who could fall into this category. Like the honourable member for Stafford, I write a letter of welcome to each new constituent in my electorate and a very significant proportion—possibly as high as eight or 10 per cent—of those letters are retumed to me marked "address unknown". That is extraordinary when their names have just been put on to the roU. I wdll be pursuing this matter wdth the Minister for Justice, Mr Henderson, and asking that an investigation be carried out into the numbers of people whose names are on the Broadsound electoral roU who cannot be reached at the address at which they so recently enrolled. This has been a big problem right throughout Capricomia and one about which I am very concemed. I am pleased to be able to report that Mr Henderson is also concemed about the problem. I thank the member for Thuringowa for raising this important issue. Honourable members should take cognisance of it. I tum now to the submission from the CouncU of Agriculture containing its concems about this legislation. For some years I was a member of the CouncU of Agriculture and for eight years I was the chairman of a statutory authority in Queensland, and I take some interest in the council's submission conceming the legislation. The Electoral and Administrative Review Bill and the Criminal Justice BiU contain identical definitions of the term "unit of public administration", over which the commission has jurisdiction. The legislation contains a number of definitions, amongst which is the foUowing— "(e) every corporate entity (other than a Local Authority) that is constituted by an Act, or that is of a description of entity provided for by an Act, which in either case collects revenues or raises funds under the authority of an Act." In other words, any body which collects funds under a head of power that is an Act of Parliament—irrespective of where the funds belong—would come under the provisions of this BiU. That would include statutory authorities that are members of the Council of Agriculture. Most of those authorities are marketing organisations that distribute a tremendous amount of produce in this country either for the export or domestic markets. Electoral and Administrative Review BUI 17 October 1989 1507 The Govemment has no right to interfere in the administrative concems of those organisations. Mr Campbell: Why? Mr HINTON: No, the Govemment does not have any right, because those organisations levy their members in order to generate funds and expend their ovm funds. Mr Campbell: Let them set up a private company. Why should they go through the State Govemment legislation and get the protection of the State Govemment and then say they have the responsibiUty? Mr HINTON: It goes to show how Uttle the honourable member for Bundaberg knows about these statutory organisations, because they are not private companies; they are organisations democraticaUy formed by a two-thirds majority vote. Also, they can be disbanded at any time by a simUar vote. It is a matter of producers acting together to market then- products in the best possible way. Under the Primary Producers' Organisation and Marketing Act the Queens­ land Govemment has provided the head of power to enable the statutory organisations to be the most effective selling organisation for their commodity. The Govemment is strongly supported in its endeavours, but giving the commission jurisdiction over those bodies is not really the intention of the BiU. Having spoken to the Premier, I am pleased that amendments wdll be moved that wdll remove those bodies from the jurisdiction of this Bill. Mr Campbell: Pathetically weak. What about the Peanut Marketing Board? What protection has been given to the peanut-growers there? Forty per cent of their costs are now in administration. Mr HINTON: The Peanut Marketing Board, like aU the others, had to clean up its ovm act. I point out to the member for Bundaberg that even though that board collects and spends its own money, because it is controlled by a head of power, it is StiU responsible to the Auditor-General and, in the final analysis, the Minister and the Parliament. It is not good for those organisations to be subject to raids, inquisitions or the dismissal of their executives or board members, as could occur under this legislation, because they produce and dispense their own funds, and their grower members are responsible to them and elected by them every 12 months, three years or whatever the term might be. I believe that those statutory authorities should be treated in the same way as local authorities, whose members are elected. I know that would be strongly supported by the 30 000-odd primary producers who come under the provisions of the Primary Producers' Organisation and Marketing Act and who would be subject to the provisions of this BiU if it goes through in its present form. I wdll be interested to hear why the honourable member for Bundaberg believes that primary producers operate under a different set of conditions, because he wdll find himself offside—as he regularly does—wdth the primary producers in his electorate. I wdsh to mention my concems about the electoral side of this legislation. This Govemment supports the electoral weightage system and the zonal system wdthout reservation, because it believes that they are in the best long-term interests of development in this State. We are prepared to accept the terms. We have put a BUI before this Parliament. We are prepared to accept the umpire's decision. There is no question of bias because there has to be an agreement by the parliamentary parties conceming the commissioners. So we wdll have an unbiased umpire's decision. Mr Campbell: Depends on the umpire. Mr HINTON: That is right. But there wiU be consultation wdth the parties and agreement, so there wdll not be any problem. There wdU be no problem wdth the appointment of Sir Max Bingham because there has been joint approval. We will have 1508 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill an unbiased umpire. What we do not have is a commitment from the Labor Party and the Liberal Party that they wdll accept the umpire's decision. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Oh, you fool. Where were you this aftemoon? That has been aUuded to. That has been stated on numerous occasions this aftemoon. Mr HINTON: On numerous occasions the honourable member's leader has avoided it in the media. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Absolute garbage. Mr HINTON: That is not garbage. It is tme. All that the Liberal Party is interested in is one vote, one value. No public commitment has been made conceming the umpire's decision. Mr R. J. Gibbs: You're not only good at forging signatures, you're also good at feigning deafness. Mr HINTON: I wdU tell the honourable member what he is good at. He came into my electorate last week. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Because you are gone. Mr HINTON: I read in the paper that he was to be there for three days and would rock the Broadsound ship. He managed to get one photograph in one newspaper. He did not get one line in any newspaper right across the electorate. Mr R. J. Gibbs: You obviously don't read the papers. Mr HINTON: He had all the impact of a feather duster. In fact, he was a laughing­ stock. He and the ALP candidate called a meeting of the sporting organisations in the area so that he could explain to them the Labor Party's policy on sport. It so happens that I am the patron of the soccer club and was at a meeting attended by 80 people. I passed the hall where Mr Gibbs was holding his meeting. Half an hour after the meeting started there were five cars outside the haU. If each car held two people, there must have been 10 people at the meeting. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Try 40. Mr HINTON: They must have been packed in the cars or else they walked. That indicates what a drawcard the honourable member for Wolston was. AU he did was aUow me to highlight what I have done for sport in my area. He was going to help the Australian Rules footbaU club up there. It is a terrific club wdth which I am closely associated. I have already provided it with $49,000 worth of subsidy. I thank the honourable member for allowing me to highlight that. I hope he comes up there more often. Mr R. J. Gibbs: You've done absolutely nothing for them. Mr HINTON: The honourable member promised them a brick. It wdll take a little more than big Bobby and Uttie Jimmy to shift me. Mr R. J. Gibbs: You won't be here after the next election. Mr HINTON: The honourable member is being very noisy. I hope he comes up there more often because I enjoy his company; he gains me votes. Mr R. J. Gibbs: There is one thing—when you go back to pig-farming this time around, the pigs wdll know the difference. Mr HINTON: If I did go back to pig-farming, I would hear more intelligent comments than I am hearing from the honourable member. I can assure him of that. Pigs probably have better manners, too. What we need is an unequivocal commitment from both opposition parties on what wdll come forth from this commission. If there has been a change of heart today, Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1509 that is marveUous, but I doubt it. Opposition members wdll be back on television tomorrow saying they only want what they want. They wiU accept the decision that suits them. That has been the case right down the track. What do we hear aU the time from those parties? They are constantly slating the Govemment for not introducing the Fitzgerald recommendations. Yet, here we are at a special sitting of Parliament introducing two BiUs, virtually unopposed, virtuaUy sup­ ported by the opposition parties because they can find nothing wrong wdth them and agree wdth them totally. Last week I saw in a newspaper a great big ugly photograph of the Leader of the Liberal Party Mr Beanland: What a charmer—you liked it. Mr HINTON: He looked like the undertaker of Brisbane, wdth his grey, drawn face. He said he would not allow a coaUtion unless the Liberal Party was the senior partner. He said that one of the terms for forming a coalition was the implementation of the Fitzgerald reforms. He said that was non-negotiable. What does he think we are doing here? What does he think we have come back here for this week? The hypocrisy of the Liberals is really staggering. That is obvious when one reads this kind of garbage and considers how much money they spent to produce it. There is no greater hypocrite than the honourable member for Toowong. I would not Uke to outUne what I have read in the local paper that is delivered in the Kenmore area. It is too upsetting to know that a member of this Parliament can produce that kind of material. Mr Beanland: Get out of my electorate. Mr HINTON: I watch what the honourable member is doing. The second non-negotiable term for a coalition was that there had to be honest and accountable govemment. The Ahem Govemment spent two years bringing in everything that opens and shuts so far as honest and accountable govemment is concemed. Mr Beanland: What did you give him the chop for? Mr HINTON: Because there is always a better day. No-one has done a better job. Mr Cooper is continuing in that vein in bringing in honest and accountable govemment. Mr Campbell interjected. Mr HINTON: I am pleased to see the member for Bundaberg—the great leaker— in the House. I wiU examine some of the areas of honest and accountable Govemment. In 1983, the Govemment sought an election over the issue of a public accounts committee. The Govemment implemented the committee and it went about its business. What happened to it? It was betrayed by Opposition members who tumed it into a rort and into an offensive weapon against the dignity of the House. Tonight on television it was reported that a Minister was reprimanded for saying something detrimental about the PubUc Accounts Committee. I suggest that the wrong man was reprimanded. The people who should have been reprimanded were the Opposition members of the PubUc Accounts Committee who leaked the information from a private hearing to the people of Queensland. Mr Campbell: What was leaked? Mr HINTON: The honourable member knows very well. Mr Campbell: What the Minister spoke about? Mr HINTON: Mr Boschma's allegations were leaked from the Public Accounts Committee. If my memory serves me correctly, Mr White, the Liberal member, moved that Mr Boschma be brought before the committee. Mr CampbeU may have seconded 1510 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill the motion. Is that correct? Mr CampbeU seconded the motion that a sacked employee be brought before the committee to drop a bucket that would do the utmost damage. That is the co-operation and the tmst that the Opposition has brought to the most striking and strongest of the Govemment's accountabUity measures. For years the PubUc Works Committee was screamed about by the Liberal Party—and the Labor Party, when its members felt a surge of conscience. Opposition members stand condemned for what they have done to the reputation of the PubUc Accounts Committee. They should hang their heads in shame. The Govemment has introduced other accountabiUty measures such as the PubUc Works Committee, which has carried out a fair job. In a report of the PubUc Works Committee the member for Toowong supported the Govemment. What happened then? The Leader of the Liberal Party dumped the member for Toowong in a heap and is trying to tum the recommendations of the PubUc Works Committee on the Wolffdene dam into another non-negotiable term in the formation of a coalition. What an absurdity! The Liberal Party tipped upside down its ovm member to pander to a few people in the Albert vaUey. I am not denigrating those people, but a responsible Govemment should look to the future and provide a water supply for the metropolitan areas of this State. If it does not do that, it is not a responsible Govemment. That is what the Govemment is doing. Mr Harper: The Lord Mayor knows that Brisbane is mnning out of water. Mr HINTON: That is right. If the matter were left to members of the Liberal Party, they would pander for a vote today and there would be a gurgUng in the taps as they ran out of water in 10 years' time. The National Party Govemment is not that sort of Govemment. However, again the Liberal Party was not prepared to accept the findings of the Govemment's second institution in regard to accountability—the Public Works Com­ mittee. It was prepared to make a farce of that committee. We have seen on television members other than the chairman of the committee, who is the spokesman for the committee—Mr CampbeU, Mr White and Mr Hayward—making comments contrary to the decisions of the committee mbbishing what occurred in the deUberation of the committee. Mr Campbell: What? Mr HINTON: We have seen the honourable member. He could not wait to hightail it out of the Public Accounts Committee quickly enough to mbbish his own committee. Those committees are the reforms that the Govemment has brought in and they are the reforms that the Opposition has betrayed in this House. By betraying those reforms, the Opposition is betraying the Parliament and the people of Queensland. It is a very serious matter. Mr Ardill: What is the function of those committees? Mr HINTON: The function of those committees is to give reports to the ParUament on areas of concem or matters of accountability that might be referred to them for investigation. Those matters are supposed to be considered in committee and a report produced to this House. The chairman of the committee is supposed to be the only spokesman. However, that has not been the case. There has been nothing but betrayal and use of those accountabiUty procedures for cheap political stunts and cheap political gain. The people of Queensland are waking up to Opposition members in that regard. Mr Ardill: You think those committees are mbber stamps for the Govemment, don't you? Mr HINTON: For goodness sake! Those committees wdll work well together. I am on the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which works well. There is no problem. Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1511

Mr CampbeU: What about privileges? Whenever anything comes up against a member of your side, it doesn't even get past ParUament. Come on, don't say it's fair. Mr HINTON: I am on the Privileges Committee. I have not yet sat to deal wdth such a matter. However, I am certain that, when such a matter of privilege is put before that committee, so long as Opposition members can be tmsted we wdU deal wdth any such matter fairly and honestly. I see that my comments are hurting Opposition members deeply, and so they should. However, I point out again to the House the incredible situation that has arisen in the last couple of weeks in which the Leader of the Liberal Party has said that aU these conditions are non-negotiable, including the fact that the Liberal Party would have to be a majority party in any coalition Govemment in this House. For once I agree with Mr Goss that it is arithmetically impossible for that to happen. It cannot happen. If honourable members look at the degree of support along the coast of Queensland, it cannot and wdU not happen. The Liberal Party has handed the Labor Party the greatest present that it has ever had. It has made a catastrophic blunder. The Liberal Party has presented to the Labor Party the same weapon that Mr Bjelke-Petersen had in 1983 and 1986. He put forward a united front against the disharmony of the Labor Party. Mr Mackenroth: Would you say that the Liberal Party are a mob of fools? Mr HINTON: They are immature and stupid on this matter. If the honourable member's comments relate to the Liberal Party's action on this matter, he is qvute right. Mr Mackenroth: Do you know that one of their members, Mr Schuntner, is the last member of this Parliament to have actuaUy taken members of his union out on strike? A trade unionist! Shame! Mr HINTON: I cannot comment on that, but I am bound to admit to the honourable member that when I look at the number of union-leaders on that side of the House Mr Mackenroth: How many? Mr HINTON: There are too many to count. I can see Mr Vaughan Mr Mackenroth: Three. Mr HINTON: Three? I find it hard to beUeve that there are only three union- leaders on that side of the House. When there is such a good, solid ETU man over there, I find that hard to believe. However, if the honourable member says that that is correct, I wdU beUeve him. Mr Mackenroth: When Mr Vaughan was in the ETU the power was never tumed off Mr HINTON: I can assure the honourable member that no members on the Govemment side have ever led a strike. The honourable member can rest assured that there wdll be no industrial disharmony emanating from this side of the House. Mr Mackenroth: The Cabinet benches are very vacant, aren't they? Mr HINTON: I have no problems regarding the Cabinet. What upsets Mr Mackenroth is that every time he poses a question in this Chamber he comes off second best. He tried it out on Mr Cooper. He never won a point. He has not won a point yet. He continually disgraces himself. He continually annoys the police force. He is a morale-dropping indicator, if I can use that term, regarding the Queensland police force. Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. I ask the honourable member to withdraw the statement that I annoy the police force. He can go on wdth aU the rest of it, but I do not annoy the police force. Members of the police force know that I wdU be the Minister wdthin six weeks. 1512 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Order! There is no point of order. Mr HINTON: The honourable member has terrified the police now, I can assure him of that. I have just visited one or two police stations in my electorate in the company of Mr Lester. I can assure the honourable member that we were very weU received. Members of the poUce force have been taking great note of the comments that Mr Mackenroth has been making in this Chamber in which he has denigrated members of the force. Mr Mackenroth: Saying what? I made a 90-minute speech on the poUce force and the assistant commissioner congratulated me. He said that I have a great understanding of the police force. Mr HINTON: Every time the Minister rises to his feet it is knock, knock, knock from Mr Mackenroth, and it is being very keenly observed, I can assure him of that. For the information of the member for Chatsworth, I point out that some of his comments and interjections have been mn across the computer terminals throughout every police station in Queensland. The part that the honourable member is playing regarding the destmction of the morale of our force is being keenly observed. Before I was so mdely intermpted I was drawing to the attention of the House the actions of the Leader of the Liberal Party in imposing such absurd conditions regarding a coalition. There is one redeeming feature that has come to my attention and that is that nobody in Queensland believes him. Everybody knows that when the numbers come up, the Liberals will not adopt such a stupid position over an extended period because it would cause a great deal of damage to the conservative side of politics. Mr Beanland interjected. Mr HINTON: People do not believe in Mr Beanland. That is another redeeming feature. I urge members of the Liberal Party to rethink their strategy because they are certainly doing the conservative side of politics a great deal of damage indeed. Mr Beanland: How come you're worried about us now? You never used to worry about us. Mr HINTON: Actually, I do not have to worry about the honourable member at all. I was pleased when it was announced by Mr Innes that the Liberal Party is going to contest every seat in the forthcoming election because it means in effect that a Liberal Party candidate must be mnning in my electorate. I welcome a Liberal Party candidate in my electorate Mr Ardill: Who are you giving your preferences to? Mr HINTON: I am giving my preferences to the Liberal Party. Mr Ardill: What about Pat O'Brien? Mr HINTON: For the benefit of honourable members who may be unaware of it, I point out that Pat O'Brien is the green candidate in my electorate. Pat is a man of some integrity, I will give him that. I like him very much. He is an honest man and, as I say, he is a man of considerable integrity. However, he is a single-issue candidate and, quite frankly, that is not really in the best interests of the Govemment of the State. Unless there was a miracle and Independents held the balance of power in this State, an Independent sitting in this Chamber is a lonely and desolate figure indeed and is quite powerless and quite ineffective in representing his or her electorate. For quite a few years my electorate was represented by an Independent, Lindsay Hartwig. Lindsay seemed to spend most of his time at the races. I can assure honourable Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1513 members that my electorate became very neglected. The schools were unpainted. When I became the local member, it was reaUy quite a disgrace. Mr Milliner: He didn't forge any signatures. Mr HINTON: Lindsay Hartwig was certainly not a great member for my area. I was certainly very pleased to address some of the problems that needed addressing. What I am saying is that the Independent really does not have an effective role. It is too difficult for an Independent to be able to come to grips wdth the complexity of aU the legislation and aU the issues that arise in this House and to be able to make intelUgent and appropriate decisions. I am pleased that the member for Salisbury mentioned Mr O'Brien. I commend Pat O'Brien for the job that he is doing in the electorate. His heart is in the right place. He certaiiUy believes in his cause. Pat and I are actuaUy quite good friends. I wish him weU in the election. He certainly wdll not be elected. I beUeve that he wdU probably throw no preferences. I think that he wdU probably throw an open ticket and wiU not affect the outcome of the election at aU. However, he is pushing his cause wdth a great deal of conviction, and I certainly commend him for that. Those are the two issues that I wanted to raise in this debate. I thank honourable members for their indulgence. Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (7.59 p.m.): I join this debate by expressing reser­ vations about what has been said by the previous speaker. I beUeve that many of the accepted principles of the House have been forgotten. I believe that to reflect upon a former member and the way that a former member represented his electorate is a denigration of the principles of the House. It is something that should not be accepted within the confines of this Chamber. Mr Menzel: Who are you talking about? Mr CAMPBELL: I am referring to what was said by the member for Broadsound about the former member for CalUde, an Independent member. I do not beUeve that honourable members should reflect on how other members, or people who have served in this Chamber, have acted here. The member for Broadsound expressed concem about the integrity of the Public Accounts Committee. I was concemed that he could reflect on aUegations about the leaking of information and that he could disclose the results of certain votes taken by that committee. When a member can recount what motion was moved and how another person seconded a motion at a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee, that is the leaking of confidential information. He denigrated members of that committee. To repeat what is contained in the confidential minutes of a committee meeting and to divulge information about how persons voted at that meeting was definitely against the confidentiality of that committee. Anything that the honourable member said was against the whole principle of standing committees. Later, the member for Broadsound criticised the PubUc Works Committee. Mr HINTON: I rise to a point of order. I find the member's comments offensive because the reality is that every member of the press gaUery knows where aU that information came from, and that is where I obtained the information. Obviously, we know where the leaks came from. Mr CAMPBELL: The honourable member for Broadsound can name that person in this Chamber at any time that he so desires. The honourable member for Broadsound attacked the PubUc Works Committee because it was prepared to issue a dissenting report and to say that there was something wrong. He attacked the standing committee because its members were prepared to issue a dissenting report. In other words, the members of the committee were not prepared 1514 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill to be a mbber stamp. The honourable member then attacked the Public Accounts Committee. Mr Hinton: You attacked the Public Accounts Committee on television, and that wasn't a dissenting report. You went straight on television and attacked it. Mr CAMPBELL: The member for Broadsound has no concept of standing com­ mittees. At no time has any member of the PubUc Accounts Committee attacked the report of that committee. That is what is interesting. Mr Hinton interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Orderi The honourable member for Broad­ sound wdU cease interjecting. Mr CAMPBELL: As I said, the honourable member for Broadsound has no concept of standing committees. Because of the numbers in this House, the PrivUeges Committee has been manipulated so that an investigation is not carried out into any allegations made by the Opposition or the Liberal Party. Mr HINTON: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is casting unfair reflections on the PrivUeges Committee, of which I am a member, and I ask him to wdthdraw them, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Bun­ daberg keeps to the BiU. He has got right off it. Mr CAMPBELL: Mr Deputy Speaker, if the previous speaker had kept to the BiU, I would have done likewise. Many reflections have been made on the actions of standing committees. If proper investigation cannot be carried out by standing committees, it must be done through bodies such as the Electoral and Administrative Review Committee. The member for Broadsound referred to two other matters. He said that the CouncU of Agriculture had indicated that statutory bodies, particularly marketing boards, should not be subject to the provisions of this legislation. There is no reason why they should be excluded. If those bodies are properly accountable to the people and to their members, and if they are effective and efficient, there is no reason why they should be concemed about the EARC investigating their activities. Loans for miUions of doUars to statutory bodies, such as marketing boards, are guaranteed by the Govemment. Members of the pubUc must guarantee milUons of doUars that have been lent to the grain-marketing board and other statutory authorities. The Auditor-General does not look at efficiency accounting; he ticks and flicks. He has said that that is all he does. He ticks to make certain that the vouchers are signed, and he flicks them over. He does not look at accountability; he does not look at the efficiency and effectiveness of what that body is doing. There is no reason why those bodies should not be subject to the provisions of this legislation. I am concemed about the consultation that takes place before people are appointed to statutory bodies. In the past, consultation with all parties in the ParUament has not taken place. The legislation does not provide that in the future proper consultation wdU take place about the appointment of people to statutory bodies. As there is no parUa­ mentary committee to examine the appointments, it wdll be necessary for the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party to keep an eye on what is happening. In the past that consultation has not been effective. Honourable members have mentioned how they were advised of the appointment of Max Bingham to the CJC only on the moming of his appointment. That is not what consultation is aU about. Consultation would occur when the three party-leaders were prepared to put their signatures to that appointment. Electoral and Administrative Review BiU 17 October 1989 1515 I tum now to the objectives of the commission, which are twofold. One relates to honesty, impartiality and efficiency in elections, and the other relates to public administration. As to honesty, impartiality and efficiency—I am always interested to leam how many people are needed to elect a representative to Parliament. It should be brought to the attention of members that more people voted for the Leader of the Opposition than cast votes in the Roma electorate. Which member has the right to be here? The Premier says that he will implement the Fitzgerald recommendations and that he wdll do the right thing. But one could not say that he is democratically equal to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Harper: What do you know about Westminster? What do they do in England— the Rome of the Westminster system? What do they do there? Mr CAMPBELL: The Westminster system would have had the Leader of the House in contempt of the PubUc Accounts Committee. He would have been taken before the courts and purged of his contempt for the Public Accounts Committee. Members talk about the zonal system of voting and fair and proper representation. I intend to talk about three adjoining electorates: Gympie, which is on the coast and about one hour's drive from Brisbane along the highway; Maryborough, which is a little further up the coast; and Isis. The electorate of Gympie, which has an area of 2 610 square kUometres, has only 16 000 voters; Maryborough, which has 19 000 voters, has an area of 5 590 square kilometres; and Isis, which is even further north and further away from the capital city but stiU on the coast, has an area of 4 375 square kilometres and over 24 000 voters. Why does Isis have 50 per cent more voters than Gympie has even though Gympie is smaUer and closer to Brisbane? Supposedly Gympie has fewer voters because it is in a country zone. Mr Scott: The Minister is asleep, so he won't be able to give you an answer. Unfortunately, they don't know the answers. Mr CAMPBELL: That is the inequaUty. Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. I take exception to the remarks of the member for Cook. I do not believe that he is in his correct seat. I ask that he wdthdraw the comment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Minister asks for a withdrawal of the remark. Mr SCOTT: I withdraw, but I am the next speaker. Mr CAMPBELL: It is interesting that the Minister had to rise, because there are no other Ministers in the Chamber. Mr Hynd: What about the electorate of South Brisbane? Mr CAMPBELL: I am talking about three adjoining electorates. The only reason why that difference in the number of voters exists is the gerrymander and the malap­ portionment within the electoral system. No tme democracy can exist under that cormpt system. I tum now to the major Fitzgerald recommendations. Even under Cooper the National Party Govemment has demonstrated that it is not prepared to correct one of the major deficiencies in the tendering process. In the past the Govemment was prepared to provide favours to companies that made donations to the National Party. For example, page 86 of the Fitzgerald report mentions Citra Constmctions and the Bundaberg Matemity Hospital. Fitzgerald found that, on 3 October 1983, $150,000 was paid in cash to the National Party. By 24 October, based upon an old submission by BjeUce- Petersen, against the recommendation of the hospitals board and after weeks of the National Party minority Govemment at that time putting off the awarding of that 1516 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill contract. Cabinet awarded a contract to Citra Constmctions for the construction of that hospital. Fitzgerald also indicated that, from the source of Sir Edward Lyons, Bjelke-Petersen was told of the donation that was made by Citra. The Honourable Angelo Pietro Dante Bertoni believed that it was clear that another company, Evans Harch—a Sunshine Coast company—should have been awarded the contract. The contract was approved by the Department of Works but was overtumed by an oral submission by Bjelke- Petersen. The cost of the Citra project was $65,000 more than the tender by Evans Harch. As a result, because of the donations that Citra made to the National Party, there was a direct cost to the tax-payers of Queensland. Although page after page of the Fitzgerald report refers not only to Citra contracts but also to contracts for the Railway Department, the National Party has made no change to the Govemment's tendering system. As exposed by the honourable member for Caims, the Govemment paid $28m for Expo Park because the company Pennant had not fulfilled the conditions of its contract. There was no reason why the Queensland Govemment could not have taken that land back. Instead, $28m was paid by this Govemment for effectively getting what it could have taken over for nothing because of the company's non-fulfilment of conditions. That sum could have paid for two bridges over the Bumett River. In 1979 the Govemment promised that those bridges would be built. That promise has still not been fulfilled. The Govemment says that it does not have the money, but it was able to provide for an unforeseen expenditure of $28m. There is no need for that sort of thing. That is what Fitzgerald was all about. The member for Ipswdch, Mr HamiU, showed that the aero club of Caboolture was to receive grants of $189,000, and then when the time came to undertake work worth $100,000 for a mnway, no tenders were called. Mr Veivers: No, because those blokes did the job. The weather was wet and those blokes did the job and it cost more than that. Mr CAMPBELL: Does the honourable member know why they did the job? Mr Veivers: Alzino Brothers. Mr CAMPBELL: Yes. Does the honourable member know who they are? They are only life members of the National Party. Mr Veivers: It doesn't matter what they are. Mr CAMPBELL: It does matter if they are life members of the National Party. What was stated as a principle by Fitzgerald was that that system of tendering, that system of Govemment, should be out; that the work should be let out to public tender. Mr Veivers: You are saying that if the airport was being buUt for more money it would be right. Mr CAMPBELL: The honourable member for Southport is trying to say that the public tender system would cost more. Mr Veivers: That is what I am saying. Mr CAMPBELL: Is that not interesting? The member for Southport is prepared to accept Israeli buUet-proof vests against Queensland-made bullet-proof vests. Does he stand up and do anything about it? He accepts it. He accepts that $200,000 was spent by the Queensland Govemment to encourage people to buy Queensland-made products, yet the Government buys Israeli vests. Mr Veivers: You are teUing lies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Southport wiU desist. Mr Veivers: Well, I got a bit unsettied. Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1517

Mr CAMPBELL: The honourable member wdU be not only unsettled but also unseated. Mr HARPER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I invite your attention to Standing Order 120, and suggest that the contribution being made by the honourable member for Bundaberg is highly disorderly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Glass House is not in the Chamber, otherwdse he would take exception to the honourable member's remarks. I think he has pursued that line for a long time. There is nothing to be gained by taking it any further. Mr CAMPBELL: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. On that aspect, I wdll conclude by saying that Fitzgerald said that the Govemment should have a proper method of tendering. That has not been introduced by the present Govemment. That is one of the matters that the EARC can consider, because it wdU be considering the systems and the methods of public administration. It is very important that that be done. I believe that when it looks at the system of govemment, it will find, and the voters wdU find, that this State has had a cormpt system and that it wdU be purged of that system by a Labor Govemment. Mr SCOTT (Cook) (8.22 p.m.): As usual, I am very pleased to take part in such an important debate. In the past I have had several opportunities in this House to speak about what it means to represent the seat of Cook, which is one of the best examples of a gerrymander that the Westminster system and certainly the AustraUan electoral system have ever seen. I have resisted the attempt because I have never felt the need to stand up in this place and justify my existence or make it look as though I was anything but proud to represent the people of Cook. However, I certainly could not let the opportunity pass this evening wdthout putting on record in Hansard my thoughts about redistributions, about this legislation and about the way in which this State might go wdth things such as future electoral boundaries. I genuinely wdthdraw the remarks that I made conceming the Leader of the House. I was really upset, however, because it was obvious that Mr Harper was sitting in this Chamber and could not care less about electoral boundaries in this State. Members of the National Party Govemment have never heard the word "lemmings" used in the proper context. They are a group of lemmings poised on the edge of the cUff and they are about to go over the edge. What do they do? They sit there wdth their eyes raised towards Heaven and they have a peaceful smile on their faces in readiness for the wash that wdll take them. Very sadly, they do not understand the principle that is involved. The mling made by the Chair a few moments ago in relation to tendering demonstrated that members of the National Party Govemment do not understand the basis of the Fitzgerald report. Mr Veivers interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Southport! Mr Hynd interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Nerang! Mr Veivers inteijected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is not possible to keep the House in order if the member for Southport persists wdth that type of interjection. I do not want to wam the honourable member but I indicate that matters cannot go on in this way. Mr SCOTT: Mr Deputy Speaker, this conduct is not troubUng me greatly but I do appreciate your words of advice to my colleagues. They are also part of the lemming syndrome. They have no idea of the precipice towards which they are mshing. 1518 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BiU

Very sadly, members of the Govemment have never understood what is contained in the Fitzgerald report. They have not even read it with their eyes let alone with their hearts. They do not understand that Mr Fitzgerald could see very clearly from his investigations that electoral reform is necessary. EarUer a National Party member rose in this Chamber and said, "I thought Mr Fitzgerald was undertaking an inquiry into prostitution", because another honourable member had the temerity to adopt the Une that I am adopting in my speech and was referring to electoral boundaries and gerry­ mandered electorates. He was talking about Govemments that think they wdU be in office for ever. I point out to members of this National Party Govemment that they wdU not hold power for ever, even in spite of the gerrymander. They are about to meet their fate. I move round Brisbane and talk to professional people. I also move round other areas of the State. The widespread comment in my electorate is that the National Party Govemment is history. People simply want to forget that it ever existed. The architect of the loss and faUure of this National Party Govemment is Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. He was the man who thought that he could tamper with democratic principles and get away with it. That is why the Fitzgerald inquiry had to be undertaken. Over the years I watched Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen in this Chamber. He had absolutely no idea of what the tmth really was. There were shades of grey to Sir Joh Bjelke- Petersen's view of the world. If he felt something was right, then it was aU right. He could get away wdth whatever he wanted to do; he could push out to the very Umits of dishonesty. I could not help but enjoy the television program that showed the way in which that man accepted gifts for the Ten Mile property from his very affluent fiiend. That was another example which showed that he had absolutely no idea of honesty. Members of this National Party Govemment have lost track of knowing what the tmth is. They cannot distinguish between tmth and untmth. The inability of this Government to distinguish between right and wrong is epitom­ ised by the electoral maps showdng the size of the Cook electorate. Govemment members speak in this Chamber about a four-zonal system and about the need to provide adequate representation for country people. What has this Govemment done about that? During the time that I have represented the Cook electorate, the only change that has been made has been an enlargement of the electorate. It has grovm bigger but that has never presented me wdth any problem. I wish to put forward some suggestions to indicate what is required to look after an electorate that is the size of the Cook electorate. Earlier members spoke about electorates covering 10 000 square kilometres or 40 000 square kUometres. My electorate is Mr Hynd: 350 753 square kilometres! Mr SCOTT: Right. Mr Hynd: I know it, too. What about the pocket handkerchief electorates of some of your colleagues? Mr SCOTT: The honourable member has in mind the size of my electorate but he has absolutely no appreciation of what is involved. Why is he part of a Govemment that aUowed it to grow to that size? It was great when the Tablelands electorate did not exist, when Dimbulah was only a short distance away and when the Burke Shire was part of the Mount Isa electorate. That seemed to me to be an eminently suitable arrangement. However, the worst injustice that was done to the people of the Cook electorate was the creation of the smaU island of the Wujal Wujal community in the Barron River electorate. If ever an insult was deUvered to a community by whichever member of the National Party was responsible perhaps it was Sfr Joh Bjelke-Petersen or Martin Tenni who did not like the Wujal Wujal people and wanted to be rid of them—it was when the instmction was delivered to the electoral commissioners to isolate the community and place it in the Barron River Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1519 electorate. It was an insult to the people who Uve in that area, yet members of this Govemment taUc about the four-zonal system and its relationship to proper representation. EarUer a member of the National Party rose in this Chamber and spoke about schoolbuses. How would a member who had a very large electorate know anything about schoolbuses? I inform the House that I know aU the schoolbus routes in my electorate. I do not have any trouble recalling how poorly the people of my electorate were treated in terms of the remuneration paid to bus-operators. It is possible, by diligent appUcation to the task, to know everything that is going on in an electorate the size of Cook. It is possible to know what is happening in each of the 50-odd tovms that are the voting centres. I must make the point that some of those tovms are located in the Torres Strait area near the Papua-New Guinea border. I reaUse that Mr Hynd is aware of the size of my electorate but, generaUy, Govemment members simply do not seem to be aware that it stretches from the Papua New Guinea border to the Northem Territory border. With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, those tovms are similar to the towns of Clifton and AUora in your electorate, and you know those towns in your electorate as weU as I know those 50-odd towns in my electorate. The size of the electorate does not reaUy make very much difference if adequate facUities are provided. All I ask of the electoral commissioners when they are appointed is that they take a fair-minded approach to the needs of the State as a whole. Above aU, I ask them to adhere to the principle of aU votes being of equal value. They cannot go past that system. EarUer when a National Party member was speaking during this debate, he appeared to be genuinely worried about a little bit of extra weighting because he did not want to see too much of the State in one electorate. Once weighting occurs, we then have in this State the system that was fostered by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. This Govemment stiU does not understand the reason why Mr Fitzgerald had to start his recommendations wdth the distribution of the electorates in this State. He clearly understood that that was where cormption started. Govemment members thought that they could not be beaten; that they could sit back smugly in their electorates and in this House. Ministers stand up in their places and do not answer questions because they do not feel that they are accountable to this Parliament. Queensland has a system under which the former PoUce Commissioner could ring Ministers or the Premier and talk quite freely. Recently Opposition members have spoken in this House about the doctrine of the separation of powers and some smart member from the other side of the Chamber asked, "WiU you define the separation of powers for us?" Mr Davis: Where are the smart ones? Mr SCOTT: There are not too many of them. I meant "smart" wdth an adjective attached to it, but I consider it to be unparliamentary and wdU not use it. Mr Wells inteijected. Mr SCOTT: Yes, something like that. It goes back to the French bureaucrat who identified the separation of powers; but AustraUans, and particularly Queenslanders, must understand that Ministers of the Crovm in this State have never reaUsed that there must be a separation. The Ministry should deal with pubUc servants in the proper manner. PoUce commissioners should not make representations at times of redistribution and when elections are coming up and teU this Govemment how it can wdn elections. One such bureaucrat, a man called P. J. KiUoran, opposed me in the electorate of Cook. He was part of the cabal of senior public servants who gave advice to the Premier. They were a well-knovm Uttie group and they regarded this Govemment as simply an extension of their role. At the moment they are very worried. Fortunately, after his total defeat in Cook, Mr KiUoran has gone to some ignominious future with his $500,000 superannua­ tion, which I have no doubt was due to him. Mr De Lacy interjected. Mr SCOTT: Yes, that is right. Everyone has his little problems. 1520 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill The point of this debate is to ensure that a genuine commission is set up that wiU consider ways of goveming this State through elected representation. The members of the Govemment have not understood the matter. I am pleased that the commission wdU have the responsibUity to look at local govemment boundaries. Even though I wdll be happUy retired and Uving at Koah, I will be foUowdng what is happening in this place. In spite of all the difficulties caused by this Govemment, I am proud to have been a member of the Queensland Pariiament. Some very good people have been members of this place. I wdU be making representations to the commission on behalf of the interests of the small shires. I am talking about an electorate the size of Cook being gerrymandered. The electorate comprises a series of shires from the Torres Shire through to the Cook Shire and part of the Mareeba Shire, as well as the Etheridge, Croydon, Carpentaria and Burke Shires. Two other special shires, which were forced on the Queensland Govemment through Federal and church intervention, are tucked away in the electorate. They are the shires of Momington Island and Aumkun. They are stiU not proper shires in the tme sense of the word as it is understood in this House. In addition, there are many Aboriginal communities which are thankful that Mr Katter, who is a Minister of the Crovm, has been removed from the Community Services portfolio and can no longer do them any harm. He can try as hard as he likes to do some harm to the mining industry amongst the tough miners of Queensland. He wdll not do much good and wdU be banging his head against a waU of coal or other minerals. Mr Katter was certainly doing a great deal of harm to Aboriginal people in the Cook electorate. In Febmary of next year I wdll be sitting in the public gallery when there are Labor Ministers on the Treasury benches of the House. At that time the laws of this State wdU be made in a proper manner. Mr Burreket: You can dream. Mr SCOTT: I wdsh I had the time to point out one by one the Govemment members who wdU not be in this House after the next election. It would give me great pleasure to do so, but I have some respect for Govemment members as people and have no doubt that they wdll make a living somehow or other. My heart wdU not bleed for them. Mr Davis: There's a couple of them. Mr SCOTT: There are a couple on the other side of the House. In addition, I wiU make representations to my Govemment on the way to handle those matters. I would like the Aboriginal communities and their local govemments put on a firm basis. Mr Katter is constantly teUing us that these communities reaUy are local authorities. They are nothing like local authorities and have their own separate legislation which was foisted upon them by this Govemment. The time has come for a change in those communities. They are local authorities as much as any other local authority in this State and must be brought in under the umbrella of local authorities and treated in a proper way. There is a great need to keep the small shires. I am familiar wdth the Burke, Croydon, Carpentaria, Etheridge, Momington Island and Aumkun Shires and do not want to see any of them disappear. The Shire of Burke went very close to disappearing under the National Party administration that is controlled by these people who claim to be bom to mle; that they are business-leaders, managers and graziers who know how to govem. The Opposition does not believe that at aU. It believes that they have it too easy when it comes to making their ovm living and often are not natural managers or natural people in Govemment at all. They are in fact unnatural. The Govemment had to put an administrator into the Burke Shire. Mr Gampe is stiU capably looking after the affairs of the Burke Shire. It is part of the responsibUities of the commissioners to look at shire boundaries. I wdU be urging them not to change the smaller country local authorities because, if they did, whole towns would disappear. If Croydon were no longer a local authority, mining Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1521

and tourism would continue but the tovm would be diminished in size and the importance of the town would be diminished. Mr Harper: RegionaUsation is the poUcy of the Labor Party. You want to do away wdth them. Mr SCOTT: The Minister is sadly lacking even in history. How long ago was that? RegionaUsation has some merits. Recently the GLADA organisation—the Gulf Local Authority Development Association—met in Normanton. I am glad that the Minister made that point. I do not think he knows what is reaUy going on. Like so many members on that side of the House, he has lost touch wdth his country roots. There is that type of regionaUsation and there is that type of support. The GLADA organisation was able to host a major function in Normanton. People interested in tourism came from aU over the State. It was a great success. That is one of the benefits of regionaUsation. That is one of the constmctive parts of it. If this Govemment were left in power very much longer, it would attack its own smaU shires and some of those shires would go to the waU. Let us not have that happen. I am looking forward to Febmary 1990 when the good State of Queensland wdU have a good Labor Govemment, and I wiU be among the people in the pubUc gallery who, under their breath, wdll be saying, "Hear, hear!" Mr EATON (MourUyan) (8.39 p.m.): The Opposition fully supports the Electoral and Administrative Review Bill. Many people outside, including the media, do not reaUse the fiiU impUcations if it is carried out wdth the intent that we would Uke. The two subjects covered by the BUI are electoral reform and administrative review. I hope that the Govemment reaUses the impUcations and the benefits that wdll result to Queensland if the fuU recommendations of the Fitzgerald inquiry are carried out. I shaU deal first with the electoral side of this BiU. I am interested in the three forms of govemment in AustraUa—Federal, State and local. The commission wdll have an opportunity to review local authorities, of which there are about 136 in Queensland. Some local authorities have divisions and others do not. Why is it that some local authorities elect representatives for divisions whUe others do not? In the past, some shires have appUed to the Government to have divisions in their shires and the Govemment has refused the requests, while other shires have been successful in their appUcations. I have asked the Govemment why that has happened, and it has been unable to teU me. There should be criteria or standards covering appUcations from shires for divisions. Why is it that some are granted and some are not? That is an anomaly in the electoral system. Obviously we cannot discuss Federal elections because this Govemment has nothing to do with them and Federal laws always override State laws. The main excuse that this Govemment has offered all day for the State zoning system is that it gives rural and country people fair representation. Mr Harper: You beUeve in that, don't you? Mr EATON: I beUeve that aU people in Queensland shoiUd be given fair represen­ tation, but it should be based on honesty and need rather than desire and greed, which has been the system under this Govemment for more than 30 years. I repeat that the Govemment claims that the present system was set up to service the needs of country people, but what about aU of the services in the country areas that the Govemment has cut back? If it was not for Mount Isa Mines Limited wanting 11 coal trains a week to keep the electricity going to give it steam, the Govemment would close the Mount Isa railway Une. It closed dovm the Une from Ravenshoe to Atherton. It closed the Gold Coast line and now it is talking about buUding another one. That shows the wisdom of the National Party's predecessor, the Country Party. What about the health services in country areas? InnisfaU has no dentist, so the people lack a good dental service.

103917—51 1522 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BiU

Mr De Lacy: Get rid of the gerrymander and give them a dentist. Mr EATON: That is right. The Govemment says that it wants this system so that it can give a better service to country people, but the worst shortage of Govemment services and the greatest lack of initiative are in the centres that this Govemment claims to represent. That is why it wants to retain the gerrymander. That is why we oppose it. We believe there should be a balance in the system and that the goods and services should be provided according to need. Mr Harper: And equal representation. Mr EATON: That is correct. I fuUy support that. Regardless of the system, there is always someone in the comer of an electorate who wdll aUege that, because of the geographical problems, a member is not able to look after the electorate. To get from one end of my electorate to the other I have to travel through another electorate. If I go one way, I travel through the Mulgrave electorate. If I go the other way, I travel through the Hinchinbrook electorate. People on the Atherton Tableland have approached me and said, "BiU, no offence to you, but there should be two seats on the Tableland because there are too many people there for one seat." Honourable members talk about community of interest and geography, yet the coastal people are tied up. The main centres of population in my electorate are on the coast. People say that as a poUtician I should look after the area that has the most votes. Many people on the tableland do not believe that. However, on a number of occasions I have been attacked by people who expect me to look after the areas that have the greatest number of voters. I do not deny that members of ParUament respond to numbers. In the legislation, we must examine the difference between the commission and the committee. A vaUd distinction exists. The review commission wdU make a recommendation to the ParUament; the elected members of this Parliament must make the decision. I appreciate that it is a numbers game and that Opposition members wdll have to go along wdth the numbers, but we are hopeful—as the Premier has stated—that he wiU work in with both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. The Labor Party certainly supports a review by the commission. It also supports change, which is where the problems wiU arise. Members of the Labor Party wiU be making a contribution to enable the ParUament to better serve the people of Queensland. We are elected to serve. We are glorified servants. We race round the countryside as though we control everything, yet we are here to do the bidding of the people. When they enter ParUament, many people forget that. They are incUned to lose sight of the needs of the people who elected them. Members of ParUament fight for thefr ovm security. They want to be survivors rather than take on and administer problems in the way in which they should. They must look at that. The committee wiU oversee the administration of the Govemment. I wdU highUght the need for a commission to have access to Govemment administration. When the Federal Govemment came to power some years ago, an argument arose between the State and Federal Govemments on the administration of the Rural Assistance Scheme. InitiaUy, the Federal Government made approximately $20m available to the State of Queensland to help people foUowing natural disasters such as drou^t and flood. The money was to be administered by the State to benefit mral producers and businesses in areas affected by drought, flood, cyclone or whatever event brought hardship to mral people. The agreement between the State and Federal Govemments was that the money was at the disposal of the State Govemment to help mral producers and businesses for two years, with no repayments and no interest. We found that after two years the recipients of the money were required to pay 4 per cent until three or four years ago, at which time it was raised to 7 per cent. Irrespective of the amount the recipients Electoral and Administrative Review BUI 17 October 1989 1523 received, whether it be $10m or $20m, for two years there was no interest charged. In the last three or four years the interest increased from 4 per cent to 7 per cent. The Govemment was aUowed to charge 1 per cent for handling charges. Up to 1985, businesses and farmers affected by disaster could borrow money at 5 per cent. However, very few people received money at 5 per cent. Only the people who had fidends in high places received money at that low rate of interest. People who were in need had to pay practicaUy bank interest, or half a per cent less. When the Govemment's scheme was discovered, the rate of interest being charged was between 12.5 per cent and 13.5 per cent. It was ascertained that the State Govemment had to pay only 85 per cent of that loan back to the Federal Govemment. The State Govemment had the use of the money for two years for nothing and it had to pay only 85 per cent back. Therefore, 15 per cent of the total was left in the Rural Assistance Scheme Tmst Fund. What did the Govemment do? Records tabled in this Parliament reveal that the Govemment withdrew $10m and put it into consolidated revenue. It then lent the money out as State Govemment money, yet it came from the Rural Assistance Scheme. The Govemment lent $10m to the sugar-miUs. I agree wdth the Govemment's action in lending the money to the sugar-mills. At the time, the miUs were facing hardship in bringing their miUs up to standard under the environmental legislation. The miUers knew that they had to stop poUution and its effects on the environment, although there was increased pressure on them to try to increase throughput and to be more efficient. Anyone who knows anything about sugar-miUs will know how costly it is to carry out repairs or make improvements to them. I agree that the Govemment should have provided funds to the miUs. However, the Labor Party objected to the way in which the Government went about it. The Labor Party beUeves that there should be an overseer of the administration of any Government. It not only keeps the Govemment honest but it also brings benefits to the people of Queensland. The commission, in its general investigations, should examine the State Electoral Office. When I have had deaUngs wdth the Electoral Office, the staff have been most helpful. However, so many mistakes have been made in the past that electoral roUs should be completely overhauled by computerisation X)f the master roll. AU members receive a Ust of deletions from and additions to the roll in their electorate. Some time ago—and I beUeve that this happened in many other electorates—more than 250 names were mistakenly taken off the roU in my electorate. It is knovm that many people who did vote at the last Federal referendum and the last State election received show-cause notices asking why they should not be fined for faiUng to vote. Quite a number of people from my electorate and from adjoining electorates complained to me that they received such notices. Because some of those people did vote and could prove that they had voted, they threw it away and said, "Of course I voted." Mr Veivers: What did they throw away? Mr EATON: They threw away the notice to show cause why they should not be fined for not having voted. Mr Veivers: I have never heard of anyone being fined for not voting. Have you? Mr EATON: Yes. Mr Veivers: Not in my electorate. Mr EATON: That might be so. I beUeve a better system wdll have to be devised. For years people had to enrol twice. Now they only have to enrol once. I do not know whether there has been a break­ down between the Commonwealth Electoral Office and the State Electoral Office. 1524 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BUI

However, a Ust came through again the other day which contained mistakes. The rolls are in turmoU at the moment. After the next election there wdU be more turmoil Mr Henderson: Your Commonwealth Electoral Office did the recent roU canvass. They did it totaUy by themselves. It wasn't the Queensland Electoral Office. You paid for it. Mr EATON: I am drawing it to the attention of the House. I beUeve that this is something that the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission should investigate before it reports to this ParUament. Many people have received show-cause notices and many people have been upset. People have fiUed in the form and sent it away and nothing has happened. There is something amiss somewhere along the Une. If I knew where the fauU lay, I would tell the House. The people who work for the State Electoral Office do not know either. Mr Henderson: It's all been done. It was done by the AustraUan Electoral Office. Every roU was checked. Mr EATON: People are stiU enrolled at the wrong address and people have been taken off the roU who are stiU Uving at the same address. Mr Henderson: Why did they get it wrong? Why didn't they get it right? They spent mUUons of doUars. Mr EATON: The officers of this Govemment wdU have to continue to Uaise wdth the Federal Govemment. Mr Henderson: It's the Federal Govemment. Mr EATON: If it is the fault of the Federal Govemment, the Queensland Govem­ ment has to double-check and go pubUc on it, and that Govemment wdU rectify the problem. Mr Veivers: But you won't support it. Mr EATON: The Opposition wdll support the Govemment. The State Govemment has to find out where the trouble is and make sure that those people are not disfranchised. Section 31, I think it is, provides that every citizen of the State is entitled to claim a vote. He can claim that vote under that section, but that vote is sent to the retuming officer and, if it is not recorded there, his vote is just throvm in the mbbish and burnt. Mr Veivers: Excuse me, Mr Eaton? Mr EATON: If the honourable member speaks softly, I wdll answer him. Mr Veivers: WUl you support us if we try and get this situation corrected? Mr EATON: The Opposition is supporting this BiU because there is a problem. It is the State Govemment that is making additions to and deletions from the State electoral roU. It is up to this Govemment to find out why that is happening. When people approach me with a complaint and I ring up about it, I receive good co-operation. Mr Henderson: If the Commonwealth Govemment checked the State electoral roU and found 1 200 people on the electoral roU who should not be there, what would you do wdth that? Mr EATON: I would try to find out how Mr Henderson: This is after a check by the Commonwealth Electoral Office. Mr EATON: I would try to find out why. That is the first thing that has to be done, and that is the responsibility of this Govemment. Electoral and Administrative Review Bill 17 October 1989 1525

If it is the fault of the Federal Govemment, the State Govemment can blast it. I am not blasting anybody at this stage because we do not know whose fault it is. I am pointing out the fault. I am prepared to help to try to rectify the situation. I think that that is the way we have to go. At the next election many people wdU be disfranchised. As I have already pointed out, they wdU claim a vote under section 31, or whatever the relevant section is under which one is entitled to claim a vote, and those votes will be impounded. They wiU be sent down here to Brisbane and checked against the master roU. If it is found that the names of those people have been deleted from the roU for any reason whatsoever, their votes wdll not be counted. I think there wdll be a number of disappointed people in Queensland after the next election because of that. That is the point that I want to make. The Govemment should initiate an investigation. This commission would be able to carry out such an investigation because it should have access to both the State and the Federal roUs. I would be the first to be critical of the Federal Govemment if it did not give that commission access to its roU. It is a joint plan to make it easier for the electors of Queensland to register on the roU. People go to one central point and put in their enrolment card and they are then enroUed for both Federal and State elections. I believe that is how it should be. Hon. T. R. COOPER (Roma—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for State Development) (8.59 p.m.), in reply: I thank aU honourable members for their contri­ butions. Obviously, it was a bit too much to ask members of the Opposition to concentrate their minds for once on the good of Queensland and to give this BiU the serious consideration that it deserves and demands. Once again, the best that the Opposition Leader could manage in his contribution to the debate was to indulge in rhetoric and to whinge and whine, as usual, and to distort and politicise. I wdll not attempt to deal wdth all his pap. Quite frankly, I am sick to death of it. However, I wdU deal with some of his regurgitations in the hope that he might eventually leam it by rote. I wdU deal firstly with the matter of electoral reform. The Opposition Leader has claimed that the central issue of the Fitzgerald report was a recommendation for electoral reform. This is one of the most blatant and dishonest pieces of information to have been constantly peddled by him around the State. What Mr Fitzgerald recommended was in fact an electoral review. An electoral review may lead eventuaUy to electoral reform, and this Govemment is Mr De Lacy: You don't understand what Fitzgerald is about. Mr COOPER: The honourable member should read the report. It is as clear as crystal. It is a review. Mr De Lacy: You haven't got to first base. Mr COOPER: The honourable member obviously has not—not wdth the stuff that he has been peddling around the State. This Govemment has indicated that it wdll abide by the umpire's decision, but it is totaUy inappropriate for the Opposition to suggest that Mr Fitzgerald recommended electoral reform. He did not. He recommended a review. The Leader of the Opposition went further wdth misinformation. He suggested that this Govemment was determined to go to the coming election—on these boundaries. That is certainly not so. The Opposition's performance on this point has been pathetic ever since the Fitzgerald report was handed dovm. Repeated comments by him that an electoral review, and the potential reform to come out of that review, could be handled in the life-time of this term of this Govemment reveal just how Uttie Mr Goss knows about anything. 1526 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review Bill

A review, and any reform that might foUow, could not be properly handled in the time-frame from July to December. Anybody with any minor experience in electoral matters could reach that conclusion very quickly. It is ridiculous to expect that it could be done. I do not intend to educate the Leader of the Opposition on that point, because his mind is obviously completely closed to it. To any reasonable person, it was obviously quite absurd to suggest that the whole process could be achieved in the time demanded by the Opposition; so the Government offered, as an act of good faith, to conduct a referendum that would provide the Govemment with the time to conduct Mr Fitzgerald's review and to go to an election on whatever boundaries emerged from that review. Members of the Opposition, displaying the massive hypocrisy that has been the hallmark of their performance on all these Fitzgerald matters, then bleated about the referendum. They said it was unnecessary. They caUed it a waste of money. As far as they were concemed, it was another backfUp. They did not want the Govemment to go to the next election on the old boundaries, so we gave them the only avaUable chance to achieve that. We said, "Let's put it to the people to get their authority to enable the review and the reform to take place before the poU." However, they did not want that. As usual, they backfUpped and whinged. Members of the Opposition have their cake; they wiU have to eat it whether they Uke it or not. Mr Goss further distorted the facts. He claimed that I said Queenslanders were sick and tired of hearing about the Fitzgerald recommendations. I certainly did not say that. Mr Goss: You did. It's in the paper. Mr COOPER: The Leader of the Opposition believes everything that he reads in the paper. We went through that this moming. Mr Goss: Do you say the paper is wrong? Mr COOPER: The Leader of the Opposition has been through everything like that in the paper. Does he believe it aU? He believes it aU! I have told the Leader of the Opposition quite clearly that I did not say that Queenslanders were sick and tired of hearing about the Fitzgerald recommendations. I am constantly teUing people that I am sorry that members of the Opposition, in their mad msh to score poUtical points at the cost of the tmth and reason, have never taken the time to draw breath between the whinges and the whines. The Leader of the Opposition has done far more than any other person in this House to dismpt the Fitzgerald process, and he stands condemned for that. The Leader of the Opposition is a poUtical opportunist of the worst kind; he is certainly one of the most expedient of people, and certainly one of the cheapest kind. The Leader of the Opposition went on to misquote and take out of context a purported statement by me that only "appropriate and sensible" Fitzgerald reforms wdll be introduced by this Govemment. I defy anyone to find in the ministerial statement that I made in this place, as recorded in Hansard, evidence to support that statement. At the very beginning of that statement I said that my commitment to Fitzgerald reforms is complete—total. I could not have said it more clearly or more definitively. I went on to say that it was appropriate and inevitable that changes would be made to those Fitzgerald reforms. That is purely and simply common sense. Amendments to the BiU have been suggested. In addition, amendments wdU be made to the CJC legislation. The people of Queensland, including the Chief Justice and the Queensland Law Society, have responded to the open manner in which these BiUs were presented to them by the Queensland Govemment and have suggested some amendments. That was what I meant when I made my ministerial statement, and that is very clear from any unjaundiced reading of my ministerial statement in this House, which the Leader of the Opposition sought to distort. The Leader of the Opposition claimed that the BiU represents a fragile framework— a fragUe shell—for reform. It has been prepared for this Govemment by the implemen­ tation unit, which is headed by the man favoured by Mr Fitzgerald himself, namely, Mr Electoral and Administrative Review BUI 17 October 1989 1527

Peter Forster. The BiU represents the wdshes of Mr Fitzgerald, but that is not good enough for the Leader of the Opposition. What has he tried to tell honourable members here today? Does he want to change it now? Mr Deputy Speaker, let me assure you that it is quite in keeping wdth Mr Fitzgerald's proposals that ParUament remains the supreme decision-making body in relation to his reforms. I should deal wdth one or two more pieces of misinformation from the Leader of the Opposition, namely, his remarks about Mr Sherman's decision to reapply for the role of chairman of the EARC and his remarks about the parliamentary committee. As to Mr Sherman and to my statement in the House earUer today that it may be appropriate to reopen nominations for the post of chairman of EARC—let me reassure the Leader of the Opposition and other honourable members that this is certainly not a delaying tactic. Given recent events, it is a step that is quite appropriate. It is certainly no secret that Mr Sherman's decision to rescind his appUcation was related to his level of faith that Fitzgerald reforms would be implemented. He stated that. It is therefore very significant that he has reapplied for that position. Quite obviously, he is confident of this Govemment's intentions to fulfil its responsibiUties in relation to Fitzgerald. I think it might be inappropriate to allow Mr Sherman to renominate wdthout giving other individuals the chance to nominate. It is as simple as that. I am sure that, if that is the course that is adopted, it wdU not take long—just a matter of weeks. On the issue of the aUeged lack of consultation—the Leader of the Opposition knows that his claims are simply not on. Consultation has taken place wdth both leaders of the opposition parties, and it wdU continue to take place. It is tme, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that the Govemment moved quickly to appoint a chairman of the Criminal Justice Commission and that the appointment preceded the legislation. There is not a thing wrong wdth that. Mr Crooke had to be replaced. That was done; he was replaced wdth an eminently suitable person. The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that he is happy wdth Sir Max Bingham in that role, so I do not know what he is on about. It seems that this Govemment might move too fast for him. I guess that it is just another backflip. His usual assertion, which is equally incorrect, is that, at times, the Govemment moves too slowly. Frankly, wdth legislation of this type, I would rather be the tortoise than the hare. The Leader of the Opposition also sought to impugn the Govemment by claiming that the Fitzgerald reforms were necessary because of a lack of tmst in this particular administration. Sometimes one wonders whether he has ever read the report. The report makes it absolutely clear that Mr Fitzgerald regarded the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission as an intrinsically desirable, independent body to inform the Govemment and the Pariiament on the electoral system and the State's administrative systems. The Opposition Leader might recall that Mr Fitzgerald also had some criticism of his role, or at least the role of the Opposition, which has failed. This legislation confirms clearly the Govemment's commitment to the Fitzgerald reform process. The Leader of the Liberal Party commenced his speech wdth the extraordinary claim that there has been a lack of debate on the Fitzgerald report. One must wonder where he has been for the past few months. There is not much that one can say about such an extraordinary claim other than to comment that, at the very beginning, everything possible was done to ensure the widest possible dissemination of information about the whole process. The Fitzgerald report was made public on the very day that it was handed to the Govemment and the opposition parties. At the same time the media had access to it and anybody—any Queenslander—could have bought a copy of the report from the Govemment Printing Office. The assertion of the Leader of the Liberal Party is ridiculous. Debate has been ongoing. For the benefit of the Leader of the Liberal Party I point out that debate is happening here and now. The comments of the Leader of the Liberal Party on electoral reform and the referendum were mind-boggling in their hypocrisy. If Mr Innes wanted to go to the next election on potentially new boundaries, clearly his best chance was to 1528 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BiU back the Govemment's case for the referendum, but he did not. In common with Mr Goss, he has got his cake and now he must eat it. So much of the contribution of the Leader of the Liberal Party was specious. For instance, wdthin one month of the release of the report, drafts of the legislation were avaUable to aU parties. Very soon after that the Leader of the Liberal Party was asked to consult on the short-Usted candidates for the chairmanship of the CJC, but he refused, even though he knew of Mr Crooke's impending departure from his role to retum to private practice, which obviously made that appointment a matter of urgency. To suggest that the consultation process has been deficient is really an admission that the Liberal Party has not wdshed to consult. Clause 2.3 (3) states that a commissioner can be appointed only if the consultation process confirms that he wdU be able to act free of any bias or improper influence. That is clearly intended to ensure that the consultative process works. I suggest that Mr Innes take advantage of that process while he is StiU able to do so. Again, in this instance I would rather be the tortoise than the hare. Several members have addressed the issue of a sunset clause. I draw to their attention clause 5.8 (f), which clearly charges the parliamentary committee wdth the responsibiUty to review the commission's performance and recommend to ParUament any action that is considered necessary. A specific sunset clause is unnecessary. In fact, Fitzgerald caUed for an enduring reform role for the EARC. During his contribution, Mr HamiU continued in the sorry, sad and dissembling tradition that has long been estabUshed by his leader. Mr HamiU claimed that Mr Fitzgerald said that the electoral boundaries of Queensland were cormpt. However, Mr Fitzgerald said no such thing. He said that there was a perception in the community that the boundaries are unfair and proposed that the issue be resolved by an independent review, which wdU be forthcoming after the passage of this legislation. I remind Mr HamiU that, in its own right, this Govemment has also aboUshed ministerial cash advances and legislated to establish a pecuniary interests register. Mr WeUs maintained that the EARC wiU have no committee. As Mr WeUs should know, a parUamentary committee cannot exist when there is no ParUament. It is as simple as that. When one considers the relatively short period before I wiU be able once again to caU the House together after the election, it is not a problem. Mr Fitzgerald provided for circumstances in which there is no committee. The BiU provides for a consultative process between the parties, which is in keeping with Mr Fitzgerald's recommendations. Mr WeUs commented also on the fact that, because certain sections of the EARC are protected by an alleged entrenchment, they have been aUowed to stand on the statute- book. Whether that entrenchment is effective or not is arguable. The question requires answering by a court. It is too deep to permit this House to interfere wdth those provisions as if the entrenchment did not exist. In summary, this BUI represents one of the centre-pieces of Fitzgerald reform, which this Govemment was determined to place before this House and before the people of Queensland before it went to an election. My Govemment has demonstrated that it is most certainly serious about Fitzgerald reform. It is a pity that so many contributions from members on the other side of the House were unhelpful and petty. The Opposition can rant and rave as much as it likes in its bid to befuddle the reform process, but the Govemment has taken a major step towards implementing the key recommendations of that reform. The process wdU continue for as long as the National Party is in Govemment, which wdU be for a very long time. I thank those members who made valuable and constmctive contributions to this most important debate. Motion agreed to. Electoral and Adnunistrative Review BUI 17 October 1989 1529

Conmiittee Hon. T. R. Cooper (Roma—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for State Development) in charge of the BUI. Clause 1.1, as read, agreed to. Clause 1.2— Mr BEANLAND (9.14 p.m.): This very important clause repeals some provisions of the previous Electoral and Administrative Review Act of 1989 which, in hindsight, was mshed through this Parliament quite unnecessarUy. As a result, certain sections of the Act must be repealed. I move the foUowdng amendment— "At page 2, after line 12, insert— '(3) Unless earlier repealed this Act shaU expire on the 31st of December 1994.'" The purpose of this amendment is self-evident. Earlier today it was outlined in some detail by my leader. Regardless of the importance of this commission, it is nevertheless a creature of the ParUament. It is another quango. Of course, because of the enormous power given to it by this legislation, it is slightly different fi-om all of the other semi-Govemment statutory authorities. That is another very important and very good reason why at 31 December 1994, if the commission is to continue in its current status, it ought to be considered once again by the ParUament. All the matters relating to the commission— its powers, its abilities and its functions—should again come before the Parliament to be debated. One would have hoped and tmsted that, by then, the role of the commission might have been fulfilled. If it has not been fulfilled, I am sure that the Premier of the day wdU have no problem extending the commission's term once again. Like every other member of this Assembly, I tmst that the commission's role wdll have been fulfilled by then. The commission wdU have enormous powers. Those powers have been addressed by a number of important groups in the community. In many instances, the commission wdll have unfettered rights which at other times may be conceived and perceived as being attacks on our civil liberties. Today nothing is heard about that because the community has a feeUng that this commission wdU go forward with a great deal of community goodwill. However, in five years' time, on 31 December 1994, the community may not have the same feelings and the same goodwill towards this commission and its powers. I believe—and I am sure many other members of this Assembly believe—that, without the Govemment of the day, the Opposition of the day or other members of Parliament of the day having to raise the matter, the Parliament ought to be able to again debate this matter without any other action having to be taken. If a sunset clause is included in the legislation, it wdll enable such debate to occur. It is a great pity that such a sunset clause is not included in the Acts relating to many other statutory authorities that the Parliament creates. I commend the amendment to the Committee. Mr GOSS: The Labor Party opposes the amendment moved by the Liberal Party. It is a very foolish and short-sighted amendment. It shows a basic failure on the part of the Liberal Party to understand the reform process, how long and involved that reform process wdll be and, indeed, the extent to which the process of proper govemment in this State has completely broken down under this Govemment and under the Liberal Party when it was in Govemment wdth the National Party for 26 years. By looking at the schedule, which sets out the vast Ust of tasks that the commission has to undertake, one wdll cleariy see that, in respect of many important facets of public life and the public administration of this State, for many years to come the commission will have, and should have, an ongoing role. 1530 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BiU

In particular, what does the Liberal Party propose wdth this spurious and fatuous amendment in respect to electoral reform? Does the Liberal Party propose to go back to the good old days when it used to prop up the National Party wdth gerrymander after gerrymander? The Liberal Party ou^t to be ashamed of this amendment, because it removes the possibiUty for future independent reviews and reforms of the electoral system which obviously wdU be necessary from time to time. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Obviously the Leader of the Opposition is floundering. He does not understand the purpose of a sunset clause. A sunset clause does not mean that the legislation is repealed or comes to an end. It simply means that the Parliament has an opportunity to review it. In many Legislatures, including those under the Westminster system and in North America, it is now quite a common practice to force the Legislature to look at the progress that is made by a particular piece of legislation. It has nothing to do wdth foreshortening the time over which the legislation operates. It is important that these matters come back to the Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition is completely confused on this issue. He does not understand the purpose of sunset clauses. I would have thought that he would be the first one to support a clause of this nature in order that the Legislature plays its proper role. Mr Goss: What is the committee for? Sir WILLIAM KNOX: The committee is not playing the role of the Legislature. The honourable member knows perfectly well that, whatever committee is formed by the ParUament, it has to report back to the Pariiament, anyway. It looks at the administration and it looks at the reports, but it does not look at the legislation. That is the business of the Parliament. It is about time that the Parliament played a greater role in the affairs of this State. For the first time in the history of this State the opportunity is here for the Legislature to play an important role in the tradition in which the Legislature was created. The failure of the Legislature to review its legislation from time to time has led to admin­ istrators going wdld and doing things through regulations and other administrative actions without reference back to the Le^slature. A sunset clause forces the legislation back into the Assembly to be reviewed. If it is approved again, on it goes. Mr Hamill: I think it is appropriate you are talking about a sunset clause. Mr Comben: You come out after dark. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I think that the honourable members have their metaphors completely mixed up now. I know that the honourable member for Windsor is a bird­ watcher, but I presume that most of his activities are in the daylight and not in the dark. This clause relates to the repeaUng of clauses in existing legislation, which has virtually not operated. The comings and goings of this legislation since July have caused enormous problems for the Govemment, considerable confusion for the community and the faUure of people to understand what is going on. I congratulate the Govemment for at last getting on with the job. The legislation before the Committee should have been introduced in July. It should have been, and could have been, presented in July. Since that time many other pieces of legislation that were far more complicated than the present BiU have been introduced into this Parliament. This is not a tremendously complicated piece of legislation, but it is novel. Honourable members are now faced with the prospect of repealing legislation that has virtuaUy not begun to operate. I wish to correct the Premier on one matter. The Fitzgerald report, although the subject of an acceptance proposal submitted to this Parliament, has not been accepted Electoral and Administrative Review BiU 17 October 1989 1531 by this ParUament. The debate was adjoumed on the clear understanding that it would be resumed at a later date. Prorogation of the Parliament occurred, as a result of which the debate was taken off the business paper. It has not been restored to this ParUament's agenda, yet honourable members are engaging in a debate on legislation that has been brought forward consequent upon the presentation of the Fitzgerald report. The report itself has not been accepted by this ParUament; nor has it been fuUy debated. When the debate was adjoumed, 15 further members wanted to speak on that report. The faUure to pubUcly debate the recommendations of the Fitzgerald report has led also to considerable confusion in the community. By having the debate on the Fitzgerald report restored to the business paper of the ParUament, the Govemment would do itself a service. On behalf of the Liberal Party, Mr Gygar has moved that that debate be restored to Parliament's agenda, but the Govemment refuses to do so. The Premier is completely in error when he says that a full debate on the report has taken place. A ftiU debate on the recommendations has not been engaged in, and the faUure to debate them has led to this Govemment's losing brownie points throughout this State. A much clearer understanding could have been given to members of the public if a fuU debate had taken place. The member for Murmmba commented on entrenchment. It is tme that, if it is proposed to move towards entrenchment, this clause is the appropriate provision by which to do so. There is no possibility at this stage of entrenching this legislation; nor should that course be considered. I imagine that wdthin 12 months of the passage of this BiU through Parliament a number of amendments wdll be brought forward. I imagine also that in the course of time, on reflection and by taking into account the history of this legislation, a great number of amendments will be deemed necessary. It would be foolish indeed to have to take this matter back to the people in the form of a referendum simply because machinery amendments had to be attended to. I guarantee now that, 12 months from this time, Parliament wdU be debating amendments to this legislation. That does not mean that the legislation is wrong; it means that the legislation is novel—new to Australia, new to this system of govemment and new to this Parliament. It is inevitable that amendments wdU be made to this legislation. When that is necessary the proper course is for those amendments to be made by this Assembly. I seek to include a sunset clause so that the Legislature plays its proper role in the review of important legislation. Mr INNES: I speak in support of the amendment. As I foreshadowed this moming, members of the Liberal Party beUeve that a sunset clause should be specificaUy included in this Bill. We understand and accept that a subsequent clause contains a proposal for review. Indeed, if there had not been a proposal for review, the Liberal Party would have attached in tandem to the repeal clause a review clause. This is the USUJU device used to impose an obligation to report to the Parliament before the expiration of a sunset period and then for the expiration of the sunset period after presentation of the report. We believe that that is important. There is an obligation to report wdthin three years. It seems to us to be unfortunate timing to make the expiry date virtually coincidental wdth an election because that cotUd introduce distractions, shall I say, into any debate on the merits. This specific amendment is to apply five years from the date of the expected implementation of the legislation. There is no doubt that by that time—and obviously wdthin the life of the next Pariiament—a report should be, and wdU be, presented on the operation of the legislation and of the commission to that date. It is important that the legislation is clearly made self-expiring to force the Parliament to address it in hard terms, as opposed to the legislation's limping along. A report can be presented containing some positives and negatives but, unless a specific obligation in the form of a final cut-off date is imposed, the necessary hard thinking wdU not be brought to bear in deciding whether a new Act should replace the old Act, whether cmcial parts of the Act have been found to be effective or whether provisions have been found to be defective. It also obviously provides the important benefit of deciding whether the bureaucratic stmcture wdU inevitably grow 1532 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BUI as a result of the commission's operations and whether its initial workload is functioning efficiently. Aspects of administration have been found to be wrong. The electoral review process might weU require staff that may never need to be assembled again. In terms of gdloping bureaucracy, in terms of the difficulty in getting rid of bureaucracy after it is assembled and in terms of unusual powers that are granted in unusual situations, I think a total termination provision is appropriate. It will force the Legislature to decide what is reaUy necessary and to make special provision for the continuation of those stmctures necessary to maintain checks and balances. It wiU prevent the types of revelations and faults identified by the Fitzgerald inquiry from again raising their heads. The Liberal Party believes that there are many occasions—and not just in the case of regulations generally—when Parliament itself should impose self-discipline and be obUged to address in a hard way exactly what it has done, the efficacy of the stmctures it sets up and, if a stmcture stiU needs to be maintained, authorise the stmcture to be maintained for whatever number of foUowing years the ParUament chooses. We propose this amendment to this piece of legislation and wiU be proposing a simUar amendment to the CJC legislation, because that Bill has even more exceptional powers—powers which have some difficulties from a traditional civil liberties point of view. However, both pieces of legislation are susceptible to the same rationale or thinking, and the Liberal Party strongly urges the ParUament to accept this sunset provision. Mr COOPER: The Govemment understands what the Liberal Party is driving at with its proposal for a sunset clause, but nevertheless beUeves that there are adequate safeguards in place. I refer to Part V, Division 2 "Functions and Powers of Parliamentary Committee", clause 5.8(l)(f), which states— "(i) to review the activities of the Commission during such 3 years; and (u) to report to the Legislative Assembly and to the Minister as to further action that should be taken in relation to this Act or the functions, powers and operations of the Commission." There are adequate safeguards in place. If this Pariiament feels that the commission needs to be reviewed or changes need to be made, it is appropriate for this Chamber to recommend and make those changes. This Govemment has always stood very firmly on its beUef that the Parliament is supreme and, in this instance, it most definitely is supreme and is in a position to carry out whatever changes need to be made. In keeping with this Govemment's commitment to the Fitzgerald report, I refer to page 144, which states— "An enduring process wdth adequate independence and Parliamentary ... support must be set up ..." Mr Fitzgerald is referring to an enduring process so that the necessary functions of the commission can be undertaken. On the other hand, safeguards wiU stiU be in place and the ParUament can make the necessary changes. The Govemment is not in a position to accept this amendment. Mr INNES: The Liberal Party is totally aware of the provision referred to by the Premier, and I mention the fact that, had there not been such a provision in the legislation, the Liberal Party would have introduced a similar provision requiring a report before the operation of the sunset clause. The Liberal Party is happy wdth the timing, that is, that the report will be made by the parliamentary committee wdthin the life of the next Parliament and before the expiration of three years. Each session of Parliament should address itself to the operations of this exceptional legislation. The Liberal Party does not intend to say that no stmctures for the future need to be put in place to stop a repetition of the problems found by the Electoral and Administrative Review BiU 17 October 1989 1533

Fitzgerald inquiry, and does not propose that there be no new stmctures or that those stmctures be dismantled. There is a substantial emphasis on electoral reform, and the commission wdU have a very wdde responsibility for administrative reform. This reform can be achieved—as the word implies—by administration and proper policies. The Liberal Party requires this Parliament to address in hard terms the report which might be handed down by the parUamentary committee, and requires a specific continuation of the beneficial parts of the legislation by terminating the present legislation and requiring the ParUament to specifically continue the stmctures which are found to be usefUl by the introduction of new legislation, by amendment or by saving parts of this BiU. Question—That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 10 NOES, 68 Beard Ahem Littleproud Innes ArdUl McCauley Knox Austin McEUigott Lee Berghofer McKechnie Lickiss Braddy Mackenroth Santoro Bums McLean Schuntner Burreket McPhie White CampbeU Menzel Casey Milliner Chapman Muntz Clauson Neal Comben Nelson Cooper Newton Davis Palaszczuk De Lacy Perrett Eaton Prest EUiott RandeU FitzGerald Scott Fraser Sherrin Gamin Simpson Gately Slack Gibbs, I. J. Smith Gibbs, R. J. Smyth GUmore Stoneman Glasson Tenni Goss Vaughan Gunn Veivers HamUl Warburton Harper Wamer Harvey WeUs Hayward Yewdale Henderson Tellers: Hinton Tellers: Gygar Hobbs Hynd Beanland Katter Stephan Resolved in the negative. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! I announce that, in any further divisions tonight in Committee on this BiU, the two-minute bell wdll apply. Clause 1.2, as read, agreed to. Clause 1.3— Mr COOPER (9.46 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 4, Une 14, omit—

4 9

and substitute—

(d) the courts of the State of whatever jurisdiction.' 1534 17 October 1989 Electoral and AdminisUative Review BUI

Amendment agreed to. Clause 1.3, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 2.1 to 2.3, as read, agreed to. Clause 2.4— Mr INNES (9.50 p.m.): I move the foUowing amendment— "At page 5, omit aU words after 'unanimously or' in line 28 to the end of Une 30 and insert— 'where there is no Parliamentary Committee, his appointment is supported by the Leaders of aU poUtical parties represented in the Assembly by at least 5 Members.'" As I foreshadowed in the second-reading debate, because the first chairman and the first part-time commissioners wdll have the highly sensitive political role of reviewing the electoral boundaries of this State, we believe that there should be appointed a commission comprising members who are supported by all political parties. In the original legislation, there was no provision requiring the support of anybody other than the Govemment. The only directory clause was an obligation to consult. We know that, as a matter of legal interpretation, the question of consultation can be fulfilled by merely talking to the other parties or the other party-leaders, as the case may be, and does not require, as the layman might think, the active participation by other parties in the selection of the people who comprise the commission. The reason why that is so important is that the issue of electoral reform is highly controversial and there are no established norms or mles. Questions of whether the law is broken are susceptible to some fairly traditional and well-reported standards. Even standards of public administration are fairly weU documented. However, in this State there are no accepted standards wdth regard to electoral reform and electoral criteria. Therefore, we believe that we should accept the reasoning and the words on page 127 of Mr Fitzgerald's report, in which he said that there should be electoral review, that it should be carried out by people of independence and integrity and that it should be carried out by people whose judgment would be accepted by aU poUtical parties and by people generaUy. We start wdth the proposition that the judgment of people wUl not be accepted unless the people themselves are acceptable. Some of that argument has been accepted to a smaU degree by the legislation which is now before us requiring that at least the opinion of one person other than a member of the Govemment parties be accepted where the aU-party committee exists. The word "unanimously" is almost superfluous as it appears in the provision before us because it says "unanimously or by a majority thereof. If a majority suffices, it is quite clear that the word "unanimously" is superfluous. "Unanimously" means agreed to by aU persons. Members of the Liberal Party beUeve that, because of the great sensitivity wdth regard to this first task of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission, that is, electoral review, it should mean unanimously. It is the belief of the Liberal Party that it should require the unanimous support of aU members of the parliamentary committee. However, there is an even greater trap and an even greater offence and affront to the tripartisanship which is clearly envisaged by Fitzgerald. This goes to bipartisanship, not tripartisanship, because one other party wUl be sufficient. But if we get to the stage at which there is no all-party committee— and Mr Kennedy has told us that it is not proposed that the parliamentary committee be set up before next year—the only direction that is made to the Govemment is to consult wdth the leaders of the other two parties—in this case, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. There is no requirement that the consent or support of even one of those two leaders is required. So the National Party Govemment can, by teUing us before or after what it intends to do, fulfil the requirement of consultation. It can go ahead, over the opposition of both other parties, and appoint whomever it wants to be the EARC commissioners to preside over electoral reform. That can never be satisfactory. Electoral and Administrative Review BUI 17 October 1989 1535 Members of the Liberal Party have said that they are sceptical about anything that wdll tend to confirm the four-zonal gerrymander in this State. That wdU not be acceptable. We not only have reservations; we have opposition to legislation that does not entrench the right of the other parties in this House to take an active part, including the right of veto, if you like, or the requirement of active support for the selection of persons to the commission. The Liberal Party never intends to be obstmctive. Members of the Liberal Party believe that tripartisan support can be achieved, but certainly support is not achieved when the Govemment sets up a stmcture that aUows the Govemment, entirely in its own discretion, to appoint the chairman of the commission and the commissioners. The Liberal Party regards this as a matter of great importance. We raised this objection three months ago. We maintain our objection. It is absolutely unsatisfactory to leave the residual right in the Govemment to appoint whomever it thinks should be appointed in the interregnum—this intervening period—before the aU-party committee is set up. Mr WELLS: The Liberal Party is moving an amendment which has the effect of giving the right of veto to any party wdth as few as five members. This is a typicaUy self-serving move by the Liberal Party. It obviously anticipates an even further decline in its numbers, even from the low point that it has already reached. As a matter of fact, five would be a good estimate because the Labor Party has targeted six Liberal Party seats and, if it succeeds, that would leave it wdth five. This self-serving amendment designed to give the right of veto to any party that has as few as five members in the Parliament is a good recipe for chaos. It is a good recipe for giving the right of veto on quite whimsical grounds to any group of people who choose to exercise it. Mr Mackenroth: Any mob of ratbags. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Chatsworth for his emdite remark. As he said, it is a good recipe for giving the right of veto to any mob of ratbags. There is ample historical precedent for what the Liberal Party is proposing to do. Medieval Poland had a Parliament which operated on the basis of a principle caUed the libemm veto. All the aristocrats in the land sat around together in the Chamber—a congenial atmosphere for members of the Liberal Party—and every single one of them had a right to veto any legislation. What was the result of it? The result was that they never passed any legislation. The place collapsed into feudal anarchy and, of course, Poland was subsequently subdivided and taken over by other countries. What we have here is a recipe for a similar kind of anarchy Mr Casey: Mr WeUs Mr WELLS: I pause to hear the words which fall from the Ups of the member for Mackay. Mr Casey: At least Poland finished up wdth a Pope. There's no chance of that from the Libs. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Mackay. This is a recipe for anarchy. The Govemment has an amendment to this clause which the Opposition wdU support Mr Hamill: What is the medieval Polish equivalent of a Jacuzzi? Mr WELLS: I am sorry; I do not know. I cannot help the member for Ipswdch. He wdll have to make inquiries elsewhere. The Opposition wdU oppose this amendment. It is just a self-serving amendment put forward by the Liberal Party. There is a provision in this piece of legislation which has the effect of stopping any one party from imposing its wdll upon the rest of the 1536 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BUI

ParUament. It is an adequate provision, in the minds of members of the Opposition, and the Opposition wiU support the Govemment's amendment. Mr INNES: I find it fascinating that in the argument raised by the honourable member for Murmmba he failed even to support the entrenchment of the right of his ovm party to be consulted. I have gone wide enough to be tripartisan, but this does not even provide for entrenchment. We are told by Mr Kennedy that there wiU be no parUamentary committee before next year, but we know that the appointment process goes on. The Govemment is not prepared to entrench the right of itself to support the appointment of the commissioner. Let me suggest why that is so. Today, I was fascinated to hear Mr Goss talking about Mr Sherman. It is probably the fact that Mr Sherman was a member of the Labor Party that appeals to the Leader of the Opposition. He derives some comfort from the fact that a certain person has some historical Unks wdth his ovm party, and that appeals to him. I do not want to entrench Unks wdth any political party. Of course, Mr Huey is another fellow wdth some fairly well-knovm biases. It is interesting how subjective members of the Labor Party become when they think that there is somebody with some political partisanship towards themselves that suddenly we start Mr Goss: You oppose the Huey appointment? Mr INNES: I know the sorts of things that the Leader of the Opposition and many other members of the legal profession said about Huey in the past. This demonstrates exactly what The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! We are discussing a particular clause of the BUI. Mr INNES: We certainly are. We are discussing the motivation of the Opposition in this extraordinary action, when it refuses even to apply the logic. To foUow the logic— it is that when one gets round to an all-party committee, one entrenches the right of aU parties, or at least one other party, to support the nomination of members for appointment to the commission. If that logic applies, the same logic should apply to the period before to oblige the support of at least one leader in the nomination process, particularly as we know that the members of the commission are likely to be appointed before the all- party parliamentary committee exists. Why the change? If the logic is good for the all- party committee, the logic should be good for the participation by party-leaders. I have deUberately said that there should be three parties because I believe that tripartisanship is necessary. The first job of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission is to arrive at a judgment that is acceptable to all political parties. That wdU not happen unless there is active participation and the total and statutory right of support by the representatives of aU parties. One finds an interesting subjectivity on the part of the Labor Party when certain personedities come to the fore. This is the real indication of what the State can expect from its administration. As it has done around the rest of Australia, the Labor Party is into cronyism as far as any other political party. Mr GOSS: As to the comments by the Leader of the Liberal Party—in aU my time in this place, I have never heard such pathetic doublespeak. The Leader of the Liberal Party is not proposing the right of an individual party to support a nomination; he is proposing the right of an individual party to veto an individual nomination, and that is quite wrong and quite objectionable. Members of the Labor Party are being very reasonable in relation to the Govemment's proposal. We could support the Liberal Party's amendment and, if it was passed, give to ourselves the rightt o veto an appointment by the Govemment. What we are saying is that we wdU be more reasonable than that and accept a situation in which a majority of parties are making the appointment. We are making a concession. We are giving away something, but we are doing it in the spirit that this proposal that the Govemment puts before the Committee is more workable Electoral and Administrative Review BUI 17 October 1989 1537 and more practical than the ridiculous, self-centred and spurious proposal put forward by the Liberal Party. The Leader of the Liberal Party referred to entrenching the right to support a nomination or entrenching the right to consultation. Consultation depends on good faith. As to the right to support a nominee—the Liberal Party has the right to support a nominee. What it is proposing is something quite opposite—the right to veto. It has nothing to do wdth Sherman, Huey or any other individual, because the right remains vested in a majority of parties. Members of the Opposition do not seek for themselves the right of veto. If we did seek that, it would enable us to put practical difficulties in the way of the Govemment in the next six or eight-week period. The Opposition beUeves that that would be irresponsible; and this Liberal Party amendment is most irresponsible. Mr INNES: The Committee wdll have noted that the words that I used in the amendment are precisely the same formula of words as were used in the legislation that apparently is to be supported, and that is the word "support". I did not put in "the right of veto". The words in the existing legislation are— "... unless his appointment is supported by the members of the committee, unanimously or by a majority thereof, other than a majority consisting whoUy of members of the same political party in the Assembly." In my amendment I have included the same wording of support in relation to the action of the leaders of other political parties. Those are the actual words. What we find wdth the Leader of the Opposition is another spectacular exercise in forked-tongue hypocrisy. This moming he told this Assembly that consultation wdth the Govemment is a farce and ineffective. Now he says that everything has to proceed on the basis of tmst and goodwill. That is precisely what he told this Assembly. Mr Goss: No, I didn't. You can't understand the EngUsh language. Mr INNES: The Leader of the Opposition is only prepared to support systems in which Opposition members think that they have an advantage. He is not prepared to support systems that are genuinely tripartisan. That is aU the Liberal Party tries to do. The members of the Liberal Party entrench the rights of members of the Labor Party as much as we entrench our rights or the rights of any other group, depending on whatever happens in the election later this year. There is nothing inconsistent in the Liberal Party's amendment. It carries throu^ the logic of the all-party system; and it extends it further to require the participation of three parties, irrespective of what those parties are, as long as they have more than five members. Mr WELLS: Honourable members just heard a most extraordinary statement by the Leader of the Liberal Party. He said that the Liberal Party is not giving the right of veto to any party that has five members or more; he is just saying that unless any party that has five members or more agrees wdth it, it wdll not happen. It is not a right of veto; the Liberal Party is just going to stop it unless it agrees wdth it. It is a ridiculous proposition. It is a self-serving proposition put forward by this dovmwardly mobUe group of bourgeoisie, who are dressed in their dinner suits and who are about to be dressed in another way entirely in the forthcoming election. A certain amount of co-operation is needed wdth this BUI. This clause, amended as I assume it wdU be by the Premier's proposal, is satisfactory. The Opposition wdll support it. Mr Gygar interjected. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Stafford! I am trying to obtain a decision on these clauses. There are a number of amendments, and I suggest that the honourable member behaves in an orderly manner. Mr COOPER: The Govemment believes that adequate safeguards exist. It does not accept the amendment because it believes that it would be unworkable and would leave the way open for sheer bloody-mindedness. The Govemment is looking for reason. 1538 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BiU

Clause 2.3(3) states— "A person shaU only be appointed as a member of the Commission if it appears, as a result of the process of consultation prescribed by section 2.4, that he does not, and did not at a material time, hold an appointment or have associations such as to put in question his capacity to act as a Commissioner free of improper influence." That clause is adequate. After consultation with the leaders of poUtical parties that have more than five members, if there is disagreement to the point at which it is felt that there would not be balance or that a particular person would not be able to perform the role of commissioner free of improper influence, that person would not be appointed. The safeguards are adequate and the Govemment believes that the proposed amendment wiU take care of the majority recommendation of the parUamentary committee. Question—That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 65 NOES, 11 ArdiU McCauley Beard Berghofer McElligott Innes Braddy McKechnie Knox Bums Mackenroth Lee Burreket McLean Lickiss CampbeU McPhie Santoro Casey Menzel Schuntner Chapman MiUiner Sherlock Clauson Muntz White Comben Neal Cooper Nelson Davis Newton De Lacy Palaszczuk Eaton Perrett ElUott Prest FitzGerald RandeU Fraser Scott Gamin Sherrin Gately Simpson Gibbs, I. J. Slack Gibbs, R. J. Smith GUmore Smyth Glasson Stoneman Goss Tenni Gunn Vaughan HamUl Veivers Harper Warburton Harvey Wamer Hayward WeUs Henderson Hinton Hobbs Tellers: Tellers: Katter Stephan Beanland Gygar Resolved in the affirmative. Mr COOPER: I move the foUowing amendment— "At page 5, Une 30, omit— 'same political party in the Assembly' and substitute— 'political party or parties in Govemment in the Assembly'." The reason for this amendment is that in the event of a coaUtion Govemment, the committee would include members from both coalition parties as weU as one member of the Opposition. Amendment agreed to. Electoral and Administrative Review BiU 17 October 1989 1539 Qause 2.4, as amended, agreed to. Clause 2.5— Mr COOPER (10.18 p.m.): I move the foUowdng amendment— "At page 5, Une 43, after 'stead' insert— 'during such temporary absence or such incapacity'." This amendment is reaUy just a drafting improvement. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2.5, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 2.6 to 2.8, as read, agreed to. Qause 2.9— Mr COOPER (10.19 p.m.): I move the foUowdng amendment— "At page 8, after Une 6, insert— '(4) The Commission is not authorized by this Act to provide reports in relation to the procedures or operations of the courts of the State of whatever jurisdiction.' " This amendment has occurred as a result of agreement wdth the judiciary after consultation with the Chief Justice. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2.9, as amended, agreed to. Clause 2.10— Mr COOPER (10.20 p.m.): I move the foUowdng amendment— "At page 8, line 42, after 'subsection 1(b)' insert— 'or in relation to a primary producer co-operative association or marketing board that is not in receipt of moneys of, or financial assistance from, the Crown'." As far as the Govemment is concemed, those primary producer bodies that are not funded by the Crovm but who are levied by themselves should be treated similarly in the exercise of the commission's powers in relation to local authorities and the Legislative Assembly. Amendment agreed to. Mr COOPER: I move the foUowdng further amendment— "At page 8, after Une 45, insert— '(5) The functions of the Commission do not extend to investigating and reporting in relation to the procedures or operations of the courts of the State of whatever jurisdiction, and a Commissioner or officer of the Commission shall not exercise any powers under Division 4 of this Part for the purpose of an investigation of the registry or administrative offices of the Supreme Court or a District Court unless the Commission is authorized by— • the Chief Justice of the State; • the Legislative Assembly; or • the Govemor-in-Council, to undertake the investigation and it is necessary or expedient to exercise the power in aid thereof " Again, this amendment is to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and it was decided on after consultation wdth the Chief Justice. 1540 17 October 1989 Electoral and Administrative Review BUI Mr WELLS: The Opposition wdU not oppose this amendment. I merely rise to say that it regrets that the Govemment has chosen to move it. It goes a Uttie too far. The Opposition does not beUeve it is there merely to protect the judiciary, because it goes very much further than that. Note, Mr Acting Chairman, that it refers also to the registry or the administrative offices of the Supreme Court or a District Court, which goes very much further than the protection of the independence of the judiciary. It precludes an efficiency review of the Queensland legal system by the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission. Members of the Opposition beUeve that there is a need for an efficiency review of the Queensland legal system. At the moment the courts have a hideous backlog and are mUes and mUes behind. People are waiting years and years to have their cases tried. Now a provision is being introduced that prevents the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission from looking into questions of backlog, etc. Members of the Opposition regret that the Govemment has chosen to introduce this clause but we wiU not be penny-pinching and call for a division on the clause. We merely wdsh to have our views noted by the Assembly. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2.10, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 2.11 and 2.12, as read, agreed to. Clause 2.13— Mr COOPER (10.25 p.m.): I move the foUowing amendment— "At page 10, Une 27, omit— 'may'." Amendment agreed to. Clause 2.13, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 2.14 to 2.17, as read, agreed to. Clause 2.18— Mr COOPER (10.26 p.m.): I move the foUowing amendment— "At page 12, Une 34, omit—

This is reaUy just a drafting clarification. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2.18, as amended, agreed to. Clause 2.19, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr COOPER (10.27 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 13, after Une 20, insert— '2.19.1 Restriction on exercise of powers. A Commissioner or officer of the Commission shaU not exercise a power or authority conferred by sections 2.15 to 2.18 inclusive if the information or record sought by the Commission is avaUable for inspection, search and copying by the public'" The intention is that, if the information is already freely available, the commission would not have to exercise its powers of search or entry but would in fact utiUse the information that is available to it in the first instance. Amendment agreed to. New clause 2.19.1, as read, agreed to. Primary Producers' Co-operative Associations Act Amendment BiU 17 October 1989 1541 Clauses 2.20 to 7.11, as read, agreed to. Clause 7.12— Mr COOPER (10.28 p.m.): I move the foUowdng amendment— "At page 27, after line 9, insert— '(c) procedures to be observed by Commissioners or officers of the Com­ mission in discharging the Commission's functions or in exercising the powers and authorities conferred by this Act;'." This amendment is designed to ensure that the commission's procedures are incorporated in regulations. It is felt that if the procedures are put in writing and incorporated in regulations, the pubUc in general would have a far better idea of what the commission's powers are aU about. Amendment agreed to. Clause 7.12, as amended, agreed to. Schedule agreed to. BiU reported, with amendments.

Third Reading BiU, on motion of Mr Cooper, by leave, read a third time.

PRIMARY PRODUCERS' CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 28 September (see p. 971). Mr CASEY (Mackay) (10.31 p.m.): On 24 November 1988 urgent legislation was pushed through this House to amend the Primary Producers' Co-operative Associations Act, supposedly to cover the need for an amalgamation between Queensco, the Queensland co-operative, and Norco in New South Wales. As is usual, this Govemment has brought forward further amending legislation to consolidate the Act because insufficient amend­ ments were mshed through the House at that time. The dairy industry in Queensland is still unsettled. In 1988,1 outUned aU the things that were happening wdthin the industry and I do not intend to go through them aU again tonight. I wiU say, however, that there wdU be more amalgamations of dairy factories. Negotiations are going on between PCD in the Mackay region of central Queensland, and Malanda Milk on the Atherton Tableland for a major amalgamation. Also the Warwick dairy has finally settied its difficulties and wdll amalgamate with the South Coast Dairy. More amalgamations may happen on the DarUng Dovms. It could be said that this BiU comes before this ParUament under a different cUmate because in 1988—because of what was happening in Warwdck due to growth factors and other body-snatching that was occurring—the matter was a very emotional one. I remember the honourable member for Warwdck, Mr Booth, attacking his own Govem­ ment on the legislation at that time. The directors of the co-operative, the Minister and the MUk Entitlements Committee were all locked in court battles with each other over what was occurring publicly in the community. Thankfully, that has now settled dovm, because, irrespective of the good politics involved for the Labor Party, the Opposition did not Uke to see major squabbUng such as that occurring out in the community when the livelihoods of so many people in the dairy industry were at stake. At the same time it can be said quite bluntly that this legislation puts the Queensland dafry industry on the market for sale to the New South Wales co-operatives. One of the co-operatives is slightly bigger and, because of other factors that I wdU explain later, it 1542 17 October 1989 Primary Producers' Co-operative Associations Act Amendment BUI may finish up in a worse position. The legislation does not merely ratify the Queensco/ Norco agreement. As far as I am aware, no agreement has yet been reached or is ready to be signed. This legislation appUes not only to dairy co-operatives, but also to any co­ operative in the sugar, egg or other primary industries in which co-operatives have been formed. Since the last amendments to the legislation were passed, I have discussed fuUy what has occiured in the industry with officials of the Queensland Dairymen's Organi­ sation, the Queensco chairman and general manager and even with the Queensco suppUers. As a result of those discussions, the Labor Party—as the official Opposition in this State—is prepared to support the legislation and tiie movement for this amal­ gamation. However, I do have some queries that I wdsh to raise at this time and perhaps the Minister might answer them during his reply. Some guarantees should be given in relation to this deal. I have been unable to find anything contained in the legislation conceming what happens if a dissolution of this amalgamation is required at a later stage. If the deal does not work out to the satisfaction of aU the producers concemed, I presume that a dissolution can take place. At a later time some Queensland producers might want to opt out, or there might be a further amalgamation with another co­ operative in New South Wales, and the decision can be taken to dissolve the amalgamation if it does not want to remain a party to it. It may be able to puU out of the amalgamation and retmn to the industry as a totaUy Queensland-based organisation. In his second-reading speech the Minister indicated that the New South Wales legislation insists that the amalgamated co-operative must be registered in New South Wales. That is sad for Queensland, but, at the same time, co-operative organisations, like companies, should be free and able to register wherever they desire, provided it is not off shore, they are contributing to the AustraUan tax system and no Govemment moneys are being used to support them. Otherwise, they should be registered within the State from which they are receiving that support so that they can be held responsible for it. It is always Ukely that this amalgamation wdll go even further and another New South Wales co-operative might join in as weU. Discussions had taken place between Norco and the Hunter Valley co-operative about an amalgamation when the initial discussions between Queensco and Norco seemed to founder, and they foundered because Norco was looking further afield in New South Wales. Perhaps in the long mn a fiirther amalgamation wdth other New South Wales co-operatives, particularly those north of Sydney, wiU not be bad for the dairying industry up in this area where there are relatively small producers in volume compared wdth those in the other States. Protection, mainly from the industry in Victoria, wdU be requfred and I shaU touch on that later. I do not think that Govemment legislation should control the companies that are being forced to register in a particular State and I think that the New South Wales legislation should be changed. I urge the Minister to take all possible steps to ensure that that occurs. I should like a guarantee from him in that regard. I am concemed about some of the comments made in the media on this matter, particularly one that appeared in this week's Queensland Country Life under the headUne "PoUtics delay merger". It reads— "Queensland's volatUe political scene is holding up final approval for a merger between dairy companies on each side of the border with NSW." I do not know whether it refers to the volatile poUtical scene in the National Party and whether there was a difference between the previous Minister and the present Minister but certainly it does not refer to the Opposition. I want to state right here and now that it would be erroneous to think that it is the volatUe political scene in the Labor Party that is holding up approval. The big danger is that the legislation wiU open things up for the Victorians. Perhaps there wdU be a further amalgamation of the two big co-operatives in Victoria, the Murray/ Goulbum Valley group and the Bonlac group, each of which is bigger than the total Queensland industry and controls more factories than there are in Queensland. They Primary Producers' Co-operative Associations Act Amendment BUI 17 October 1989 1543 have good asset stmctures and could swaUow us up. They have mountains of manufacturing milk available and they want to get into the New South Wales and Queensland markets. The way that the retaU trade is stmctured, there is a danger that those co-operatives wiU do a deal wdth Coles, Woolworths and FrankUns and flood the south-east Queensland market in particular. Queensland has only 10 per cent of the Australian industry and the market here can be swaUowed up by the Victorian co-operatives if they move in and make use of this legislation. Queensco and Norco are very simUar in many respects. It wdll be interesting to watch what happens foUowdng this merger. It is another way of achieving rationaUsation wdthin the dairying industry. Norco is a very progressive and well mn co-operative, and so is Queensco since the amalgamation of the Caboolture/Maryborough/Wide Bay group and the Booval/Queensland Farmers group. They have done a good deal of work under the chairmanship of Ivan WUd, who is a very weU knovm and respected person in the dafrying industry and their manager, Brian Sadler, in rationaUsing the group and producing a specialty product for the premium market. They have increased their sales of yoghurt and they have increased by 40 or 50 per cent their sales of their specialty, pizza cheeses, in one year. They have gone out after the consumer market and are producing for it and, because of that, are getting a premium price for their product. At the moment they have contracts aU over Australia for pizza cheeses. Because of the high standard of their quality control there is no variation in taste, so they are doing a very good job. Like aU other factories at the moment, Queensco and Norco are short of manufactured milk and are finding difficulty in keeping the factory at maximum productivity and profitability. That was one of the problems when the Kraft factory at KenUworth was going to be closed down. The producers were not able to take it over, as many people suggested, because it would have been another debt burden around their necks. Most of the Queensco suppliers were supplying that Kraft factory and keeping it going and they have been able to use the product there themselves. Both Norco and Queensco are very aggressive in their marketing and sales and that is a good thing in the industry. They are finding out what the consumer requires and are supplying that market. Probably, when they both get together, there wdU be a rationaUsation of their product. Norco is very good at manufacturing ice-cream and it could make a difference by concentrating on the south-east Queensland market. When they get together, Norco and Queensco wiU form one of the major manufacturing centres in south-east Queensland. Norco has been very good to its producers and I should like to refer to some of the things it has done. The co-operative aUows its producers—its co-operative members—to borrow up to $50 per cow at a flat rate of interest of 10 per cent a year to put in new mUk vats and milk room extensions, bulk fertUiser sUos, molasses tanks and feeding systems, grain sUos and anciUary milUng and feeding equipment, feeding pads, sUage clamps and feed troughs for hay and silage. The co-operative is helping the producers to improve their properties and their farms generally. A second scheme covers borrowings for fertiUser, seed, molasses and herbicides. The co-operative is very supportive of its ovm producers. Queensco also helps in many ways. In conjunction wdth the Department of Primary Industries, Queensco is providing finance to enable the department to do research work to improve productivity per cow. That is another way in which the Queensland industry can move in order to provide a better deal for the industry in this State. Recently, I had discussions with the chairman of the Australian dairymen's oi^anisation about the changing world scene which is helping Queensland's markets. The European Community mountain of surplus products is starting to decUne, which is good for trade in AustraUa and good for New Zealand. Earlier this year, I was in New Zealand on ParUamentary Service Commission business. I took the opportunity to have discussions with the New Zealand Minister for Agricuhure, Mr Colin Moyle. There was much hype going on within the dairying industry in Queensland that we were going to be flooded wdth products from New Zealand as 1544 17 October 1989 Primary Producers' Co-operative Associations Act Amendment BUI soon as the new trip mechanism under the Closer Economic Relations agreement comes into effect next year. FoUowing those discussions, the chairman of the Australian dairymen's organisation and I are satisfied that New Zealand is no real danger or threat to the AustraUan market. New Zealand regards the Australian market as its own market. It wdU not flood its ovm market and sell products cheaply at home because it would be cutting its ovm throat. New Zealand has a major export surplus. It was affected by the European Community's mountain of surpluses. With that decUning surplus, New Zealand has become very aggressive in marketing its products. It is chasing the export market for its surplus products. New Zealand wiU be successful in chasing the premium export markets. I condemn the National Party mmour-mongers who are going round wdth emotional criticism of the dairying industry and of the Labor Party. The Labor Govemment in New Zealand and the Labor Govemment in Canberta have reached the CER agreement. The AustraUan Govemment intends to get on wdth the New Zealand Govemment. Queensland has as many benefits to be gained from good relations wdth New Zealand as New Zealand stands to gain from Queensland wdth the CER agreement. Those benefits wdU be gained, provided Queensland's co-operatives chase the specialty consumer markets and do their homework and become more aggressive in their marketing rather than sit on their tails and expect that everything wdll come to them and that they can seU products to Great Britain as they used to be able to prior to its entering the European Community. I have spoken to dairymen's meetings and to groups of officials and made the point loud and clear that there is no tmth in the mmour that is being circulated round Queensland that, come the Goss Labor Govemment in Queensland in five or six weeks, the Labor Party will totally deregulate the dairying industry. The dairying industry has nothing to fear from a Labor Party Govemment in Queensland. A Labor Party Govemment in this State set up the co-operative organisations under legislation such as the BUI that is before the House. The Labor Party has no intention of bringing about a situation in this State in which dairy-farmers will not have the legislative protection of the Parliament to bring about an orderly marketing stmcture and a stmcture of orderly production in the industry. It will ensure that the industry continues going along the present track. I recognise and accept that many problems exist in the dairying industry. The biggest problem is that the industry needs to be expanded. It has shmnk to its lowest-ever level. With the increasing population in the State and the increased use of the product, we must start expanding the industry. At the moment, on behalf of the Labor Party, I am examining the introduction of a young farmers establishment scheme to help young people interested in dairying get onto the land and start producing. Although the Labor Party has reservations about some of the problems that may exist down the Une as a result of the legislation, in the best interests of both organisations it is necessary to get the Norco/Queensco amalgamation under way. Mr BEARD (Mount Isa—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (10.52 p.m.): It was interesting to hear the honourable member for Mackay put to sleep at the conclusion of his speech some mmours that he said were floating round the State about the Labor Party deregulating the dairying industry and doing various other things. For the last couple of months, I have been hearing throughout the State that the member for Mackay has been wandering round the sugar tovms saying that the Liberal Party wdll deregulate the industry and do all sorts of evil things like that. Mr Casey: I've never even talked about the Liberals. They don't even know about you up in the bush. Mr BEARD: I put it on record that the Liberal Party is not in a precipitous way about to deregulate anything. The various orderly marketing arrangements and com­ modity boards that have been put in place over a number of years in this State recognise distorted world markets and Australia's place in those world markets. They recognise that, even though we have the most efficient producers in the world, our total output is Primary Producers' Co-operative Associations Act Amendment BiU 17 October 1989 1545 only a small fraction of what is produced throughout the world; that we are price-takers, not price-setters, and that the Liberal people are certainly pragmatic and managerial in their whole attitude to things and not destmctive. We are not about to puU down anything. We are about examining stmctures that are in place in the Ught of chaUenges coming up in the 1990s and the twenty-first century, which is nearly upon us, and making sure that aU of the commodities that we produce, from mining through to the great mral industries of this State, are flexible enough and in such a shape as to be able to greet those challenges that wdU come from aU around the world. The Liberal Party wiU certainly not be making any changes to any of these boards wdthout maximum consultation with those involved in the industry. I am glad that in the last few minutes of his speech the honourable member for Mackay reminded me to put that particular mmour to rest. Contrary to what the honourable member said, I think that in the last three years I have probably traveUed around this State more than he has. The Liberal Party has no problem wdth this Bill. It is a good BiU. It is obviously a pragmatic BUI. It needs to be brought into being. I think it is entirely beneficent in its aims. It is interesting to note the problem wdth the New South Wales legislation. That State has paraUel legislation whereby if similar amalgamations are carried out between New South Wales primary producing co-operatives and others, the legislation requires that the resultant merged co-operative association must be registered in New South Wales. Even though our Minister says that he regards that as an unacceptable restriction and that the Govemment wdU look very seriously at requesting that the restrictive provision in the New South Wales Act be deleted so that when a Queensland association seeks to merge wdth a New South Wales association the new body may be registered in either State, I am glad to see that later on in his second-reading speech the Minister points out that before such consent is given the consent of the Minister for Primary Industries must be obtained. In his second-reading speech the Minister stated— "Before such consent is given, the Minister wdll need to be satisfied that the interstate participant in the proposed amalgamation is a genuine primary producer co-operative organisation"— and this is the part that I am interested in— "that the proposed amalgamated body does have a choice in regard to place of registration..." I wish the Minister luck in seeing that that is done. On many occasions in this House I have Ustened wdth interest to the honourable member for Caboolture, whose favourite topic in most of the speeches that he gives is the fact that Queensland is very much a branch office State and that many of the great industries in Australia, which take a great deal of wealth from Queensland, in fact have their headquarters in CoUins Street, Melboume or in various places in Sydney and Perth. I agree wdth him on that. I do not Uke seeing Queensland as a branch office State. I Uke very much to see head offices of great wealth-producing organisations based in Brisbane because Queensland produces much more than its fair share of AustraUa's wealth. I certainly do not want to see primary producing bodies amalgamating wdth bodies in other States and, as a result, having their head offices moved to Sydney, Melboume or wherever if indeed the bulk of the wealth is coming from Queensland itself I spent most of my chUdhood, most of my early adult years and most of my middle- age watching the selection of AustraUan sporting teams by people in control in Sydney. I cannot help asking what Queensland has to do this year in Rugby Uniom It won two games 32-nU and 32-3 and yet when the WaUabies were picked, the New South Wales members outnumbered the Queensland members. Even though it might seem a Uttie bit trivial and farcical to draw a sporting parallel, certainly the people in Sydney, Melboume and Canberra, who beUeve they mn this country—I guess they do in many ways—show 1546 17 October 1989 Primary Producers' Co-operative Associations Act Amendment BUI very Uttle sympathy for and have difficulty in giving due acknowledgement to the sporting talent or whatever else comes from our great northem State. Having said those words and having added that little caveat, I wdsh the Minister weU in exercising that proviso. I hope that the Minister can indeed exercise it with some clout and make sure that, where appropriate and relevant, the company wdU be registered in Queensland rather than in New South Wales, Victoria or wherever. The Liberal Party supports the legislation. Hon. M. D. STONEMAN (Burdekin—Minister for Primary Industries) (10.57 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. I appreciate their support for this very important Bill. I wdll comment briefly on what the member for Mackay had to say. The Queensland co-operatives are not on sale to New South Wales interests. Arrangements can only apply if 75 per cent of Queensland co-operative members agree to amalgamation with a New South Wales co-operative. The honourable member for Mackay raised the matter of dissolution. It wdU be conducted in terms of the relevant legislation. In the case of the Queensco/Norco amalgamation, dissolution, if it were to occur, would be in accordance with New South Wales law. I agree wdth the honourable member that growers should have the right to decide where registration takes place. I noted the comments of the member for Mount Isa in that regard. As recently as last Sunday I had discussions with the New South Wales Minister, Mr Peacocke, in relation to that State's proposed legislation. I wdll make some comments about that in my concluding remarks. However, let me say that there is no doubt in my mind that Mr Peacocke is genuine and that the New South Wales Govemment is committed to proceeding wdth the amendments to the New South Wales legislation. In regard to the article in Queensland Country Life referred to by the honourable member for Mackay—I point out that it totally misrepresents the actual situation. In addition, I am grateful to the honourable member for Mount Isa for his support for orderly marketing and also, of course, the support voiced by the honourable member for Mackay. Obviously they reflect the views of the long-standing poUcy of the Queensland Govemment, which supports primary industry right across this State. In conclusion, I wdsh to advise honourable members that I propose to move two amendments to this Bill at the Committee stage. The first amendment is a matter of legal technicaUty. It is designed to ensure that the membership of an amalgamating association in the primary producers co-operative federation is protected. On amalgamation, a co-operative ceases to exist and becomes an entirely new body in law. Although the property of the former co-operative is vested in the new body, there is some doubt as to the membership rights, which are not property. A usefUl analogy is an individual's membership of a club, for instance, a tennis club. When that person dies, the membership cannot be passed on by his or her wdU. It is not the intention that a simUar result should occur wdth an amalgamation under this legislation. A new subparagraph (1) is to be added to the proposed section 20D (1) to make the intention absolutely clear. The second amendment wdU insert a new proposed section 20F. It results from the discussions that I mentioned eariier that I had with Mr Peacocke and further from discussions wdth him by my predecessor. Mr Peacocke is the New South Wales Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. When introducing the BiU, I indicated that the New South Wales Co-operation Act, as recently amended, obliged a body resulting from an amalgamation to be registered in New South Wales. That requirement was then, and is StiU, unacceptable to this Govemment. It does not give free choice based on commercial need. Mr Peacocke indicated his clear intention to amend the New South Wales Act to conform to our requirements. He could not, however, guarantee the timing of that Primary Producers' Co-operative Associations Act Amendment BUI 17 October 1989 1547 amendment, particiUarly because the Govemment in New South Wales does not control the Legislative CouncU. Both Queensco and Norco have indicated to me that it is their intention that the body resulting from their amalgamation wdU be registered in New South Wales, whereas the head office wdll be established in Queensland. The amendment that I will propose wdU add a new clause 8 to the BiU, inserting a provision which wdll aUow the Minister to SpecificaUy approve the Queensco/Norco merger. That wdll retain the policy that I have outUned but wiU ensure that the interests of Queensco's members are not sacrificed on a legal technicality. I might add that I do not intend to recommend that this provision be proclaimed unless it becomes absolutely necessary. The principle is that freedom of commercial choice is essential if interstate amalgamations are to be permitted. That freedom should be reflected in interstate co-operatives legislation. On the other hand, it would be fooUsh to lose the significant advantages that would be gained by Queensland from the Queensco/Norco merger because of a technical hitch when the co-operatives have already exercised their commercial choice. Again I thank honourable members for their support. I commend the Bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. M. D. Stoneman (Burdekin—Minister for Primary Industries) in charge of the BiU. Clauses 1 to 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7— Mr STONEMAN (11.03 p.m.): I move the foUowing amendment— "At page 7, after Une 17, insert— '(i) aU rights, duties, UabiUties and obligations held in or possessed by an association as a member of a Primary Producers' Co-operative Federation become vested in the amalgamated association which shaU, from that date, exercise aU such rights, duties, liabiUties and obligations as a member of such Primary Producers' Co-operative Federation notwdthstanding any contrary pro­ vision of this Act.' " Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr STONEMAN (11.05 p.m.): I move the foUowdng amendment— "At page 7, after Une 34, insert— '8. New Section. The Principal Act is amended by inserting foUowdng section 20E the foUowdng section:— "20F. Special amalgamation. Notwdthstanding any provision of this Part, the Minister may approve an amalgamation between Queensco Food Co­ operative Association Limited, an association wdthin the meaning of this Act, and Norco Co-operative Limited, a society within the meaning of the Co­ operation Act 1923 (New South Wales) as amended, upon such conditions as the Minister may determine."'" Mr CASEY: The BiU takes into account the agreement between Norco and Queensco. Earlier, I mentioned my concems that it opens the way to take-overs and amalgamations in other areas. Recently, the Babinda sugar-miU was taken over by the Bundaberg Sugar Co. Ltd. The money was flashed past the producers, and one wdU find that in certain instances that wdU quickly get 75 per cent of the producers on side. That is not to say 1548 17 October 1989 Tmst (Reserve 1030) Variation BUI that at some time in the future it will not happen to the companies referred to in the BiU. I feel that the whole deal could have been handled in a much better way. A special BiU should have been presented to the Parliament wdth the agreement between the two companies constituting a schedule to the BiU. Over a number of years, this Govemment has been in the habit of doing those sorts of things when it suited it. It did that wdth the Central Queensland Coal Associates Agreement Bill, to which numerous amendments were made, and it did it with the Iwasaki intemational tourist centre agreement legislation, when the agreement was tabled in the Parliament and debated. At the moment, members of the Opposition do not know what wiU happen in the wash-up of the agreement between the two companies and whether it wiU be in the best interests of aU the producers. At the moment, my feeUng is that the agreement wdll work effectively because of the wdU and the expertise of some of the people involved in the agreement. That is not to say that that wUl always be the case. What I have suggested is a far better way of going about an amalgamation wdth an interstate co-operative. It may stUl be necessary to amend the Act in order to aUow the amalgamation to take place. The decision on the final amalgamation wiU be the Minister's responsibiUty. In the Primary Industries portfoUo, the administration of drought relief and the intro­ duction of amendments to the Stock Act, to the dairying industry legislation, and to the wheat-marketing legislation is centered on the Minister. He is the fellow at the top who waves the big wand over everybody in the industry. Instead of doing that, he shoiUd be letting industry organisations control themselves. Mr STONEMAN: Because this Govemment is acting first and foremost in the interests of the dairy-farmers of this State, it does not intend to let a technical hitch stand in the way of its support for the dairy industry, particularly the dairy-farmers. The approval of the Norco/Queensco amalgamation does not apply to any other amalgamation, and untU the New South Wales legislation is amended no other interstate amalgamation wiU be allowed. Because the amalgamation is the wdsh of both co­ operatives, this Govemment is ensuring that it proceeds without any technical hitch. Amendment agreed to. New clause 8, as read, agreed to. BiU reported, wdth amendments. Third Reading BiU, on motion of Mr Stoneman, by leave, read a third time. TRUST (RESERVE 1030) VARIATION BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 28 September (see p. 972). Mr McELLIGOTT (Thuringowa) (11.12 p.m.): This is an anti-Christian and an alarming piece of legislation. It is extraordinary that it has been proposed by a Govemment and a Minister who claim to be God-fearing and to be committed to the rights of people to worship. It is equally extraordinary that a National Party State Govemment would agree so readily to legislate to permit a Liberal Party councU to use a sledge-hammer to cmsh opposition to its Hale Street ring-road proposal. I am not a particularly reUgious man but I do respect the sanctity of the land that is proposed to be tumed into a road, aided and abetted by this legislation. Quite simply, the status of Reserve 1030 is such that the Hale Street option is impossible and should be ignored. There are altematives. Mr Gunn: What about the special school? Mr McELLIGOTT: I understand that, over two years, seven altematives were prepared by the Brisbane City CouncU's consulting engineers, Anthony Tod and Partners Pty Ltd. Tmst (Reserve 1030) Variation BiU 17 October 1989 1549 The Minister interjected that the special school would have to be resumed. I repeat that altematives to the Hale Street proposal do exist. I understand that aU seven altematives were found by the consultants to be completely viable, and no doubt some of my Brisbane-based coUeagues wdll mention those altematives. The fact remains that the Hale Street option must be rejected, particularly in view of the findings of Mr Justice Dowsett in the Supreme Court of Queensland. This is one of those BUls that can easily slip through wdthout proper consideration being given to it by Govemment back-benchers. Before the honourable member for Mansfield leaves the Chamber, I take this opportunity to ask him whether he has read the BiU and understands its content. Mr Sherrin: Yes. Mr McELLIGOTT: I now appeal to Govemment members to consider properly the magnitude of what they are seeking to do if they support this legislation. If they have a real commitment to their Christian church there is simply no way that they can support this legislation. A vote for this BiU wdU label the Christian members of the Govemment as hypocrites. It is important that the facts of this matter are placed on the record. Mr Justice Dowsett presided over an action in the Supreme Court to prevent the Govemor in CouncU from altering the use to which R1030 can be put. The plaintiffs before the Supreme Court were GaUene Michelle Harrison and Lorraine Schenke as churchwardens of the AngUcan Parish of Christ Church at Milton for themselves and aU other members of that parish. The defendant was the Brisbane City CouncU. On 29 June 1989 the judge deUvered his findings against the council. Christ Church at Milton has stood on its present site since about 1891. It is situated on the comer of ChippendaU Street and Hale Street. The church, the rectory and the church haU are located on land that is contained in four separate certificates of title in the name of the Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane. To the north of the church land and buildings is a rectangular portion of land that is described as R1030. The letter "R" indicates that it is or has been treated as a reservation under the Land Act. From as early as 1862 the land that is immediately to the north of the church land, including R1030, was set aside for use as a burial ground. Presumably the land was used for that purpose untU some time prior to 1911. In 1911, ParUament enacted the Paddington Cemeteries Act which had the effect of resuming burial grounds or cemeteries that had not been used for years, and converting them to Crown land. Section 5 of that Act provided— "The said parcels of land shaU be reserved for such purposes under the Land Act of 1910 as the Govemor in CouncU shaU think fit. Provided that, in order to prevent any disturbance of public worship in the church erected on subdivision 633B and used by members of the Church of England, a part of the land comprised in Deed of Grant No. 3754, referred to in the Schedule to this Act as episcopaUan burial ground—that is to say, such area thereof as is comprised in the parallelogram immediately bounded on the south by subdivisions 633A, 633C and 633B and having a frontage of half a chain to Hale Street—shaU be reserved from pubUc use and shaU be placed under the control of tmstees either permanently or temporarily as the Govemor in CouncU may direct." The parallelogram described in that section is R1030. I went to the Hansard record of 1911 of the Legislative CouncU's consideration of that BiU and I sought reference to clause 5. There were only two occasions on which clause 5 was mentioned. Most of the debate at that time referred to the use of the other burial grounds for sporting purposes. On 3 October 1911 the Attomey-General said— "In clause 5 also there is a provision, inserted at the request of the Anglican Church, to the effect that a part of the land—thefr church is buiU up to the boundary of one of those pieces of land formerly used as a cemetery—shaU be reserved from 1550 17 October 1989 Trust (Reserve 1030) Variation BiU pubUc use. It is only a small strip of land about half a chain in width, and it is desired that this strip should be reserved from public use so that sports may not be carried on there at the time public worship is being conducted." In those days concem was expressed about sport occurring while public worship was in progress. The legislation now before the House proposes that that land be allowed to be used as a very, very busy thoroughfare. The Attomey-General continued— "I do not think there wiU be any objection to that provision. I assume that the measure wdU be admitted to be a non-contentious one, and I have much pleasure in moving that it be now read a second time." The other reference is in a speech made by the Honourable A. Norton, who said— "I very cordiaUy support the BiU, and am glad that the Govemment have taken the matter in hand. I think the proposal to give the Church of England the strip that they have asked for is a very graceful recognition of their request, and I am glad that it is being granted." Section 5 therefore provided that the resumed land should be avaUable for use for public purposes. However, R1030 was to be reserved from public use. The purpose of that was to prevent any disturbance of public worship in the church. I remind honourable members opposite that the effect of the Bill which we are being asked to approve tonight wiU be to aUow disturbance of public worship in that church. The Paddington Cemeteries Act was repealed in 1973. However, section 3 of the repeaUng Act provided— "The repeal by this Act of the Acts specified in the schedule does not—

(c) affect any right, privUege, obUgation or Uability accmed, acquired or incurred under any Act so repealed." Clearly, there were obligations acquired in respect of R1030. I repeat that the land was reserved from pubUc use and it was not to be used for any public purpose which would disturb public worship in the church. The Brisbane City CouncU argued before the Supreme Court that it intended to reconstmct Hale Street as a major arterial road. The proposal involved the acqmsition for road purposes of a substantial part of the church property fronting Hale Street and also a large part of R1030. The road constmction wiU bring a major arterial road to within a few metres of the church. There is what I beUeve to be a very obvious conflict between the councU's proposal to use portion of R1030 for road purposes and its responsibilities as tmstees of the land to reserve the land from pubUc use and to prevent any disturbance of public worship in the church. The Govemment apparently took the view that the Govemor in CouncU could vary the purpose for which the reserve is to be used so as to permit its use for road purposes. In his findings, Mr Justice Dowsett said— "The primary questions for determination are the present status of the land comprised in R1030 and whether or not it is competent for the Govemor in CouncU to change the permitted use thereof Mr. Fryberg, Q.C. who appeared for the plaintiffs, submitted that the land was still subject to the restrictions contained in s.5 of the Paddington Cemeteries Act or more precisely, that the Crown as ovmer, and also the tmstee were subject to the obligation of observing the terms imposed by that section. In the end, I think there is no answer to Mr. Fryberg's submission. Miss Kiefel, Q.C. for the defendant asserted principaUy that it was open to the Govemor in CouncU to change the use and that the councU did not propose to proceed untU Tmst (Reserve 1030) Variation BiU 17 October 1989 1551 the use was changed. I simply do not think the Govemor in Council has power to change the use in such a way as to permit use for road purposes." Therefore, although the land comprised in R1030 is vested in the Crown, and the Brisbane City Council as tmstee has responsibiUty for its management, there are clearly restrictions on its use. Surely any reasonable person would accept that that is tme. Mr Justice Dowsett also stated in his findings— "I would therefore declare that it is unlawful for the defendant to constmct a road through or, for the purpose of or incidental to the constmction of a road, to disturb or interfere wdth, that piece of land situated at Hale Street, MUton in the State of Queensland described as being reserve R1030 in the County of Stanley, Parish of North Brisbane." I would have thought that that would have been the end of the matter. However, despite the fact that there are seven viable altematives to the use of Hale Street, the Brisbane City Council has determined to push ahead to the exclusion of the rights— God-given, if you like—of the parishioners of Christ Church, MUton. Given the decision of the Supreme Court, the only way in which the roadworks can proceed, the only way in which the rights of the people to worship can be disturbed is for this House to pass this legislation. I repeat: the impact of this legislation is to disturb the rights of those people to worship. This BiU seeks to free the land from any tmst under the Paddington Cemeteries Act of 1911. In other words, it seeks to remove the special and holy status of the land and dedicate it as a road for public use. I simply do not understand how a Govemment supposedly guided by Christian teachings and beUefs can propose such a thing. If this Govemment cannot be tmsted to preserve the rights of people to worship undisturbed, how can it possibly be tmsted to protect any other aspect of Queensland's heritage or preserve Queensland's environment for future generations? Of course, it cannot be tmsted. The Liberal Party stands equaUy condemned for even suggesting such a course of action. The councU was entitled to defend its position in the Supreme Court but, having heard the court's decision, it should have admitted defeat and looked to altematives. The hypocrisy of the Govemment is shovm in clause 4 of the BiU, which states— "(3) that portion of the subject land other than the land hachured on the plan in the Schedule is permanently reserved from public use ..." Are parishioners supposed to derive comfort from that provision? Of course, they cannot. Clearly, if this BUI is passed, a precedent is set upon which a fiiture Govemment can rely to do as it wdshes with the land. This BiU must be defeated. Some doubt exists as to whether human remains Ue under the land to be used for road purposes. Although the councU says that that is not the case, I prefer to beUeve that remains are there. The area was certainly part of a burial ground and memorials are located on the land. I think that, logically, burials must have taken place there. I would hate to be in the position of the Lord Mayor or the Minister proposing this BiU if bodies are unearthed by the road constmction. It is bad enough that the Govemment seeks to overtum a condition of reservation of long standing, but it wdU be even worse if graves are disturbed. I appeal to members to explore their Christian consciences before they vote to support this BUI. I regret very much that so few Govemment members are in the Chamber to consider this BiU. I tmly believe they do not understand what they supporting in terms of this legislation. Although I am not particularly religious, I recognise the importance of Christian beUef I recognise also the sanctity of the church to many Queenslanders. Those Queenslanders have a right to expect their Government to respect thefr Christianity. This BiU is un-Christian, it is anti-church, and it is totally arrogant and uncaring. I urge members to reject it in its entirety. 1552 17 October 1989 Tmst (Reserve 1030) Variation BUI Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (11.25 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports the legislation. At the outset, because it is important, I will trace the history of the widening of this road. The history begins in the 1970s when a Labor council was in office at City Hall. At that time, it proposed that a number of ring roads be constmcted around the city and Hale Street was part of the ring-road system. Part of the project involved the widening of Hale Street. Mr Ardill: No, it wasn't. Mr BEANLAND: For the edification of members of the Labor Party, I wiU refer to councU records while describing the history of this matter. I say at the outset that there wdll be no point in members of the Labor Party rising in their places to take points of order in their usual fashion, simply because they disagree with the facts of the matter. I have in my possession aU the documents that reveal the tme position and I intend to go through them, one by one. The council's planning minutes disclose that on 2 Febmary 1984—the time when the member for Salisbury, Mr ArdiU, was vice-mayor in a Labor councU—approval was given to use land in the area for a youth club. Part of the councU's decision included an agreement in writing between the Queensland PoUce Citizens Youth Welfare Association and the councU to provide for road-widening, including major tmncation at the intersection of Hale and Caxton Streets, which was required by the Brisbane City Council. EarUer records also show plans for the future upgrading of Hale Street as part of a major ring road. A departmental minute refers to grade separation and to the intersection to which I referred earlier. A whole series of council records refer to the future upgrading of Hale Street. At that time, the Labor Party decided, because of the huge costs involved, to put off the ring-road proposal. Although huge costs are involved, the widening of Hale Street is by far the best of the proposals that have been put forward over a period. In September 1984, a report titled Brisbane's Major Road System^A Statement of Policy and Objectives was issued by the policy committee of the Brisbane Region Transport Planning Authority. The committee comprised the former Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Alderman W. C. R. Harvey, among others. The report includes a proposal for the widening of Hale Street. These documents indicate that the widening of Hale Street was the brain-chUd of the Labor Party and no other party. It was the Labor Party's proposal. Although the Liberal Party has taken up the proposal, I am prepared to state unequivocaUy that the Hale Street proposal was originally the idea of the Labor Party. I am sure that the Minister wdU confirm that Main Roads Department records along with aU the councU's records indicate that that is the case. Mr ArdUl: We'U see. Mr BEANLAND: No purpose wiU be served by members of the Labor Party rising in this Chamber, wringing their hands and carrying on by saying, "We'U see." I could spend the whole evening referring to the stacks and stacks of records that are avaUable. Of course, it must be remembered that Mr Ardill was a member of the Labor councU throughout the 1970s when the proposal was originally put forward. That was when the honourable member for SaUsbury, as an alderman of the councU, increased rates by two and a half times the rate of inflation. At that stage he wanted to deny that matter; now he wants to deny this matter. It is very convenient for members of the Labor Party to deny these matters when the cmnch comes. However, the decisions are in writing and they show that the Hale Street redevelopment was the brain-child of the Labor Party. Let us not lose sight of that fact. The cost of the upgrading wdll be $8m. At the time the proposal was first suggested, because of the costs involved, the Labor Party shied away from it. Of course, it novv prefers to bring the city to a standstiU. Shortly I wdU deal wdth statements made by the member for Thuringowa, Mr McEUigott. At the outset, however, I point out the Labor Party's pathetic attempt to get itself off the hook in relation to this matter. Members of the Labor Party suggest altemative routes. I point out that the Hale Street redevelopment is the preferted route and that no other altemative is anywhere Tmst (Reserve 1030) Variation BiU 17 October 1989 1553 near as viable as the Hale Street proposal. Other alternatives are far more costly than the one that is the subject of the legislation. The history of this matter shows that the Brisbane City CouncU has always supported this route. The records speak for themselves. The members of the Labor Party can wriggle and writhe, but they cannot get out of it. They are hooked by their own records. Instead of the road going through on the church side, another altemative would be for it to go through on the Baroona Special School side. Perhaps the Labor Party wants to throw the children out, because that is the only altemative that it can come up wdth. This evening the members of the Labor Party have suggested that this proposal is anti-Christian. If I have heard that once, I have heard it a dozen times. It so happens that the Archdiocese of the Anglican Church supports this proposal and has done so for some considerable time. One of the people who is kicking up a great deal of fuss about this proposal is none other than a well-known member of the Labor Party, GaUene Harrison, who I am sure is known to all honourable members in this Chamber. She has been a member of the Labor Party for many years and I am sure she has a political reason for kicking up a fuss about this matter. The Labor Party wants to grind the city to a halt and would prefer to create rat- mnners throughout the suburban streets by sending the traffic from the south side to the north side through the residential areas of Paddington and Spring HiU. Apparently that is what the members of the Labor Party want to do, but the Govemment and the Liberal Party do not want to do that. We want to keep the traffic in one major traffic corridor. It is totally unacceptable to send traffic through the quiet residential streets of Spring Hill and Paddington. The Labor Party wants to disturb those residents so that it can then tum round and blame the Govemment and the Liberal Party. Clearly, that is not a proposition at aU. Although it may be the Labor Party's viable altemative, it is not an altemative that is acceptable to the Liberal Party and it is not acceptable to the council. The facts speak for themselves. This proposal is not only supported by the State Govemment; for many years the Main Roads Department has also supported it, as well as the Brisbane City Council traffic department and planning department, the Labor Party in councU and now the Liberal Party in councU at City Hall. The Labor Party has suddenly found that it is convenient to jump aboard a bandwagon and caU the proposal anti-Christian. The only thing that is anti-Christian about this proposal is that the Labor Party is using it for political purposes. It is pathetic and the people of the city have seen the Labor Party for what it is. The Labor Party is accusing the AngUcan Church and the Anglican community of being anti-Christian An honourable member: Of selUng out. Mr BEANLAND: Yes, of selling out and being cormpted. How dastardly can it get? There is no Umit to the depths to which the Labor Party wdU stoop. It does not give a damn about the Anglican Church, the people of this city or the community. It simply wants to play cheap, party-political politics. The members of the Labor Party have even twisted the words of Mr Justice Dowsett. He decided that the variation of the reserve by the Govemor in CouncU was not vaUd because it was not a reserve under the Land Act, and that section 334(4) of that Act has no application to the reserve. The upshot is that it would not be possible for land to be taken from the reserve for the purposes of a road. Qearly, there are technical and legal reasons why this legislation is before the House this evening. It is a golden opportunity for the Labor Party to make a little bit of politics out of the AngUcan Church and cmsh the people of Brisbane and the AngUcan community. They want to get stuck into them, accuse them and abuse them. It is no use Mr McEUigott smihng, because it wdU not get him anywhere. Everyone knows how uncharitable and un-Christian the Labor Party's attitude is to this proposal.

103917—52 1554 17 October 1989 Tmst (Reserve 1030) Variation BUI

Mr COMBEN: I rise to a point of order. For 10 minutes I have sat in this House-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Burreket): Orderi What is the honourable member's point of order? Mr COMBEN: I am about to teU you. Under Standing Order 15 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Orderi The honourable member wdU address the Chair with respect. Mr COMBEN: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. For the past 10 minutes I have Ustened to this absurd member bucketing the Labor Party and accusing it of abusing the AngUcan Church. As an active Anglican, I take exception to what he has been saying and ask that his comments be wdthdravm under the Standing Orders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Orderi There is no point of order. Mr COMBEN: I have asked that his remarks be withdravm, and I have a right to ask for that under the Standing Orders. I find the remarks personally offensive and ask that they be withdravm. Mr Gunn: He's not a practising Anglican. Mr COMBEN: I am. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Does the honourable member wish to withdraw those remarks? Mr BEANLAND: I wdU exclude Mr Comben from my comments about the Labor Party, but they certainly apply to other members of the Labor Party in this House, especiaUy Mr McEUigott who, only a few moments ago, made great poUtical play out of the whole matter involving the Anglican Church. Everyone heard it—not only members in the Chamber, but also the members in their rooms—and tomorrow it wdU appear in Hansard. The Labor Party does not like to feel the sting, pinch or hurt of it. It does not like to be cut to the bone. The members of the Labor Party know they have gone too far and have totally overstepped the mark. Over a period of time they have accused the AngUcan Church of being subject to bribery from the Brisbane City CouncU. How unforgivable it is for the Labor Party here and elsewhere to continue to play politics wdth this matter, and I include the honourable member for Brisbane Central, who continuaUy interjects. Now, when it is thrown back in their faces, members of the Labor Party do not like it. Shortly some of them wdU rise and say, wdth a great deal of glee, that they are not any of those things. The record speaks for itself The history of this road-widening scheme speaks for itself The many records on it speak for themselves. This matter goes back to the time when the Labor Party was in power in City HaU. Labor has proposed this scheme over a period of years and now it is being brought to fiiiition. I am pleased to be able to say that the Liberal Party is supporting the BUI and wiU have nothing to do wdth the hypocritical attitude of the Labor Party in relation to this matter. If the members of that party want to cmcify the people of this city and if they want to cmcify the people of Red HiU Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mr BEANLAND: If they want to cmcify the people living in those residential areas they are different from me, because I do not want to push traffic through those quiet residential streets. The Liberal Party and the Govemment want to move the traffic from the south side to the north side, and vice versa via a major traffic artery. Mr HAMILL (Ipswich) (11.40 p.m.): Once again we have had to put up wdth the duplicity that is exemplified by the attitude of the honourable member for Toowong. He is weU known for his acrobatics on public issues. After mnning round wdth his leader Tmst (Reserve 1030) Variation Bill 17 October 1989 1555

and protesting at the proposal to constmct the Wolffdene dam, he brought back a report as part of the Public Works Committee supporting that proposal. What was said in justification of his attitude? His leader said, "Well, we were not reaUy opposing the dam as such. What we are against is the compulsory acquisition of property." The Liberal Party is against the compulsory acquisition of private property! What have the members of the Liberal Party done in Hale Street? Their duplicity in regard to the Wolffdene dam has been repeated in what has happened in Hale Street. The Liberal Party that professes it does not support the compulsory acquisition of private property has proceeded to push famiUes out of their homes in Hale Street. Mr Comben: But is this the official Liberal Party view? Mr HAMILL: Who knows what that is, because they speak wdth many voices. The honourable member for Toowong was cast back into his old role of handmaiden to the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. That is what he was doing this evening. He was here as the messenger of the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. Mr MiUiner: In London. Mr HAMILL: The person who is London, the would-be Leader of the Liberal Party, the archcoaUtionist, the person who would be quite happy to play a subordinate role to the National Party in coalition. That is what the member for Toowong was aU about this evening. I suspect that that is what he was aU about when he betrayed the current Leader of the Liberal Party on the Wolffdene dam issue. If the finger is to be pointed at who is the hypocrite in the issue before the House, it must be pointed at the parliamentary Liberal Party. We can see the hand of the Liberal Party behind this legislation. The Minister said that there is only one altemative to the constmction of the road on the recommended alignment, that is, through the tmst lands of the church, and that altemative is to constmct it through the Baroona Special School; so it is obvious how bUnkered is the vision of the Liberal Party in City HaU and how blinkered is the vision of the National Party wdth respect to the traffic problems in Brisbane. The Liberal Party is quite prepared to sool on the State Govemment to override the decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland conceming the church land in Hale Street. Mr Beanland: That is untme. Mr HAMILL: It is untme? Quite clearly, the Minister, in his second-reading speech, stated that the Supreme Court had found in favour of the preservation of the existing church land. Under this legislation. City HaU, in league wdth the National Party Govemment, is not prepared to accept the umpire's decision. In fact, it has never been prepared to accept the umpire's decision whenever the umpire's decision did not suit it and it is, by this legislation, overtuming the decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland. More significant issues are at stake. One of them that needs to be given consideration by the Govemment and the Brisbane City CouncU is that of transportation and traffic movements in Brisbane. In recent weeks a number of pubUc meetings have been held in Brisbane by communities that are outraged at the thought of traffic despoiling and degrading the urban environment in the same way as the people of Hale Street bitterly opposed the move that this BiU wdU permit, that is, upgrading Hale Street and fiirther degrading Paddington in the process. The people of Brisbane are justly concemed about the impUcations of the traffic poUcies that are being pursued relentlessly by the Liberal Party in City HaU. We see the latest manifestation of that in the Brisbane traffic study, which is a flawed document but one which makes a number of threats to the quality of Ufe of the people of Brisbane. Hale Street must be considered in the context of that overaU strategy, which obviously has won enormous support from the Brisbane Lord Mayor and her councU. The people of West End held a large public meeting to protest against the heavy volume of traffic 1556 17 October 1989 Tmst (Reserve 1030) Variation BUI in a residential area caused by bridgeworks and major roadworks. The great fear of those people is that a bridge wdU be slung over the Brisbane River and that Hale Street wdU become the continuing thoroughfare for the traffic that wdU mmble through the central business district and the suburban areas immediately surrounding the city of Brisbane. The Brisbane traffic study is a flawed document on two major counts. Firstly, the Brisbane City CouncU had neither the wit nor the vision to commission a proper transportation study for the city of Brisbane. Given that it was sponsored by the Brisbane City CouncU, one could not reasonably expect the Brisbane City Council to look over its municipal boundaries. The other fundamental flaw in the Brisbane traffic study is that at the outset the study argues that the strategy that ought to be employed by the Brisbane City Council is a strategy to lessen the impact upon the inner-city area of passage of vehicles. It argues that it ou^t to be made more difficult for people to bring their vehicles to the central business district. Although that objective is laudable enough, the study goes on to propose a series of measures—new bridges, new roadworks, a close inner-city ring road—designed to faciUtate the flow of traffic through the inner-urban area in which the study professed to be concemed about the impact of traffic. That is why the legislation is so pemicious: it is tied up wdth proposals that wdU further degrade the urban environment for those Uving in Brisbane's inner-northem suburbs. The Labor Party has stated on the record that a transportation study of south-east Queensland is an absolute necessity. In Govemment, it wdll be giving that its highest priority in order to have some rational planning of transportation needs for the people of south-east Queensland in general and the people of Brisbane in particular. Part of that strategy wdU be a moratorium on half-baked and iU-considered proposals such as this which, if aUowed to proceed, wiU degrade the urban environment and make it more difficult to achieve the goal of an effective and efficient pubUc transport system that wdU meet the needs of the people of Brisbane and surrounding areas today and in the future. That moratorium should be placed upon the Brisbane City Council's implementation of the Brisbane traffic study. The moratorium needs to be enforced pending the findings of a proper transportation study which, unlike the Brisbane traffic study, would not only focus upon the movements of vehicular traffic but also cover the whole gambit of altematives to using a road system that is currently overtaxed and inadequate to meet the pressures that the traffic volumes have upon it, a road system that simply cannot be upgraded and upgraded by road-widening to provide a panacea or solution for the road transport iUs of the capital city of this State. For those reasons, I join with my coUeague the honourable member for Thuringowa in voicing our opposition to the measure that is before the House. It is unnecessary, it is unwarranted and, as I said at the outset, it is hypocritical for a Liberal Party that mns round professing to be opposed to the compulsory acquisition of private property— as it tried to explain away its Wolffdene debacle—to be in the process of having tumed out famiUes along Hale Street to press ahead wdth a road development that is not wanted by the community in that area, that is not wanted by the people of Brisbane, that is unnecessary and that offends the sensitivities of the people of Brisbane, particularly those people in the Paddington area. The Labor Party opposes the legislation. Mr ARDILL (SaUsbury) (11.50 p.m.): The BUI has been brought forward for the sole purpose of overriding the decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland in the case brought by the churchwardens of the Christ Church, Milton, to prevent a ridiculous scheme from going ahead. No attempt has been made by the Govemment to justify the scheme. AU we have seen is a Pontius Pilate attitude by the Minister in wiping his hands of the matter and saying that it is a councU decision. It is a decision from a councU that is unwdUing to accept its responsibilities to provide the heavy engineering work that is needed in this city but concentrates on frills and fripperies. An Opposition member: And overseas trips. Trust (Reserve 1030) Variation BiU 17 October 1989 1557

Mr ARDILL: And certainly overseas trips. For a period, the member for Toowong was a senior member of that frills and fripperies councU. However, he cannot point to any personal achievements or to anything of which he was a part of achieving in this city. He is noted only for his heavy poUticking. No matter what the issue, he looks purely at his ovm position and the poUticking involved. That was demonstrated very clearly in the case of the Wolffdene dam. Despite the fact that he knew that an attempt was being made to snow the PubUc Works Committee by the type of evidence that was adduced and despite the fact that he knew that the Brisbane and Area Water Board dished up a heap of mbbish and Ues to the committee, he ignored the wdshes of his own party and, after saying that it was a lot of nonsense, agreed wdth the recommendations. I could understand the honourable member's putting forward a political point of view and sticking to it no matter what the facts were, but I cannot understand why he would knife his fellow Liberal Party members. Mr Hamill: He wants to be leader. Mr ARDILL: The honourable member can put whatever constmction on it he likes. That is what he did in regard to the Wolffdene dam and that is what he is doing now. If it is not, how does he explain that it is wrong to put Route 20 through the westem suburbs, to cut a swathe through the westem suburbs, but it is aU right to build Route 27, the next parallel route? That is what honourable members are talking about. The nonsense the honourable member talked about this being a Labor Party scheme is just that. I was a member—and a senior member—of the councU. In fact, I was the first chairman of planning and traffic in the Brisbane City Council, and we solved the major traffic chaos that existed in the city at that time. We brought in a major/minor traffic scheme that gave confidence to drivers and provided them wdth the means to know whether or not they had right of way at city intersections that previously were kilUng people. In fact, we reduced the road toU in this city by 50 per cent in the five years that I was chairman of planning and traffic. We introduced co-ordination of traffic lights, which has now been virtually abandoned by this friUs-and-frippery councU. Traffic light co-ordination has been removed from many of our major arterial roads, or at least the councU has abandoned maintenance of those systems. We put in roundabouts. We introduced the numbering of major routes throughout the city. We upgraded street signs so that a person coming upon a major road could immediately know what that major road was. A sign was placed not only on the side street but also on the major road. The councU did aU of those things, which overcame major problems in the city. Because of a lack of finance, there were a number of things that we could not tackle. The Normanby is one of them. The Normanby is the only reason why the Govemment is intent on upgrading Route 27, which is Hale Street. It wdll not tackle the major engineering job of ^ade separation at the Normanby, and sooner or later that wdll have to be tackled. That is what it is about. No matter what the councU and the Govemment do wdth Hale Street, no matter how many mUlions they spend on Hale Street, no matter how many old people they kiU by shifting them out of their homes, they wUl stiU at some time in the future have to tackle the major job of the Normanby. That is what this is about. Mr Davis: Would you say that Hale Street is a street where the traffic wdU go nowhere? Mr ARDILL: I would say that it is absolutely unnecessary to use Hale Street as a southbound traffic lane. Mr Hamill: Are there other options? Mr ARDILL: Of course there are other options. There are many other options. 1558 17 October 1989 Tmst (Reserve 1030) Variation Bill

Mr HamiU: What are they? Mr ARDILL: The main option is that Hale Street should be used as a northbound road, which is what Mr Beanland was talking about. Not only did the Labor councU put it forward; I personally put forward Route 27 as a major road around the centre of the city. I stick by that. I say that it is necessary. It is the only route that wdU move traffic adequately from the South East Freeway into the northem and north-westem suburbs of Brisbane, and also, incidentaUy, right around the city to Sandgate. Route 27 starts at the end of the freeway, goes up Hale Street, through Newmarket, Enoggera and along Webster Road and EUison Road, dovm Handford and Lemke Roads to Depot Road at Sandgate, around to the waterfront and eventually on to the Houghton Highway. It is an exceUent route to divert traffic from the centre of the city. However, it is useless as a route to bring the traffic back. Countess Street is the correct street for traffic from those areas to use. The Minister has been conned into supporting this BiU. Mr Gunn: You have been conning yourself Mr ARDILL: The Minister does not have to know. It is the responsibiUty of the councU to give him correct advice, and it has not done that. Mr Gunn: You supported Roy Harvey in this. You have forgotten. Mr ARDILL: That is not tme. Mr Gunn: You did. You supported him. Mr ARDILL: I did not support anybody. If the Minister had been Ustening, he would know that I promoted the idea. It was not Roy Harvey. I promoted the idea of using Hale Street as the northbound couplet with Countess Street because it is the only effective way of getting from the South East Freeway to the northem and north-westem suburbs. I am repeating myself, but obviously the Minister was not Ustening. It has nothing to do wdth Roy Harvey. That was my scheme, but it had nothing to do with Hale Street being widened. Countess Street is the natural southbound altemative. Mr Beanland went on with this nonsense about the widening of Hale Street. The widening that he spoke about was the widening at the intersection of Caxton Street to provide for grade separation. For the past 15 years Mr Beanland has been noted for misconstming or misleading people by taking things out of context and using them politicaUy. He has always done it and he is StiU doing it. He did it wdth the Wolffdene dam and he is doing it tonight wdth Hale Street. The point is that this is a half-baked scheme. It is not needed. The work that is Mr Beanland: You were the chairman of the planning and traffic committee when you did this. You admitted before that you were the chairman of the planning and traffic committee. You weren't even Vice-Mayor at that stage. You were totally responsible for it—the architect. You have been flushed out. Mr ARDILL: It is interesting that the political animal behind me, who refuses to take any interjections himself, who refuses to teU the tmth in this Chamber and who refuses to Usten to any point put to him, is now making very loud interjections. Hale Street is absolutely essential as a northbound traffic artery to carry the traffic from the South East Freeway. As I was saying when I was so mdely intermpted, the work now being done at Boomerang Street is absolutely essential to get the traffic from the South East Freeway to the northem and north-westem suburbs. The ridiculous scheme that is being put forward by this totaUy inefficient Liberal council—the councU that has virtually destroyed the stmcture of municipal govemment in Brisbane—is absolutely unnecessary. Tmst (Reserve 1030) Variation BUI 17 October 1989 1559

The Deputy Premier is being conned by the Liberal city councU. There is no need whatever for the widening of Hale Street. I am putting forward a considered opinion of traffic engineers. It is not my opinion; it is an opinion of traffic engineers who know what they are talking about. It is much more efficient in such circumstances to get a couplet so that aU of the northbound traffic can be moved in one street and aU of the southbound traffic can be moved in another. It has been done repeatedly around Brisbane and in other parts of AustraUa, and it is what is needed in this instance. Despite the chiacking and the stupid nonsense that I hear from Mr Beanland and others behind me, this is the proper scheme. Mr Beanland: You were the architect of it—"Rat-mnner" Len. Mr ARDILL: Mr Beanland is talking about rat-mnning. Rat-mnning is a problem in Brisbane. It is something to which I first drew attention more than 10 years ago. I did something about it. In this case, what is being suggested is a major rat-mn—bringing in southbound traffic, which has no need or intention to use Hale Street and which is quite happy to use Countess Street. Under the proposed scheme, motorists wdU be encouraged to travel through the residential area of Petrie Terrace. Mr Beanland: You want to shove them into Petrie Terrace. That's the idea—shove them into aU those residential streets—Spring HiU, Red HiU. Mr ARDILL: I am probably the only person in this House who has ever done anything to discourage rat-mnning. Mr Beanland: You are the architect of it. It is your brain-child. Mr ARDILL: The person behind me, who stabbed his own leader in the back over Wolffdene, has never come forward wdth any constmctive proposal in aU the years that he has been in public life—since 1976. He is a pure politician; he has no ability to do anything to help members of the public. He is there purely for the purpose of helping himself, causing problems and furthering his own political career by any means possible. I reiterate that there is absolutely no need to widen Hale Street; there is no need for this step that is being taken to rescind a cemetery reserve; and there is no need to upset the residents of the district or the churchwardens. It is incumbent on the Govem­ ment, particularly on the Minister, to look again at the scheme, to require answers about it and not to proceed with it at this time. Mr DAVIS (Brisbane Central) (12.05 a.m.): Because of my interest in Hale Street residents, it gives me great pleasure to speak in the debate on this BUI. It is opportune to congratulate the people of Hale Street who have fought so long and so hard. However, by this legislation, which wdll obviously be passed, their efforts are being stabbed by the Govemment and its cohorts in the Liberal Party. The wardens of the Christ Church, MUton—GaUene Harrison and another lass—have done a great job. They obtained a Supreme Court ruling against the proposal, only to find that the Queensland Govemment is to change it. The actions of the members of the Liberal Party are amazing. When anybody talks about retrospective legislation, the first ones who want nothing to do wdth it are the Liberals, particularly their leader, the "great" Angus Innes, who is always referring to Sir Samuel Griffith and who is always the custodian of freedom.Th e members of the Liberal Party, wdth their cohorts from Brisbane City Hall, are racing over to this dying Govemment and asking for retrospective legislation. Let us put our cards on the table and say what this legislation actually is. It is a pay-off Bill. I spoke to Mr Hinze when he was Minister for Local Govemment. When I asked him to do something to help the Hale Street residents, big Russ tumed around and said, "You leave it wdth me." I left it wdth him, aU right. A few months later Mr Hinze said that he could not do anything about it. I wiU teU honourable members why Hinze and the others could not do anything about it. They made a deal wdth the Brisbane City CouncU—wdth the Denver Beanlands and Lord Mayor "Salaryanne" Atkinson. I do not think that she was "Salaryanne" at that time; it was SaUyanne Atkinson. The 1560 17 October 1989 Tmst (Reserve 1030) Variation Bill deal was, "Go easy on Route 20 and we wdU give you Hale Street." That has always been the proposal—so that they could save the hide, or attempt to save the hide, of the member for Ashgrove and the member for Mount Coot-tha. Mr Comben: But it won't save either. Mr DAVIS: No, it wiU not. They are history. The present circumstances are shocking. I remember the first meeting of Hale Street residents. More than 500 people were crying out for the Lord Mayor or a representative from the city councU. Ward came along and he had to discuss the proposal with the people. However, there was no sign of the Lord Mayor. Everybody knows that she only likes to go for good news, not bad news. In a newspaper article, the Lord Mayor was quoted as saying that she loved her job so much that she would do it for nothing, that she would not worry about the $158,000. I agree entirely with the member for Thuringowa; this BiU wdU go dovm in history as one of the worst BiUs that this Govemment has introduced. This BiU, which has been raced through the House towards the end of this session, defeats resident groups. If the member for Windsor, Mr Pat Comben, who is a practising AngUcan, had taken part in this debate I am sure that he would have mentioned his friend the late Father Perry who fought so hard for the people of the affected area. Many people say that, because of his efforts, he met an early demise. The introduction of this BiU wdU be remembered as a really treacherous act. Let me get the facts quite clear: it was a deal between the Liberal council and this Govemment. Because the residents of the area thought that it was necessary, they went to the Supreme Court. The Act is now being changed. This is retrospective legislation for which the Govemment should be damned—and it wdU be damned for it. Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier, Minister for Finance and Minister for Local Govemment) (12.10 a.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. Mr McElUgott referred to seven alternative sites that were considered by the Brisbane City CouncU. AU of those sites were rejected as being non-viable. Mr McElligott referred also to the effect of the proposal on the Anglican church. The church's activities wdU not be affected substantially by the project. The new road wiU be lower than the existing road and any disturbance wdll be lessened. The Govem­ ment's advice is that no burials have taken place on that land. I would be very interested to leam why the honourable member believes that burials took place there. I have spoken with Archbishop Grinrod on this matter and he indicated that he would not take sides. However, he intimated that the Govemment must do what it considers best for the people of Brisbane. That is what the Govemment is doing. I thank Mr Beanland for his contribution. The honourable member gave a very accurate description of the background to the project and pointed out that it was originaUy approved by a Labor administration. That is certainly tme and makes many of the comments of Opposition members more difficult to understand. The ALP has been indulging in sanctimonious hypocrisy and it has been caught out. The altemative sites would be more costly and less effective. The proposal first appeared in the Brisbane town plan in 1926. It then appeared in the Wilbur Smith study and was agreed to by the then Lord Mayor, Clem Jones. It appeared also in the Brisbane road plan review statement of objectives, which was agreed to by Lord Mayor Harvey and supported by Mr ArdiU. Many of the land acquisitions have been effected voluntarUy. Apparently the ALP is not aware of the support that has been given to the project by ALP members at City HaU. I am convinced that the Govemment's action is absolutely correct. Tmst (Reserve 1030) Variation BiU 17 October 1989 1561

The honourable member for Ipswdch stated that the decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland was being overtumed, which is just not so. The court found that a road could not be built under the present tmst. However, the judge stated as foUows— "It is not possible to vary the limitations imposed by section 5 other than by legislation." The judge obviously envisaged legislation as a viable altemative. During the past decade when hundreds of miUions of doUars were expended on the electrification of the railways and on improvements to bus services, the share of trips on public transport fell from 11 per cent to 8 per cent. In a user survey that was part of a Brisbane traffic study, the people of Brisbane were found to be in favour of improvements to ring roads. The co-ordination of traffic signals was introduced by the former Queensland Traffic Commission, not by the Brisbane City CouncU. Overcoming the problems at the Normanby intersection is not the only reason why the Hale Street proposal is being put forward. Major constraints that had to be considered in the Hale Street proposal are the railway Une that is situated at the southem end of Countess Street, Roma Street and the WiUiam Jolly Bridge. I am absolutely convinced that the Govemment is doing the right thing. Question—That the BUI be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 51 NOES, 25 Ahem Knox Ardill Austin Lee Braddy Beanland Lickiss Bums Beard Littleproud CampbeU Berghofer McCauley Casey Booth McKechnie Comben Burreket McPhie De Lacy Chapman Menzel Eaton Clauson Muntz Gibbs, R. J. Cooper Neal Goss ElUott Nelson HamiU FitzGerald Newton Hayward Fraser RandeU McElUgott Gamin Santoro Mackenroth Gately Schuntner McLean Gibbs, I. J. Sherlock MiUiner Gilmore Sherrin Palaszczuk Glasson Simpson Smith Gunn Slack Smyth Gygar Stoneman Vaughan Harper Tenni Warburton Harvey Veivers Wamer Henderson Wells Hinton Hobbs Tellers: Tellers: Innes Hynd Davis Katter Stephan Prest PAIR: Row D'Arcy Resolved in the affirmative.

Committee Clauses 1 to 7 and schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, wdthout amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Gunn, by leave, read a third time. 1562 17 October 1989 FUe Service BiU

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Report Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn-Leader of the House) (12.23 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the report of the Standing Orders Committee for the Third Session of the Forty-fifth Parliament, and I move that it be printed. Whereupon the document was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

FIRE SERVICE BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 5 October (see p. 1343). Mr MACKENROTH (Chatsworth) (12.21 a.m.): The debate on the fire services legislation tonight is a slow step towards reforming fire services in Queensland. It is something that has taken this Govemment quite a long time. The legislation that is before the House has certainly not gone far enough towards reforming fire services, but the Opposition wiU support the BiU because it is an improvement on the system that presently operates. The steps that led to the introduction of this legislation include the setting-up of a task force headed by Dr Sally Leivesley to review fireservices . I believe that she fumished an exceUent report. I believe also that Cabinet changed that report into a Green Paper because members of the Cabinet could not accept the fundamental point contained in the report, that is, aboUtion of the boards that exist throughout this State. Mr FitzGerald: No, she didn't. Mr MACKENROTH: The situation is—or at least this is my belief—that the Govemment could not grasp that fundamental point and get rid of the boards. The Govemment would have honourable members believe that this legislation muTors what Dr SaUy Leivesley wants. That is simply not correct. I cite a letter written by Dr Leivesley in which she outiines her comments on this Bill. The letter states— "i. This document does not accord wdth the Fitzgerald recommendations beyond one minor mention that Board members are to identify their pecuniary interests. The major area where the document does not accord wdth the Fitzgerald Report (which has been fuUy adopted by the Govemment) concems the need for the complete independence of Govemment agencies. My advice would be to have the Heads of Agreement Document revoked by Cabinet because of the fuU agreement to the Fitzgerald Report at a later date. U. There is not one point of agreement between the Bill and the Green Paper which was accepted by Cabinet. There is no point of contact at all between the BUI and any recommendation of the Commission of Review of Fire Services i.e. there just is not any item in common. Ui. The BiU simply establishes an eighty third Board which by delegation can substantiaUy maintain the existing system wdth the other eighty two Boards. iv. There is inconsistency wdthin the Bill which shows that there is no intention to necessarily have one employer. It does not estabUsh the eighty third Board as an employer but establishes that it can delegate any power or function to the boards i.e. the system wiU remain the same." Since that letter was written, the interim commission has changed that part of the legislation. Because Ministers responsible for fire services have changed quite a bit recently, I do not know whether it was the present Minister or his predecessor who presided over the changes. That particular clause has been changed. The Fire Service Fire Service BUI 17 October 1989 1563

Commission wdU be deemed to be the employer of full-time firemen only, not auxiUary firemen. The letter goes on to state— "v. The representation on the eighty third Board is also written in an interesting way—Mr McFarlane could easily be removed and the United Firefighters Union need not be represented. vi. The Act most probably represents the work of the Interim commission which has started from the beginning and ignored every part of the Commission of Review. vu. I fiiUy accept that the Minister should do whatever he wdshes wdth the fire services and as Minister he takes ultimate responsibiUty i.e. if he wdshes the BUI to go through this is an intemal Departmental matter but it should not be put forward as having anything to do wdth the Commission of Review and the Green Paper. General Comment on the Bill i. Despite the finding by the Commission of Review that the Queensland Fire Services were many decades behind modem fire services, the response by the Department has been to revert to a system which commenced 25 years ago with the estabUshment of the State Fire Services CouncU which was generaUy knovm as 'the Big Board'. u. The main thmst of the legislation is to establish the eighty third Board and there is no legislative content to develop a modem fire service and commit the Department to upgrading the level of fire protection for the Queensland pubUc. ui. The failure to immediately implement urgent recommendations made by the Commission of Review seven months ago is sadly apparent in the current status of the fire services. It was noted that several young children died throughout the State in tragic fires recently and not one attempt was made by the fire service to implement a public fire prevention programme in caravan parks and homes. Without a modem service and wdth a scattered and civilian orientated approach throughout the Queensland Boards this situation will be continued. Yours sincerely DR SALLY LEIVESLEY, Co-ordinator" The Govemment cannot claim that this legislation reflects what Dr Sally Leivesley wanted. Members of the National Party cannot use this person and say, "We set up this task force to look at fire services. Dr Sally Leivesley has come up wdth a report and we have accepted its recommendations." It is quite apparent from her letter that the major thmst of what Dr Sally Leivesley recommended in the document that went to Cabinet— perhaps not the Green Paper—has not in any way been proceeded wdth. It is apparent from that letter that the major thmst of Dr SaUy Leivesley's recommendations—which are not contained in the Green Paper which went to Cabinet but which was not released to the pubUc—have not been acted upon by the Govemment. It is apparent that Dr SaUy Leivesley wants no part of her name being associated wdth this legislation. It is my firm belief that the way to do something for fire services in this State is to set up the Fire Service Commission under this legislation, but do away wdth the boards throughout the State. I do not believe that those 81 boards are doing an effective job. There are seven members on each of the 81 boards and it costs approximately half a million dollars each year for meeting fees. Added to that are traveUing costs to their annual conferences, entertainment and what have you. All of that money is a drain on fire services. There is a $28m debt and, as soon as the fire services budget is drawn up, each year the State Govemment takes out approximately $6m in interest on that debt. Mr Stephan: You are not suggesting that we should do away wdth the fire boards? 1564 17 October 1989 Fke Service BUI

Mr MACKENROTH: Yes, I am suggesting that we do away wdth the boards. The boards are not necessary instmmentalities and the people serving on those boards do not possess the necessary expertise for fighting fires. Mr Simpson: Who don't? Mr MACKENROTH: How are the members of a board selected? On 8 June the North- West News stated— "Mrs Yvonne Chapman (MLA Pine Rivers) as the local member is consulted by Mr RusseU before he decides upon the government appointees. Mrs Chapman said she submitted a Ust to Mr Cooper of people she thought suitable." That is the way this Govemment goes about selecting the members of the boards. They are strictly political appointments. Mrs Chapman: Oh, that's garbage! Mr MACKENROTH: They are political appointments. The article appeared in the North-West News, which is distributed in the Minister's electorate. The Minister does not deny that she submitted a list of names. The boards have been a poUtical front for the Govemment in power, whether it be the National Party or, as in the past, the National/Liberal Party coaUtion. I do not beUeve that those boards have done a good, efficient or effective job in looking after the fire services in their areas. In an incident in Caims firemen were bumt because they were wearing inferior clothing, even though a recommendation had been made by the Fire Services CouncU that standard uniforms be issued to firemen throughout the State. The Caims board did not do anything about supplying standard, safe uniforms for their firemen and when a gas tank exploded firemen were bumt as a direct result of their wearing inferior protective clothing. For some considerable time the fire services and unions have been fighting hard to get safe fire-fighting equipment and clothing from this Govemment and have not succeeded. Mr McKechnie: Would you abolish the boards? Mr MACKENROTH: If the former Minister had Ustened closely, he would have heard that I have said 10 times that I would abolish the boards. This is contained in the poUcy that I released throughout the State. The honourable member can tell the seven members of each of the 81 boards that the Labor Party will abolish the boards, because none of them would vote for the Labor Party anyway. The reality is that they are National Party appointees. The 1985-86 CunnamuUa Fire Brigade Board annual report states— "The Chairman's end of year goodwill party once again proved to be the highlight of the Board's activities." That was the biggest thing they did all year; they had a party. The 1985-86 Jandowae Fire Brigade Board annual report stated that 1986 was an eventful and interesting year, yet it went on to say that it did not receive one fire caU-out during the year. One wonders what the interesting events were during the year! How can people be expected to believe that the highlight of a board's activities was the end-of-year grog-up? That is what happened at CunnamuUa. Some of the boards have sacked fire-fighters because they were strong unionists and did not fit in. In 1984 or 1985 the honourable member for Barron River, Mr Tenni, was the Minister and he did away wdth some permanent fire-fighters and decided that every board in Queensland, except Brisbane, should have auxiliary firemen. He directed every board in (Queensland, except Brisbane, to employ auxiliary firemen. In Ipswich, 12 auxiliary firemen Mrs Chapman: That's not the tmth, and you know it. Fire Service BiU 17 October 1989 1565

Mr MACKENROTH: That is the tmth. He gave a direction that that happen. Mrs Chapman: That's a lie. Mr MACKENROTH: Look, the Minister is saying Mrs Chapman: If you're saying that the whole of the board is made up of auxiUaries outside Brisbane, that is a lie. Mr MACKENROTH: I did not say that. If the Minister wants to know a Uttie bit about it, I wiU teU her. There are 81 boards in Queensland. I think 37 of them employ fiiU-time firemen, 36 employ full-time and auxiliaries and all of the other boards have auxiUary firemen. Mr FitzGerald: You are wrong, but it is close. It is 44. Mr MACKENROTH: The Minister's departmental head nodded when I quoted those figures, so the Minister should look to him for a correction. What I said was that the boards outside Brisbane were directed to employ auxiliary firemen but not only auxiUary firemen. Mrs Chapman: I can't understand what you mean. Mr MACKENROTH: If the Minister had listened, she would have got the point. She has missed the point. If she listens now, she will hear it. In Ipswdch, 12 auxiUary firemen were employed. For the past four to five years, those 12 auxiliary firemen have been going to the fire station once a week for two hours' training. For the past four to five years, not one of them has been used to fight a fire because the Ipswich Fire Board wdll not use auxiliary firemen; it uses its permanent people. But, because of the direction from the Minister that it had to employ those people, it employed the auxiUaries. It pays them their money but it does not use them to fight fires. That is a ridiculous situation and is a waste of the resources of the fire services. Mr Hinton: I can't wait to print this in the Rockhampton papers. Mr MACKENROTH: Go for it. Mr Fraser: I'U have it printed in the CunnamuUa papers. All the CunnamuUa board members vote Labor and you said they didn't. Mr MACKENROTH: Perhaps they ought to be sacked tomorrow. The reality is that that is Labor's policy and it has been printed in the newspapers and has been shovm on television. What the Labor Party is talking about is common sense, that is, regionalising the situation. I hope that the Fire Service Commission can do something about training because it is quite apparent that training could not be provided under the present legislation. An attempt was made but it was impossible to evolve a general syllabus. For the last three years, there has been a debate in the fire services about a syllabus to train firemen. A training program is required and it should be produced as soon as possible. We do not want public servants fighting about how a particular course wdll be implemented or who wdll be responsible for what, as has happened for three years. The commission should quickly and effectively produce a training program so that firemen can become fully trained and can be upgraded to A grade or become officers. I have already mentioned safety equipment. Probably the top priority for the new commission is to do something about safety equipment for firemen throughout the State. The powers that can be delegated to the boards should not include the power to purchase different equipment or the uniforms wom by firemen. Those things should have been spelt out more clearly in the legislation. The only thing that cannot be delegated under the legislation is the employment of fiiU-time firemen. There should be no delegation of 1566 17 October 1989 Fire Service BiU authority wdth regard to training or the standardisation of safety equipment purchased by firebrigades . There must be standardisation and there must be good safety equipment for firemen to use. At present they do not have the best safety equipment available. When safety equipment has been upgraded in the past, consideration has not been given to purchasing the best safety equipment available; rather it has been a matter of what could be purchased with the money available. That is not the best way to buy safety equipment for people who are required to put their lives on the line when fighting fires.Th e safest equipment available should be purchased. Proper tests are not carried out on the equipment that is purchased. The safety equipment that is purchased depends now on how much money is available. The new commission must look at safety equipment and safe uluforms so that firemen have the best equipment available. Money should not be paramount in purchasing equipment. I ask the Minister to get this new commission to look at the matters that I have raised conceming safety equipment and training. The Opposition supports the passage of this legislation. It is a smaU step forward. The legislation could have gone further. We hope that, next year, a large step forward can be taken so that the fire services in Queensland can move out of the nineteenth century where Dr Sally Leivesley said correctly that they were. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (12.45 a.m.): The Liberal Party supports the legislation. It includes some of the points that were raised in the Green Paper by Dr Leivesley dealing wdth the review of fire services in Queensland. Other matters have been left out of the legislation. The legislation establishes a new administrative stmcture for fire services in Queens­ land. I hope that in establishing that stmcture we wdU not see a major growth of the new stmcture to the detriment of fire-fighters or equipment. The provision of additional manpower and modem equipment needs to be addressed. The appUances that are used at various brigades are virtually mst buckets. The South Coast region is expanding rapidly. The Govemment is aware of the many serious deficiencies in the provision of fire services in that region. At stations such as the one at Warongary, which is open between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., if fires do not break out between those hours, an auxiliary service has to be used. Of course, back-up services can be provided from Southport. Nevertheless, the fire station at Warongary needs to be a 24-hour station. As weU, the Surfers Paradise/Broadbeach station should be relocated and upgraded. Over the past decade, enormous growth has occurred at places such as Nerang, which needs a new station. The services in the South Coast board area and a number of other areas in the State leave a great deal to be desired. I hope that, rather than a pure grovrth of administrative stmcture, improvements in efficiency and effec­ tiveness result from this legislation. Although a commission has been set up, the board stmcture wdll be retained. One wonders what the boards wdll do. The Bill states that a board wdU provide advice to the commission in respect of fire services within its urban district, promote fire safety and fire prevention wdthin its urban district and have such other functions as are delegated to it by the commission. Clearly, there wdll be a massive transfer of power from the boards to the commission. Members might feel that that is a desirable result. It certainly wiU not leave a great deal of work for the various boards. I hope that we wdll not wdtness a huge growth in the bureaucracy established to administer fire services. With a smaU, lean outfit, the fire services could be mn by the new Fire Service Commission. The tasks of the commission are detailed and lengthy. It wdll even employ the firemen. The legislation has not addressed the problem of funding of fire services. Although the Labor Party wants to provide funding for fire services out of consolidated revenue, that would not solve the real problem. The question of funding provides quite a dilemma. It should have been addressed by the recent review. However, a major shortcoming of that review was that it did not address the funding of services. Although we all know the areas of shortcomings in fire services, it is not easy to address the problem. Fire Service BUI 17 October 1989 1567 If funds are transferred from consolidated revenue, aU sorts of inefficiencies wdU creep in and no-one wdll know the amount that is being contributed towards the fire services of the State. That could aUow the growth of those services to get out of control. It is better to adopt the user-pays principle. The proportions to be appUed to commercial operators and home-owners would have to be established. I tum now to the training of officers. The legislation provides not only for the replacement and upgrading of fire-fighting equipment, but also the priority tasks of the commission wdll be to pay special attention to chemical hazards and fire risks for high- rise tourist, business and residential areas, as well as to identify the increased manpower and training needs. Although in the past men have been trained on the job, more up- to-date training methods should be used. The legislation refers to improved training methods. Fire-fighters carry out their tasks to the best of their abiUty. With modem technology, new toxic wastes, high-rise buildings and the changes that are occurring in other areas, the men should adopt modem training techniques. The Liberal Party supports the legislation. Hon. A. A. FITZGERALD (Lockyer—Minister for Community Services and Min­ ister for Emergency Services and Administrative Services) (12.51 a.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I wdU deal firstly with the comments by the Opposition spokesman on fire services, the member for Chatsworth, Mr Mackenroth. The Green Paper that was put out by the Govemment for comment—the Leivesley report—received considerable comment. Some of the comment was not favourable. Many people in the community require the protection that is provided by the fire brigade. The legislation puts in place the findings of the Green Paper. Mr Comben: I think you should get a new adviser. Mr FITZGERALD: If the honourable member wants me to deal wdth some of the points, I could deal wdth them one at a time and we would be here for a long time. Mr Comben: You had better stop being snowed by Sir Humphrey over there. Mr FITZGERALD: I wdU give members of the Opposition a copy of this later so that they can satisfy themselves. They should not beUeve their own propaganda, which they obviously are doing at present. I think it is very important that people reaUse that this report was a report to Govemment. The Govemment has introduced this legislation. The BiU was dravm up by the Govemment. It was passed by Cabinet. It went through the normal Govemment party room process and has been introduced into the House. I do not back away from that one little bit. I note the concems of the honourable member in regard to protective clothing. I know that it has been of some concem to firemen that they needed additional protective clothing. Of course, the honourable member did not draw attention to the fact that in the last Budget there was an allocation of fiinds for additional protective clothing for firemen throughout the State. It has been one of the major items in this year's Budget. I have no doubt that when the honourable member gets round to reading the Budget, he wdU note those points. The member for Chatsworth stated very strongly—and he did not back away from his statement—that he is in favour of abolishing aU the boards. I know that the Govemment has quite a philosophical difference wdth the honourable member's party on this issue. The Govemment does see a number of advantages in the boards. The members of those boards are representative of the insurance companies, the local authorities and the Govemment. The actual cost of those boards is only a fraction of what the honourable member has been saying it is. When one considers the total of the overall budget, one realises that it is a very small amount. If the honourable member 1568 17 October 1989 FUe Service Bill is in favour of having a totaUy centraUsed service, say from Brisbane, and therefore he is going to expect to have auxUiary brigade men Mr Mackenroth: What would the meeting fees be for those boards? Mr FITZGERALD: Does the honourable member believe that we should have auxiUary brigades? If the honourable member thinks he is going to have auxiliary brigades mn by an empire set up in Brisbane and he is going to try to recmit local men and in some cases, women to serve as auxiliary firemen, I am afraid that he has another think coming. These boards do create quite a lot of goodwdU in the local area. The members of the boards are people who are interested in the service. I have spoken to a number of them. In fact, last week-end I addressed the annual conference of the Queensland Fire Services Association. Those people really have the fire service in their own area at heart. They speak very strongly. They present their views to me as Minister very strongly. They do not always agree wdth Govemment policy. They are independent people who have their ovm opinions. I accept that. I think it is exceUent that these people from various parts of the State come together, discuss the fire service in their areas and compare notes with each other. I believe that it is very important that the community be involved in the various services that are provided. I cite the example of education. Members of the Opposition say, "Why do you want p. and c. associations to raise funds to keep the schools going?" Everyone knows that unless there is participation from the teachers, the parents and the students, there wiU not be good education. That local involvement, that toing and froing that goes on, is very important. Exactly the same applies in regard to having local fires boards in different areas. These boards generate a lot of goodwill. They also assist in the recmiting of staff such as auxiliary firemen. In a lot of places, of course, auxiliary firemen become fiiU- time firemen. The boards can assist in the employment of suitable people. This does happen in the smaller country towns. I think that the honourable member has cast a slight on the integrity of these boards. I reject it totally. I beUeve that they do an exceUent job. I also note the point that the member for Chatsworth made in regard to training. No doubt the honourable member noticed that in the last Budget funding was set aside for training. Three training centres are being established. The member for Toowong made the point that stations are not manned by full- time firemen 24 hours a day. He implied that the Govemment believes that fires do not occur at night-time because in many areas fiiU-time firemen man stations only during the day-time. However, a good auxiUary brigade can afford quite a degree of protection to the community at night-time, particularly when the firemen are resident in the area. They can tum out very quickly. Some of these brigades can tum out within a very short time. Even if there is one permanent man there, the tum-out time of the vehicle is not any quicker because an auxiliary crew has to accompany that man. It is possible to have an excellent service with the use of auxiliary brigade members. I also note that the member for Chatsworth said that there was a problem in Ipswdch in regard to the auxiUary brigade members working wdth the full-timers. In most areas of the State the auxUiary brigade members and the permanent fire brigade members work very, very well together. The member for Toowong referred to the training of chemical hazard units. It is tme that the BUI widens the powers of fire brigades and gives them responsibility for containing hazardous chemicals in emergency situations. Naturally, that wdll require a lot more training. The Govemment is looking actively at that issue. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Motion agreed to. Adjoumment 17 October 1989 1569

Committee Hon. A. A. FitzGerald (Lockyer—Minister for Commuiuty Services and Minister for Emergency Services and Administrative Services) in charge of the BiU. Clauses 1 to 55, as read, agreed to. Clause 56— Mr FITZGERALD (1.02 a.m.): I move the foUowdng amendment— "At page 22, line 5, after 'appointed' insert— 'by the Govemor in CouncU'." Amendment agreed to. Clause 56, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 57 to 168 and schedules 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. BiU reported, wdth an amendment.

Third Reading BiU, on motion of Mr FitzGerald, by leave, read a third time.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Leader of the House) (1.04 a.m.): I move— "That the House do now adjoum."

Family Services Department Funding Ms WARNER (South Brisbane) (1.04 a.m.): I rise to bring to the attention of the House the fact that there is a growdng level of concem wdthin the Family Services Department and wdthin the whole welfare area as a result of the change in the Ministry that has occurred. The Family Services Department has been given a fairly detailed budget wdth absolutely no fat on it, in that no sums of money are avaUable to make any kinds of adjustments wdthin departmental expenditure. I welcome the fact that there is within the Budget some level of precision so that, broadly speaking, people who pick up the Budget document can work out the direction in which the funding priorities have been arranged. Although I might not have agreed wdth aU of them, at least it was a blueprint for the Opposition to use to work out the strategies that the Govemment was using and the basic thmst of its policy so that everyone would know where they were going. Since the new Minister has taken over the FamUy Services portfolio, people within the Family Services Department and in the welfare area are beginning to question whether or not the Budget proposals wdll be implemented. Within a matter of a couple of weeks of the presentation of the Budget, mmours have been circulating and suggestions have been made that some sections of the Budget will be axed altogether and that the money wdll be diverted elsewhere. In the Budget papers, written in black and white, a commitment has been made to provide marriage guidance support and a new marriage enrichment program, which was to have cost $100,000—a fairly firm commitment and something about which I had some queries. Nevertheless, it is in the Budget in black and white. There was an expectation that those proposals would be implemented. There was also an expectation that, after a pUot phase, a program to provide six social workers in schools would be implemented at a cost of $190,000 a year. It was said that that pilot program had proved itself as a useful adjunct to welfare services delivery. Apparently those two schemes wdll be removed from the Family Services budget. I have heard on the grape-vine that that money, which would amount to $290,000, wdU be aUocated elsewhere, possibly to the area of intellectual disability. Although I am aware that intellectual disability received no increased funding to account for normal CPI increases, the reallocation seems a little bit unfair and somewhat 1570 17 October 1989 Adjoumment confusing for people, particularly departmental officers who are trying to work out what wiU be implemented and what wdU not be implemented. Those officers have heard mmoiu-s that certain items wdU be axed and the f\inds used elsewhere, and that wdU lead to greater levels of confusion. In addition, on poUcy matters rather than budgetary aUocations, the community had an expectation—certainly organisations such as Jigsaw and the Adoptees Associa­ tion—that substantial changes, which had been dravm up by the former Minister for FamUy Services, who had been in contact with those groups over a long period, would be made to the adoption laws. I understand that those plans were unceremoniously shelved by the Minister. Because such a high level of confusion exists, many people in the department are unable to do thefr work. They say, "Okay, there is an election pending. We don't know who is going to be Minister from one minute to the next. Therefore, it is impossible to co-operate wdth this Govemment, because we just don't know what it is going to do from one minute to the next. We can't rely on the Budget document. We can't rely on poUcy positions that have been articulated and presented to interest groups. We can't rely on any of the information or any of the ideas that we have been operating on so far." That causes a freeze in service delivery and a complete inertia wdthin the Department of Family Services.

Importation of Raw Pork from Canada Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (1.09 a.m.): I raise a matter that is of national importance to the pig industry, namely, the importation of raw pork from Canada, which is threatening the pig industry in this State. It should be of tremendous concem to consumers that the anti-bacterial Carbendox is StiU being used in Canada. Approximately three years ago, because of its carcinogenic links, that substance was banned in this nation. However, the Federal Govemment is aUowdng the importation of raw pork from Canada. I am trying to alert the pubUc to this issue and I urge the Federal Govemment to review its inspection standards, because the importation of raw pork is creating a high risk for the public. Because the risk of disease entering Australia is considered to be low, inspection standards dictate that loads are randomly sampled. However, every load of pork that comes from a high-risk country is sampled. The public should be aware of that before it eats that pork. Because the raw pork will be processed in Australia, it wdll perhaps not bear a Canadian brand, which is risky. When one considers the human health risk and the health risk to the pig population, one must become alarmed. The people at AQIS—the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service—do not consider it Ukely that transmissible gastro-enteritis, which is commonly known as TGE, wdU enter this country. In fact, they have suggested a three miUion to one chance of that happening. But they said similar things about atrophit-rhinitis, which has already spread across the Darling Dovms. One cannot always believe their predictions. Our pigs have no natural immunity to transmissible gastro-enteritis. If that disease were to enter Australia it would wdpe out suckling pigs in particular, because they have no tolerance to it, and it would probably do worse than that. If AQIS is so confident about the situation it should include transmissible gastro-enteritis in the list of exotic diseases. It would then be regarded as a compensable disease and, if it entered Australia, pig-producers would be compensated. I am most concemed about this issue. Everybody who is interested in the welfare of his family should consider this problem. Pork in Canada is subsidised either by 50c per kilo or 50c per pound, but it wdll probably be sold in Australia for approximately $2 per kilo, which will undermine the whole stmcture of our pig industry. Those artificial prices and the health risks would be totally unacceptable. Adjoumment 17 October 1989 1571

Review of Electoral Boundaries Mr ARDILL (Salisbury) (1.14 a.m.): From the date of presentation of Mr Fitzgerald's report the Govemment had over six months to bring about a redistribution of electoral boundaries and to caU an election on a fair and equal electoral basis of one vote, one value. Anyone wdth a calculator, a sound knowledge of Queensland geography and demography and a list of polling-booths could put forward a reasonable redistribution proposal wdthin four weeks. If the redistribution of Queensland's electoral boundaries were carried out on the basis of one vote, one value and a community of interest, it would not be a major operation, despite the horrific gerrymander that exists. It takes time to arrange a gerrymander to tie up Labor and Liberal votes where they cannot by their majority interfere wdth the rotten boroughs and pocket boroughs that provide the Nationals with their present majority of seats. For example, a large imbalance exists in adjoining seats where smaU National Party seats surround Labor Party seats that have double the population. This also makes the Labor seats safe by ensuring that aU the National voters are cut out and put in the adjoining electorate. The most extreme example, of course, is Wujal Wujal, which is geographicaUy in one electorate but electoraUy in another. The National Party is not the only party to have seats in every zone. The Labor Party also has seats in every zone. In both the south-eastem and provincial city zones Labor receives more votes than the Nationals, and is only 8 000 votes behind the Nationals in the remote zone. It is the country zone, wdth its welter of rotten boroughs, which is the heartland of National Party strength and apparent invincibUity. The Nationals have 15 seats in this shocking blight on our electoral system, which is a total denial of democracy. In the country zone, the average number of voters in 1986 was 12 221. In Brisbane it was 18 261, an increase of 50 per cent. In the country zone, which surrounds the individual provincial seats, there are 10 000 fewer voters electing four more members— 13 in the provincial zone and 17 in the so-called country zone. In fact, any fair redistribution would mean that those 17 seats, 15 of which are held by the Nationals, would be amalgamated into 11 seats. That is the reason why Sir Robert Sparkes will never allow a fair electoral system in Queensland. It is also the reason why we now know that, no matter what they say, the present members who represent those seats wdU not vote for a fair redistribution and the elimination of their own jobs. The other furphy that should be laid to rest is the story that the remote zone electorates would double in size wdth one vote, one value. This is nonsense. At present, both Warrego and Roma are gerrymandered to take in areas wdthin 100 kilometres of Emerald, in Peak Downs, while QuUpie, near CharleviUe in Warrego, is in Gregory, which is based on Longreach. The south-west should be one seat and the central-west another, each wdth three electorate offices. In Warrego, very little increase in territory would result. In Gregory, no increase would result but the gerrymandered shapes of both would be regularised. It is quite clear that the Liberal Party is most affected by the undoubted gerrymander as it has to compete for seats against both major parties, particularly in Brisbane. The gerrymander has given the Liberal Party only four safe seats—three in the westem suburbs and Merthyr, which covers the tme-blue territory of Clayfield/Ascot. Don Lane won the seat of Merthyr as a Liberal, he defected and would have lost the subsequent election if the roUs had not been totally rorted. I found on the roUs the names of numerous people whose addresses were actually the railway line. It takes 23 000 electors to elect a Liberal member and 11 245 to elect a National member. So much for Mackerras' claim that there is no gerrymander. There is a traditional gerrymander, as exemplified by Warrego, Gregory, Roma, Balonne, Aubum and Cook and numerous minor examples of seats wdth no community of interest. However, the lack of proportion in seats wdthin the same zone, the lack of equality of numbers wdthin the zones, is the tme cormption of the democratic process. 1572 17 October 1989 Adjoumment WhUe this continues the Liberals can never achieve equality wdth the other parties. Only after the National Party is defeated at the poUs and the Labor Party has aboUshed the gerrymander and electoral cormption can the Liberals achieve major party status. Even if the Liberal Party wins twice the number of votes that the National Party wdU win at the forthcoming election, it wdU stiU have fewer seats. In the coming election, it wiU win some and lose some, but it cannot dislodge the major parties from 60 per cent of the seats in this State. It does not have the local organisation throughout the State to capture votes outside the south-east comer.

Danger of Jet Skis to Swinuners Mr GATELY (Curmmbin) (1.19 a.m.): It is pathetic to sit here and Usten to this mbbish about cormpt boundaries—it really is. I want to speak about something that has some relevance to safety and which will change the whole tenor of this debate. I want to taUc about the efforts of a young man, Mr Chris Bystrom, who is deeply concemed about the dangers to swimmers in the area from Tallebudgera Creek to Point Danger. Mr Bystrom Uves at Elanora. He came to me seeking assistance because he has seen numerous instances in which young people, particularly children who are not able to defend themselves in the water, are confronted by jet slds roaring at them from all directions, wdth the operators of those craft paying total disregard to the safety of body surfers and swimmers. Together wdth my five colleagues on the Gold Coast, I have conducted a campaign to have the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services place some restrictions on those craft in both Tallebudgera Creek and Curmmbin Creek. However, the matter is more serious than that. Mr Mackenroth: What about on the Broadwater? They are a nuisance. They annoy everyone. Mr GATELY: My main concem is that, although those operators have been stopped from going too far up into the two estuaries, the problems resulting from the use of those craft in the areas more frequently used by swimmers, particularly in the sheltered coves of Tallebudgera Creek and Curmmbin Creek, have not been able to be addressed. I heard Mr Mackenroth's concem about the Broadwater. I suggest to him that this problem appUes not only to the area that I am talking about—because it is the area that is being hi^ighted to me as the local representative—but also to other areas. On 3 January this year, when I was in hospital having my hand fixed after having broken a couple of bones, I saw the problems associated wdth injuries that were being caused by the operation of the jet skis. When one sees people with broken legs and arms and great gashes in their stomachs and sides, one starts to understand that those types of craft are more dangerous than they first appear. Therefore, I wdll be calling on the Govemment to introduce legislation that wdll provide stricter controls on the operation of these craft. What is more, those controls will apply not only in the placid waters of Tallebudgera Creek and Curmmbin Creek and the Broadwater, as suggested by Mr Mackenroth, but also in the beach foreshore areas. That problem has to be properly addressed. The noise factor should also be taken into account, not only in the areas in which restrictions are currently placed on those craft but also in those areas in which they are allowed to be presently used, such as in the Tallebudgera and Curmmbin Creeks. I believe they should be totally banned from swimming areas. Usage should also be restricted to the same periods as apply to water- skiers in TaUebudgera Creek. Only four water-ski boats are permitted to be used at one time between the hours of 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. People living in areas adjacent to the waterways are entitled to peace and harmony in their environment, but not enough is being done to preserve that Ufe-style. In the near future I hope to be able to present a petition to this Parliament containing 537 signatures. The petition wiU represent the shared concem of people over safety Adjoumment 17 October 1989 1573 aspects. I am proud to have worked on this with my parUamentary colleagues on the Gold Coast. I look forward to support and strong debate from members of the Opposition in the interests of safety for all those who swim where jet skis are used.

Pharmacy Remuneration Changes Mr SHERLOCK (Ashgrove) (1.24 a.m.): I join in this debate to record some facts relating to the changes in pharmacy remuneration that wdll be introduced by the Hawke Govemment from 1 November. The changes wiU reduce prescription funding in this nation by 23 per cent. I draw attention in particular to the door-knock undertaken by pharmacists in Lytton last Sunday. They distributed a pamphlet that I wdsh to refer to and table. It is titled "The Facts about Prescriptions". I ask that it be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document— THE FACTS ABOUT PRESCRIPTIONS 1. Australian pharmacists (not the Govemment) provide Australia with the best and most cost effective prescription medication system in the world. Prescription prices in U.S.A., N.Z., Canada, etc., are 100% higher than in Australia. The average prescription price in U.S.A. is 4.2% of average weekly eamings, in N.Z. 4.0% and in Canada 3.5%; in Australia, 2% of average weekly eamings. In 1955, the average prescription price in Australia was 6.6% of average weekly eamings— in 1988, 2%. 2. Expenditure on pharmaceuticals in not a large budgetary item. In 1961, it represented 22.5% of total expenditure on health matters—in 1986 only 8.4% or $2.00 per week per person. 3. Expenditure on pharmaceuticals benefits the whole community: • sick people are helped to retum to the workplace faster, • people feel better and therefore more productive, • the need for institutionalised health care is reduced. 4. Australia has an ageing population. As people grow older, they tend to need more medication. Modem medications improve lifestyle and increase life expectancy. The Govemment is unwiUing to provide sufficient fiinds to protect the pharmaceutical industry from the prospect of imminent coUapse. 5. Pharmacists are the only workers in Australia expected to accept a reduction in income— a cut of 50% or more in real terms—why are we being singled out? 6. 80% of Australia's pharmacies vriU be unprofitable from November 1—when these latest cuts in payment start. Up to 50% will eventuaUy close. 7. The Govemment and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal have clearly indicated their intention to push for even more cuts in payments. There will be no pharmacies left. 8. Pharmacists are already the lowest paid professionals in Australia. Award wages are less than average weekly eamings. The Govemment pays its own pharmacists almost 3 times as much. 9. All pharmacists want is to be left alone by the Govemment to get on with the job of providing the best system of supply of medicines in the worid, AND be adequately paid for it. Please help us tell the Govemment what they are doing is wrong. Mr SHERLOCK: I thank the House. Honourable members should ask themselves why pharmacists, who work 70 hours a week to derive a retum of approximately $24,000 above their salaries for an investment 1574 17 October 1989 Adjoumment outlay of approximately $150,000, would spend Sunday knocking on doors. We might also ask why, for the first time in the 35 years that I have been involved in pharmacy, a few weeks ago pharmacies throughout this nation closed on what would usually be a very busy Thursday aftemoon. Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr SHERLOCK: I might inform the member for Chatsworth that members of the pharmaceutical profession are held in high esteem—much higher esteem than that in which politicians are held. One might ask why pharmacists have been taking these actions. The answer is that they have exhausted all other avenues of drawing attention to their plight. The Labor Party would contend that this matter wdU have to be decided by the remuneration tribunal. The fact is that the Pharmacy Remuneration Tribunal has made a recommendation on a database containing a basic flaw. The matter is being contested in the courts by the National Pharmacy Guild. Federal Minister Staples is out of touch and is not Ustening to pharmacists. Suddenly, however, Mr Hawke is beginning to Usten to pharmacists because he knows that, if does not, it wdU cost him votes at the next Federal election. Mr Staples claims that he knows all about pharmacies because he studied pharmacy for three months. I wonder how long ago that was. Perhaps it was 20 or 30 years ago. Peter Shack, the Federal Opposition spokesman for Health, knows about pharmacy because he has spent some time in dispensaries and in pharmacies throughout this nation, including the States of Western Australia and New South Wales, and in city and country areas. The member for RedcUffe, Mr White, and I certainly know about pharmacies. During the last 30 years I have had six pharmacies of my own. I have managed three pharmacies for other people and I started four pharmacies in this State from scratch. I started my business career wdth only a large bank loan and a bill of sale. In those days, it was possible to have a go by measuring the risks and doing the sums. Businesses were built on service. The Federal Labor Govemment is making it impossible for pharmacists to have a go and to build their businesses. Last Sunday's door-knock in Lytton was not undertaken by radicals or by rabble-rousers. Those pharmacists are respected professionals. I wdsh to draw attention to a leaflet that they distributed. It states that the 23 per cent cut in funding by the Hawke Govemment wdU affect every person in Australia, and so it wdU. It is interesting to note from the facts set out on this leaflet that the cost of medicine in Australia amounts to only 8 per cent of the Health budget. Goodness knows what the administration costs of the Federal Department of Health would be. AustraUan medicine costs are half those that apply in America and in England. One day spent in a pubUc hospital in Australia costs more than the prescription medicines bill for eight average Australians for a year. The Federal Govemment has made a mistake. The leaflet states, "Don't let them destroy the best pharmacy system in the world." Who wdU be affected by these cuts? The answer is that everyone will be affected, particularly elderly people, chronically Ul people and families. When chUdren need urgent medicine at night, people may find that a late-night pharmacy wdll not be open because 30 per cent of pharmacies in this State wdll close. When free advice is needed, wiU the local pharmacist have time to offer it to people who are in need? In Australia, the best system of deUvery of health care is provided. Pharmacies in communities throughout Australia not only distribute dmgs but also provide health education information and information about healthy life-styles. These professionals should be encouraged and Govemments should not pull the plug on the enthusiasm demonstrated by them. The leaflet states— "When you are sick and need a home delivery, wdll your pharmacy be able to send the medicine?" The pharmacist wiU not be able to do that because he wdU not be able to afford that level of service. The Federal Labor Govemment simply does not realise the consequences Adjoumment 17 October 1989 1575 of its action. It must be made to reaUse that it is destroying the most efficient system in the world for delivering medication. Magnetic Quays Resort, Magnetic Island Mr BURREKET (Tovmsville) (1.29 a.m.): I wdsh to refer to a proposed tourist development called Magnetic Quays to illustrate to the House the problems associated with the ovemse of the right of appeal. The project has been under way for a considerable period—when I say "under way", I mean that efforts have been made to get somewhere for four years—but the developer has not been able to put even a building block on site. The developer, Linkon, has been fmstrated by appeals. Recently the company had to take part in an appeal in the Local Govemment Court that lasted six weeks. The judge's decision is presently awaited. The company has also had two estoppel orders imposed by the Federal Govemment under its GBRMPA provisions. Next week an appeal wdll begin against the GBRMPA decision. The appeal has been lodged in Townsville by approximately 28 people. Not only wiU this take a considerable time to be resolved, but also there is an appeal pending against that appeal which is aU being paid for by legal aid. There is now an overabuse of the right of appeal, which is a tragedy. The people of the north are starting to wake up to aU this propaganda perpetrated by the greenie movement. Last Sunday over 500 people met on Magnetic Island. They raised a very loud voice of protest because they were absolutely fiiistrated wdth what has been allowed to happen. I have already dravm the attention of the Minister for Local Govemment to the problems those people are encountering, but how the devil can a city such as Townsville develop its tourist potential when every time a project comes up the right of appeal is invoked? Most people became very upset and fmstrated wdth the attitude of the former Mayor of Townsville because it had gone nowhere in the development of its tourist industry. Magnetic Quays is the only integrated resort that Tovmsville has been able to put up as a proposition to attract intemational flights, but it cannot go ahead. It is now four years since it was first mooted, yet the development cannot even be started. There is something wrong in this State when those sorts of frustrations are encountered because there is an abuse of an individual's right to stop a development by the use of frivolous appeals. I seek leave to table and have incorporated in Hansard a list of 28 names representing Island Voices, the group of people who have been very active in trying to stop any development of Magnetic Island. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document— ISLAND VOICES—SECRET 28 NAME ADDRESS J BALDWIN 127 Pacific Dve, Horseshoe Bay J CARR 22 The Grove, NeUy Bay W E & J M CHINN 23 Dent Street, Horseshoe Bay B & A COX 50 Horseshoe Bay Rd, Horseshoe Bay S J & S L CROWE Dorothy St, NeUy Bay (14 Jean St) C DANIEL 35 Wansfell St, Picnic Bay I DICKSON 15 Jean Street, NeUy Bay S DICKSON 15 Jean Street, NeUy Bay W & V FOLKMAN 12 Dent Street, Horseshoe Bay J A & M L FROST 32 Wansfell Street, Picnic Bay R A GILL 12 Mirimar Crescent, Arcadia D HALLER Henry Lawson Dve, Horseshoe Bay E HARRISON St James Retirement VUlage, Kirwan A LAWSON Compass Crescent, NeUy Bay J LUNN Camp Irwin, Nelly Bay H O & C A McCOLL 46 Henry Lawson Dve, Horseshoe Bay 1576 17 October 1989 Adjoumment J MUNDAY 6 Mirabelle Crescent, Arcadia J C OWENS 41 Warboys Street, NeUy Bay E A OWENS 138 Sooning Street, NeUy Bay A POULSEN Esplanade, NeUy Bay J P ROSS 108 Sooning Street, Nelly Bay D TURNBULL 127 Pacific Dve, Horseshoe Bay A VALENTINE 2 Esplanade, Nelly Bay J WALKDEN Murray Street, Nelly Bay J WEINKI 22 Bishop Street, Belgian Gardens G WEINKI 22 Bishop Street, Belgian Gardens J N WIGHTMAN 6 Robson Street, Nelly Bay A ZENNER 22 WansfeU Street, Picnic Bay Mr BURREKET: Five hundred people attended the public meeting and voted for the development. This is a radical change from what has been happening in the north of this State over the last two or three years. The greenies jump up and down every time a frog comes out from undemeath a rock or a fish leaps out of the water. They cry out that the State Govemment is not protecting the waterways and other nonsense. People are fed up wdth the abuse of the ri^t of appeal against developments. There wdll be more protests of this kind in the future. The voice of the people on Magnetic Island is very strong. They want the right to build and they want it now. This House should be aware of the nonsense that has been going on. I saw the Four Corners program illustrating some developments on the cape which were pinpricks when compared wdth the total area. The ABC highlighted these areas wdth flagsan d said that the whole of Cape York was being sold off to developers. If one flies over Cape York for hours, one wdll see billions of trees all in pristine condition. Mr Harper: Less than 0.8 per cent is freehold land. Mr BURREKET: Yes, and that figure comes from the Minister. There is a definite bias, particularly on the part of the ABC, against what this Govemment is doing in Queensland. This Govemment is doing a damned good job and I want this House to be aware of the change in people's attitudes. Motion agreed to. The House adjoumed at 1.35 a.m. (Wednesday).