Legislative Assembly 3985 23 October 1990

NOTE: There could be differences between this document and the official printed Hansard, Vol. 316

TUESDAY, 23 OCTOBER 1990 ———— Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m. ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following Bills reported by Mr Speaker— Summer Time Bill; State Housing Act Amendment Bill; Public Service (Administrative Arrangements) Bill. PAPER PRINTED AND CIRCULATED DURING RECESS Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have to report that the following paper was ordered to be printed and circulated in accordance with section 29A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954-1989— Queensland Electricity Commission Sixth Annual Report 1989-1990. I now lay upon the table of the House a copy of the report. Whereupon the document was laid on the table. PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Hardware Shops, Sunday Trading From Mr Comben (226 signatories) praying that hardware shops be allowed to trade on Sundays. Private Pre-schools From Mr Borbidge (30 signatories) praying that no changes detrimental to the operation of private pre-schools be implemented. Closure of Small State Schools From Mr Randell (91 signatories) praying that no action be taken to develop a program to close small schools such as Septimus State School. Fencing of Swimming Pools From Mr Borbidge (52 signatories) praying that the Parliament will not legislate to force owners of existing swimming pools to separately fence their pool when it is within a residential block with perimeter fencing. Union Fees, Payment to Political Parties From Mr Santoro (14 signatories) praying that public and private sector workers who are union members are not compelled to contribute to political parties through an affiliation with their unions. Amalgamation of Board of Nursing Studies and Nurses Registration Board From Mr Pitt (23 signatories) praying that the Minister for Health extend time for consideration of proposals in the Green Paper regarding the amalgamation of the Board of Nursing Studies and the Nurses Registration Board. Legislative Assembly 3986 23 October 1990

Brisbane City Council Rating System From Ms Spence (13 signatories) praying that the Parliament empower the Brisbane City Council to introduce a fairer and more equitable rating system. A similar petition was received from Mr Comben (17 signatories). Literature and Films Boards of Review From Mr Barber (49 signatories) praying for the maintenance of the Literature and Film Boards of Review and for a continuation of controls outlawing the sale of all pornographic matter. Petitions received. PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Reports for the year ended 30 June 1990— Bureau of Emergency Services State Emergency Service State Fire Services Rural Fires Board of Queensland Central Queensland Racing Association Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation Department of Tourism, Sport and Racing President of the Industrial Court of Queensland Bureau of Employment, Vocational and Further Education and Training (incorporating Annual Reports of the Queensland Employment, Vocational Education and Training Board and the Training Executive) Department of Justice and Corrective Services Queensland Corrective Services Commission Department of Resource Industries Queensland Coal Board Queensland Institute of Medical Research Trust. The following papers were laid on the table— Reports for the year ended 31 December 1989— Cane Pest and Disease Control Boards Queensland Cotton Growers Cooperative Association Limited Queensland Pork Producers State Council Reports for the year ended 29 June 1990— Central Queensland Egg Marketing Board Queensland Hen Quota Committee Reports for the year ended 30 June 1990— Chicken Meat Industry Committee Queensland Dairy Industry Authority Queensland Fish Board Local Government Superannuation Board Resolutions of the 134th meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council Regulations under— State Transport Act 1960-1990 Legislative Assembly 3987 23 October 1990

Surveyors Act 1977-1989 Rural Lands Protection Act 1985-1988 Industrial Relations Act 1990 Farm Produce Marketing Act 1964-1989 Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act 1962-1989 Water Resources Act 1989 Art Unions and Amusements Act 1976-1988 Associations Incorporation Act 1981-1989 Collections Act 1966-1989 Orders in Council under— Harbours Act 1955-1989 Canals Act 1958-1989 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 Superannuation (Public Employees Portability and Acts Amendment) Act 1985 State Service Superannuation Act 1972-1990 Police Superannuation Act 1974-1990 Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act 1982-1989 Primary Producers' Organization and Marketing Act 1926-1989 River Improvement Trust Act 1940-1985 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangement Act 1982-1989 Townsville/Thuringowa Water Board Act 1987-1988 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1989 Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936-1986 By-laws under the Harbours Act 1955-1989 Rules under the Casino Control Act 1982 Rules of Court under the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (A) A proposal by the Governor in Council to revoke the setting apart and declaration as State Forest under the Forestry Act 1959-1990 of— (a) all that part of State Forest 840, parishes of Bingera and Gregory described as Area "A" as shown on plan FTY 1581 prepared under the authority of the Conservator of Forests, Department of Primary Industries and containing an area of about 246.6 hectares; (b) the whole of Sarabah State Forest 536 containing an area of about 259 hectares; (c) all those parts of Beerwah State Forest 561, described as Area "A" and Area "B" as shown on plan FTY 1582 prepared under the authority of the Conservator of Forests, Department of Primary Industries and containing in total an area of about 19.2 hectares; (d) all those parts of State Forest 658, parishes of Macartney and Lacy, described as Area "A" and Area "B" as shown on plan FTY 1584 prepared under the authority of the Conservator of Forests, Department of Primary Industries and containing in total an area of about 28 hectares; (e) all that part of State Forest 143, parishes of Dedin, Garioch, Kanawarra, Riflemead, Salisbury and Victory described as Area "A" as shown on plan FTY 1587 prepared under the authority of the Conservator of Forests, Department of Primary Industries and containing an area of about 4 600 hectares; (f) the whole of State Forest 206, parish of Whyanbeel containing an area of about 4 030 hectares; Legislative Assembly 3988 23 October 1990

(g) the whole of Niagara State Forest 350, containing an area of about 4 249 hectares; (h) all that part of Cardwell State Forest 461, described as Area "A" as shown on plan FTY 1585 prepared under the authority of the Conservator of Forests, Department of Primary Industries and containing an area of about 16 400 hectares; (i) the whole of State Forest 78, parishes of Bloomfield and Dagmar containing an area of about 18 900 hectares; (j) all that part of Abergowrie State Forest 591, described as Area "A" as shown on plan FTY 1586 prepared under the authority of the Conservator of Forests, Department of Primary Industries and containing an area of about 21 000 hectares; (k) the whole of State Forest 755, parishes of Bartle Frere, Dirran, Glady and Palmerston containing an area of about 22 609 hectares; (l) all that part of State Forest 310, parishes of Bellenden Ker and Gadgarra as shown on plan FTY 1588 prepared under the authority of the Conservator of Forests, Department of Primary Industries and containing an area of about 9 900 hectares; and (B) A brief explanation of the proposal. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Tabling of Racing Industry Green Paper Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Wolston—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (10.14 a.m.), by leave: I lay upon the table of the House a discussion paper on the development of the racing industry in Queensland. The paper is the result of consultation and survey by the Racing Services Division and a consultant, Mr Bill Roberts, with the 186 clubs in this State, all of the seven controlling bodies, 13 key industry organisations and groups from around the country and New Zealand. In keeping with its pledge to provide the people of Queensland with effective and accountable management of their money, the Government is committed to reforming the racing industry, which is the State's fourth largest industry. The Government inherited a racing industry lacking in direction and cohesion after years of mismanagement and pork-barrelling. In the last five years of its term in office, in order to fund grandiose grants that had more to do with vote-buying than sound economic management, the previous Government ran up a loans bill of $72m. There has been much ill-informed speculation about the contents of this paper and the effect that the changes to the structure of the industry will have, and I wish to deal with it briefly in order to let members know the true position. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gympie will cease interjecting. Mr GIBBS: This Government proposes to strengthen racing clubs' capabilities to provide enjoyable, well-supported and viable racing. We will introduce democracy into the system and share the power of administration amongst all participants in the industry. We will ensure that clubs stand on their own two feet and no longer regard the public purse as their personal piggy bank. However, this paper does not propose any change to existing arrangements for club organisation or club management of race meetings. This Government proposes a system whereby the industry is overseen by the Queensland Racing Industry Authority which would cover the three codes—gallops, harness racing and greyhounds. Each code would stand alone and would elect its own representatives. I stress the word "elect". The principles of social justice demand that trainers, jockeys and other licensed people have a say in determining their future. Also, we will eliminate Legislative Assembly 3989 23 October 1990 the discrimination against women, who have only limited rights in most clubs. At present we have the ridiculous situation where not all of the principal clubs get a vote in framing the Australian rules of racing. The voice of the Downs and South-west Racing Association, that is one of the five principal clubs and a representative of 36 domestic clubs, is not even recognised. Among the more inaccurate claims in the litany of scaremongering put out by those opposed to responsible and rational reform was one contained in a letter dated 15 October 1990 which was circulated widely in the racing industry. This letter—which was countersigned by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Southport—contains many outlandish statements which insult the intelligence of those to whom it is written. It makes the claim that I, as Minister for Racing, reversed a TAB decision to distribute a windfall profit of $2m to clubs this year. Honourable members would recall that, 12 days before this letter was written, in answer to a question from the member for Archerfield I told this House that that claim was totally wrong. The signatories to the letter might have established this if they had bothered to check their facts. The letter refers to my Government proposing that the full cost of running the racing department—and they could not even get the name right—would be borne as a first charge on the TAB. That is the case at present. Honourable members will recall an amendment to the Racing and Betting Act assented to by the Governor on 8 December 1988 after it had been brought to this House by the then Minister for Racing, the honourable member for Mirani. The letter refers to the Racing Services Division spending $1.3m last year to employ 130 staff. The actual figures are 20 staff and $1m, three-quarters of which is spent by this Government on drug-testing on behalf of principal clubs. I propose to divest the office of the Racing Minister of some of its power and hand the management of the industry back to the industry, with assistance to be provided for management services and financial counselling when appropriate. We will work to reverse the bail-out mentality that has hampered the effective performance of many clubs and offer them services that may not be available in their own city or town. Country racing will be strengthened. As it stands, country clubs have moved away from their roots, that is, as a vital component of the sporting and social fabric of the bush. There is no compelling reason that a race club in a town the size of say, Boulia, should have to conform to regulations which are the same as for the running of the Melbourne Cup. I propose to remove restrictions that prevent race clubs from conducting their affairs like other social clubs. In this way they would not need to stage unnecessary meetings and compound their financial woes. For example, freeing up Sky Channel access to the clubs will put them on the same footing as other social clubs and can only benefit their revenue by allowing them to operate on non-race days. There are too many races in Queensland. With the exception of the Northern Territory, this State has the lowest number of horses per race in this country. In line with this rationalisation, yesterday State Cabinet gave me approval to prepare amendments to the Racing and Betting Act to halve book-makers' turnover tax to 1 per cent from 1 July 1991. This will allow clubs which have budgeted to collect their share of the tax to proceed with their budgets for this year. It will also give clubs enough time to plan ahead for the days when their revenue from book-makers is no longer collected on their behalf by the Government. I look forward to receiving submissions from any interested party on this Green Paper and have today issued an invitation to the chairmen of the five principal clubs to meet with me in my office next week. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the document referred to. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Sunshine Motorway Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development) (10.22 a.m.), by leave: During the past couple of weeks a politically motivated group on the Sunshine Coast calling itself the Tollbusters has taken enormous liberty with the truth. Legislative Assembly 3990 23 October 1990

Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gympie. Mr HAMILL: This group objects to actions approved by State Cabinet that will ensure that those using the Sunshine Motorway pay their fair share towards the cost of the road. I make it quite clear that no- one has to use the motorway; it is entirely a matter of choice. Some people who want to use the Sunshine Motorway have gone to great lengths to avoid paying the toll. In effect, they are cheating on the honest citizens who accept that if they choose to use the road they contribute towards the cost of it. The Sunshine Motorway was built as a toll-road and provides important road infrastructure on the Sunshine Coast over and above the full allocation of road funds for the area from the State Government. The people of the Sunshine Coast have no cause for complaint in terms of road infrastructure provided by this Government. Extra funds are now being invested in routes that local residents may choose to use as an alternative to using the Sunshine Motorway and paying a toll. It is the position of this Government that alternative routes must exist in areas where there are toll-roads. The Tollbusters have claimed that the Government is attempting to force them to use the Sunshine Motorway by directing on and off ramps through the Mooloolaba toll plaza. The decision to redirect the on and off ramps was taken at the request of the Sunshine Motorway Company, because a large number of people have taken devious steps to avoid the plaza and avoid paying the toll, despite the fact that they are making use of the Sunshine Motorway. The Tollbusters have been peddling the lie that the Government is forcing people to use the Sunshine Motorway. This is untrue. No-one has to use the Sunshine Motorway, and only those people who choose to use the road have to pay for it. There have been some claims of severe hardship arising from the decision of the former National Party Government to establish the tollway. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Gympie under Standing Order 123A. Mr HAMILL: Under legislation passed in the previous Parliament, the Sunshine Motorway Company is obliged to meet the cost of operating the Sunshine Motorway. A failure to do that will place the burden for debt and redemption back on the Queensland taxpayer, who must meet the shortfall. After consultation with the Sunshine Motorway Company, and in order to address the claims of hardship, I make this offer: any Sunshine Coast residents who can establish genuine hardship in that they do not have an alternative route from their homes along existing roads to enable them to go about their ordinary day-to-day business will be given a free pass to use the Mooloolah Plaza. They can write to the Sunshine Motorway Company setting out where they live and the circumstances in which they suffer genuine hardship so that the motorway company can assess their cases on merit and make recommendations to me about concessions. The people objecting to the motorway company's proposed changes have gone to extraordinary lengths by using a network of off- ramps, on-ramps and suburban streets to by-pass the existing toll plaza. The option now being taken away is the cheat's option. Those who can establish a genuine case of hardship will not have to pay the toll. Because alternative routes are easily available to those who do not wish to use the Sunshine Motorway, all others who use the road will have to pay their fair share. It is entirely a matter of choice. Honest people should not have to subsidise the dishonest members of the community. The Government is firm on this point. The necessary alterations to on-ramps and off-ramps will go ahead. Legislative Assembly 3991 23 October 1990

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Visit to Germany, Holland and England by Minister for Justice and Corrective Services Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (10.25 a.m.), by leave: My visit to Germany, Holland and England in July this year reinforced my view that the Queensland program of prison reform, adopted following the Kennedy inquiry and built on by the Queensland Corrective Services Commission, is on the right path. It has been said that it is possible to assess the quality of a civilisation by the manner in which the aged, the sick and the incarcerated are treated. In its relatively short life of 22 months, the QCSC has raised for public discussion issues that are fundamental to the question of State-inflicted punishment. There is a growing community awareness that prisons are expensive, inefficient institutions which are largely ineffective for the purposes of rehabilitation. There is now a push towards prisons being used as a last resort only—mainly for violent offenders—and for increased emphasis to be placed on community-based corrections, which include compensation for victims and society. Currently, the majority of people in Queensland prisons are there for non-violent crimes. They are not a physical risk to citizens of this State. It is simply a waste of taxpayers' funds to keep them in closed institutions instead of involving them in community corrections. It was against this background that I decided to visit Germany where, for the past 15 years, the prison population and crime rate have been reducing; Holland, which for many years has had one of the world's lowest imprisonment rates; and the United Kingdom, which is attempting to address prison problems of mammoth proportions. It is interesting to note that one of my many predecessors in this portfolio, the Honourable Geoff Muntz, travelled extensively through Europe in 1985 to study prison reform. I can find no record of any official recommendations or information, or even mention of any impact arising from his study tour, in spite of the fact that he must have observed policies and practices that were well ahead of the Queensland scene at that time. The only post-trip media report I know of appeared in the Courier-Mail on 7 August. It dealt with the way in which parents in Rome and Dublin were tackling the drug problem. I am currently in the process of preparing recommendations for discussion with my Cabinet colleagues. I would appreciate any feedback or constructive suggestions that honourable members may wish to make in relation to any of the matters raised in this report and which could be of assistance in implementing reform in Queensland. I table my report. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE Mr COOPER (Roma—Leader of the Opposition) (10.28 a.m.): I seek leave to move— "That this House expresses its confidence in Mr Marshall Cooke, QC." Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the Leader of the Opposition seeking leave to move a motion without notice? Mr COOPER: I seek leave to move, "That this House expresses its confidence"—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I rule the motion out of order. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that the proper procedure is to seek leave to move a motion without notice. I will now put the question to the House. Is leave granted? Honourable members: Aye! Legislative Assembly 3992 23 October 1990

COOKE INQUIRY INTO TRADE UNIONS Mr COOPER (Roma—Leader of the Opposition) (10.28 a.m.): I move— "That this House expresses its total confidence in the inquiry by Mr Marshall Cooke, QC, into trade union corruption and calls upon the Government to maintain its full support at current levels for the inquiry until its completion." Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (10.29 a.m.): I move— "That the question be now put." Mr SPEAKER: I will not accept that motion. I call the Leader of the Opposition Mr MACKENROTH: I can move that the motion be put at any time. It is in the Standing Orders. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Standing Orders also state that in this situation it is up to the Speaker to judge whether there has been adequate debate on the motion. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Fassifern will cease interjecting. Mr COOPER: I believe that this subject is worthy of debate. I sincerely hope that members of the Government will take part in the debate in a constructive way. In the past two or three years, a number of similar inquiries have taken place and I am sure that all honourable members know that the cost of these inquiries is extremely high. Mr Speaker, we have to ask ourselves whether the cost of reform and of accountability is worth that price. I believe that members of the public have been shocked at the cost of these inquiries. They certainly would have been shocked—as members of the National Party were shocked—at the cost of the Fitzgerald inquiry, which totalled $24m approximately. Mr Fitzgerald was paid approximately $2m, and I believe that during the past year Mr Drummond has received approximately $800,000. Now Mr Marshall Cooke has been paid up to $600,000. Yes, public inquiries are expensive; members of the National Party know that, and the public knows it. All members of the public were shocked at the cost of the Fitzgerald inquiry, but National Party members did not renege on that. They saw it all the way through. If the National Party had moved in any way to curtail the cost or interfere with the terms of reference of the Fitzgerald inquiry, one can imagine what the reaction of the people of Queensland would have been. We took the option that, although that inquiry was expensive, we had to see it through. The Fitzgerald inquiry started off as a six-week inquiry into the police force and continued for approximately two years. Of course expenses blew out, but we were determined to see it through. We put the onus on the Government—this is its acid test in the area of accountability—to see the Cooke inquiry through, just as the National Party Government saw the Fitzgerald inquiry through. The Opposition wants to see accountability and wants the Cooke inquiry to run its due course. I honestly believe—it is a concern that is shared by many people—that this attack on the Cooke inquiry started in December-January 1989-90 because the inquiry was getting a little close to some areas. ALP members are involved. A recommendation has been made that a senior vice-president of the ALP charged. As the inquiry moves through the unions—naturally, we would like things to move a little faster, but members of the legal profession have a job to do—it must continue without interference or curtailment by the political wing of the Government. I advise the Government to adopt a "hands-off" approach to the Cooke inquiry. It must be allowed to proceed. I ask the Premier to give an assurance to this House that the Cooke inquiry will proceed without interference. In future, if it is necessary to look at other forms of inquiry, the Opposition Legislative Assembly 3993 23 October 1990 will be party to consultation on that matter. The Opposition is aware that the cost of these inquiries is high. Again I say, "What price is the price of reform? What price is the price of accountability?" Members of the Opposition know that price. Now that the boot is on the other foot, I ask Government members to front up just as we fronted up. The Government must leave the Cooke inquiry alone. The Cooke inquiry cannot be compared with the Ward 10B inquiry at the Townsville General Hospital, which is a narrow, internal inquiry. The commissioner inquiring into Ward 10B has the resources and facilities of the public service. However, the Cooke inquiry is a far wider inquiry into four or five unions. Mr Cooke has no back-up resources to enable him to carry out his investigations thoroughly. Mr Cooke's inquiry is similar to the Fitzgerald inquiry, which required back-up resources. Many aspects of Mr Cooke's inquiry require further and ongoing investigation. The resources must be made available for that inquiry. As was the case with the Fitzgerald inquiry, the political wing of any party should not interfere with the Cooke inquiry. I am offended by the Government's attempt to convince the public that the cost of the Cooke inquiry is far too high, that taxpayers' money is involved and that it should be closed down or curtailed. If the Cooke inquiry is closed down or curtailed, the public will realise that it is one rule for the ALP and another rule for the National Party. I do not accept that and neither will the people of Queensland will accept that. Anonymous ALP figures are involved in the Cooke inquiry investigations, especially the Minister for Industrial Relations, who is not in the Chamber. The inquiry is getting too close to the ALP, which has affiliations with the unions concerned. A cross-pollination exists between the ALP and the unions. It is obvious that, if the unions are investigated, certain ALP figures could become involved. Just as the National Party had to wear it, the Government will have to wear it. As the heat increases and the blow torch gets closer to the belly, people begin to panic. The recent action of the Government is a panic move to create a smokescreen in the name of cost to attempt to bring the Cooke inquiry to a premature close, to curtail it or to limit its terms of reference. Government members were elected on a platform of accountability and halting corruption. If the Government has problems with those matters, it should weed the people out and get rid of them, just as the National Party did. If Government members are big enough, they will do that. If investigations are getting too close to some of the ALP's own people, it will have to wear it. Mr Casey: Do you realise you've been paddling up and down in the one spot for the last 10 minutes? Mr COOPER: If ever an inquiry should have been directed at anyone, it should have been directed at the member for Mackay. He is in Cabinet and has not paid back a cent of the money that was outstanding as a result of the Peel report. He wrote that money off. He is one of the most corrupt people in Cabinet. He accepted $30,000 from the poker machine lobby. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition return to the motion that he moved. I suggest that the Minister do not bait the Leader of the Opposition. Mr COOPER: I know who baited whom. The member for Mackay will get back as much as he gives. I am talking about the Cooke inquiry, which is the ideal body to investigate people such as the member for Mackay. It is grossly unfair to use cost as a smokescreen and an excuse to intervene and meddle in a legitimate and legal inquiry established on proper grounds. The inquiry was established because complaints had been laid. Those complaints have subsequently been justified. The Premier has said that all the inquiry has done is turn up old news. Even if the revelations that have come from the Liquor Trades Union—including a recommendation that charges be laid against a senior vice-president of the ALP—are old news, they still Legislative Assembly 3994 23 October 1990 cannot be swept under the carpet. The revelations cannot be swept under the carpet because they are old news. I say that they are matters of extreme public importance and that they have to be seen right through to the nth degree. Today's press reveals that quite a number of people have been subpoenaed to appear before the Cooke inquiry. I believe that those people will have to ante up. Quite frankly, it leads well and truly to the ranks of the union movement and to appointments that have been made to the Industrial Commission. Those people have to answer; they have to be accountable. No doubt the Minister for Industrial Relations will give his assurance that they will be required to give testimony, of whatever kind, and that the Cooke inquiry will not be interfered with. It does seem to me that the Minister is one of the people who seems to want the Cooke inquiry either closed down or curtailed. Very shortly, the Minister will have the opportunity to stand up and tell honourable members that the Cooke inquiry will proceed, that it will not be interfered with, that it will not be tampered with. The Government will have to wear the cost of the Cooke inquiry, just as the former National Party Government had to wear the cost of the Fitzgerald inquiry. If the Government wants to enter into discussions about future public inquiries and the cost of conducting them, perhaps that can be done. However, it must leave things the way they are at present. It must see this thing through. I ask why Marshall Cooke, QC, is being singled out for this particular sort of harassment. There is no other word for it. He is being harassed. He is either being told to hurry up, that he is spending too much money, that he is too slow or that he is bringing up old news. Why on earth was not the same criteria applied to Fitzgerald or Drummond? Not a word was heard during those inquiries. It is only because it is starting to get too close for comfort that this pressure and harassment is being brought to bear on Mr Cooke. The Opposition recognises that in the last three years a lot of public money has been spent on inquiries, from Fitzgerald and Drummond through to Cooke. We have seen the establishment of the Criminal Justice Commission and the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission. These reform bodies, these accountable bodies, are all in the name of making sure that corruption is kept to the lowest level possible. However, they are very expensive. The Budget documents reveal that the cost of the EARC and the CJC is very high. In the order of $20m has been allocated for those two bodies. When one adds to that the costs associated with Fitzgerald and Drummond, one finds that the total cost is in the order of $50m. That is very expensive. The Opposition is aware of that. However, it is a question of whether the cost is allowed to get in the way of accountability and reform. There may have been a problem in this State. There has certainly been a problem in just about every other State. However, this State has made a conscious decision, through this inquiry system, to work through to a finality in the area of accountability which is second to none in any other State and probably in the world. If a commitment has been made—and I believe that it was made two or three years ago—the Government should adhere to that commitment, as should every member of this House, because it is a commitment that was made in good faith and in the public interest. Members of the public should not have the wool pulled over their eyes in the name of cost because they, in the very first place, believed that all forms of public expenditure should be fully scrutinised and that there should be public accountability. That is exactly the commitment that the National Party Government made, and as an Opposition it is recommending very strongly that the Government also make that commitment. Again I remind members of the Government that many of them rode into power in the 1989 election on the issues of accountability and financial stringency. Now the Government faces the acid test. It has the opportunity to prove itself. The Government has found out that when the going gets tough, it has to front up. The same applies to parliamentary expenses. When the heat was turned up, the former National Party Government certainly anted up and fronted up. If this Government is to have any credibility and respect, it is going to have to adhere to the commitment that was made and make sure that Legislative Assembly 3995 23 October 1990 members of the Cabinet do not in any way tamper with, interfere with, override or curtail the Cooke inquiry. That inquiry must be allowed to proceed. I fully commend this motion to the House. Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10.44 a.m.): I am pleased to second the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition that this House expresses its confidence in Mr Marshall Cooke, QC, and calls upon the Government to maintain the present levels of financial support for the Cooke inquiry. As the Leader of the Opposition indicated, the Government faces a test today. This Government—in particular this Premier—was elected on a platform of accountability and propriety in everything that Governments are involved in and—— Mr Elliott: And to keep the Minister for revenge under control, too. Mr BORBIDGE: And to keep the Minister for revenge under control. For the benefit of members of the Government, I point out that one cannot have selective morality. The simple fact is that this Government has an obligation. This Government, more than any other recently elected Government in Australia, came to power because it said that there had to be a better set of rules, that there had to be better standards. In recent weeks, what have honourable members seen? They have seen a sustained effort to undermine Commissioner Cooke and his commission of inquiry. That sustained effort has been orchestrated, stage-managed, by the political minders on the 15th floor of the Executive Building. They have seen a slow but steady process of denigration against Marshall Cooke and against the commission of inquiry build up each time the commission of inquiry starts to get a little closer to people associated with the Australian Labor Party in Queensland. The Minister for Health has denigrated the Cooke inquiry; the Premier came home from overseas and questioned the amount of money that the inquiry is costing; and, of course, the "Minister for Revenge", who should be in the Chamber participating in and listening to this debate, the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations, has been going all out to undermine this particular inquiry. I suggest to the House that the comments that have been made over the last couple of days are not unrelated to certain subpoenas that were issued by the Cooke inquiry last week. As the Cooke inquiry moves towards an investigation of the Australian Workers Union, I would welcome an assurance from the Premier that the renewed interest in and enthusiasm for criticising Marshall Cooke is completely unrelated to those subpoenas. A subpoena has been issued to Mr Errol Hodder, a former vice-president of the Australian Labor Party in Queensland and general secretary of the AWU, and a key Goss power-broker. The inquiry is about to issue a subpoena to Deidre Swan, a former vice-president of the State branch of the AWU and now a member of the State Industrial Commission. Subpoenas have also been issued by the Cooke inquiry to State ALP secretary, Bill Ludwig; State president, Barry Meiklejohn; and a host of other Labor officials, including Gary Ryan, Keith Goding, Graeme Clarke, Edgar Williams, Brian Lyndon and Denis Keck. That is the reason why the Labor Party has started to become very sensitive about the activities of Marshall Cooke and the commission of inquiry. Government members interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: I can understand why Government members are touchy. The simple fact is that the Cooke inquiry is starting to get a bit too close to the bone. So, what does the Government do? As it did with the CJC when the commission handed down a report that it did not like, it orchestrates a massive campaign to denigrate the commissioner and to try to provide grounds why the people of Queensland should not have confidence in the inquiry. The Government tries to create the impression that the inquiry is costing a massive amount of money. I suggest that, in terms of accountability and propriety, no price should be placed upon the inquiry, because Governments have a responsibility to ensure that corruption, wherever it may be, is exposed. I look forward to the Government's response in just a few minutes. It will have the opportunity to put Legislative Assembly 3996 23 October 1990 its cards on the table. Over recent weeks, and, of course, during question-time, the Opposition has sought from the Premier, the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations, and others, their unequivocal support for Marshall Cooke, and that has not been forthcoming. Their comments have been tempered with ridicule and they have made a very sustained, underlying attack on the commissioner. It will be very interesting to see how Government members vote on this motion. I am aware that the Matters of Public Interest debate will commence at 11 o'clock. I would like to say a lot more. I believe it is only fair that, in this instance, the Government give the people of Queensland the assurance that they are seeking, that is, that the Premier, who was elected on the platform of providing the highest standards of accountability and propriety, is prepared to provide to the Cooke inquiry the same resources and the same commitment as the previous National Party Government was prepared to give Tony Fitzgerald, QC. I can well imagine the outrage that would have been expressed by the Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition, and by honourable members opposite who now comprise the Government, if one Minister in the previous National Party Government had made one comment in respect of Tony Fitzgerald, the likes of which honourable members have heard from the Premier, the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and, even this morning, the Minister for Health made in respect of Marshall Cooke. This Parliament has an obligation to send a unanimous message to Marshall Cooke that he has the support of its duly elected members to get on with the job, knowing full well that he will be given the tools that he needs to continue his investigations. I can understand the sensitivity of honourable members opposite when people close to them are subpoenaed, when people whom they have appointed to major positions within this State, including a commissioner of the State Industrial Commission, receive a subpoena, but if it is to maintain its credibility with the people of Queensland, the Government has to see the inquiry through. The motion that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition deserves the unanimous support of all members in this Parliament. Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts) (10.51 a.m.): I will put this fairly superficial contribution from the Opposition in context. This debate arises not because of any genuine concern on the part of Opposition members, but simply because they are an Opposition without an issue and do not have the ability to put forward an issue or anything positive to the people of this State. This situation arose in these circumstances, that the responsible Minister, Mr Warburton, expressed concern about the failure of this commission to keep to the commissioner's own timetable. The commissioner laid down a timetable that was more than generous in terms of completing the work, and that would have seen the four reports delivered successively every two months, with the final report being delivered in July or August of this year. The commissioner has failed, for no good reason, to keep to his own deadline. The Government makes no complaint about this failure to keep to the timetable. It simply observes the point. However, the Government does have a responsibility for the expenditure of public funds, and I do not care whether it is a Queen's Counsel—— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Opposition have moved a motion and have demanded answers from the Premier. I think they should be quiet and listen to them, otherwise I will warn some honourable members. Mr W. K. GOSS: The Government has a responsibility, whether it relates to the QCs down at the other end of George Street who have been on the gravy train for the last three years or to the total Budget process, to exercise accountability in relation to public funds. The reason why this debate is occurring is that the Opposition is floundering. It is floundering so badly that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition had to write a letter to his shadow Ministers. The Opposition Leader's letter, dated 22 October, which one of his would-be Ministry has given to me, states that he will be “addressing Central Legislative Assembly 3997 23 October 1990

Council at Townsville on Sunday, 3 November”. He states also that they should be up on the stage with him, as best they can work it out. The point is that the Leader of the Opposition states in that letter— ". . . you might like to have questions raised to gain prominence for whatever issues in your portfolio area you might like to see brought to the fore". The Opposition has to organise Dorothy Dixers at its own conference. In relation to the various inquiries—— Opposition members interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: Do members opposite want me to table it? I table it. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr W. K. GOSS: In relation to the various inquiries—— Opposition members interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: Time is running out. Do honourable members opposite want some assurances or not? Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Warrego is warned under Standing Order 123A. My patience is wearing very thin. Mr W. K. GOSS: In relation to the very generous fees that are being paid to Mr Marshall Cooke, and which have been paid to a host of other members of the legal profession in this State, I think that the very high cost of legal fees in Queensland as well as in the rest of Australia today is very unfortunate. I tend to think that legal fees are out of control. However, a Government has to accept that those fees are the market rate and that if an inquiry is to be established or the services of lawyers, particularly prominent QCs in the private profession, are to be secured for a court case or some other purpose, the market rate has to be paid to them. That is what the previous Government did and that is what this Government has been doing in respect of Marshall Cooke. The meter has been ticking away at 300 bucks an hour, three grand a day. It is up to $600,000. All we on this side are saying is that, although that market rate can be justified, we are entitled to ask the question on behalf of the public: is it justified to go on ad infinitum? Surely we must learn—— Mr Borbidge: What's this got to do with Marshall Cooke? Mr W. K. GOSS: Listen. We must learn from the experience of the Fitzgerald inquiry, we must learn from the experience of the Special Prosecutor's Office, we must learn from the experience of the Cooke inquiry and start to examine the kind of options that have been brought into practise by this Government in respect of the Ward 10B inquiry, an inquiry which is dealing with much more serious issues and with much greater success at much less cost to the public of this State than is the Cooke inquiry. The Government is quite prepared to accept whatever evidence of wrong-doing or corruption Mr Cooke can bring out—and most of it has been addressed in previous court cases. The Government will accept whatever he brings out again for a bit of recycling, or whatever new material is brought forward. It will be dealt with by this Government and sent to the Office of the Director of Prosecutions, which is an independent office, for prosecution to occur. The administration of justice in this State will see no distinction between corrupt Cabinet Ministers and union officials, candlestick-makers, police officers, journalists, lawyers or whoever. Under this Government, they will not be protected in the way they were under the previous Government. They will be brought to justice. I do not care who they are, they will be brought to justice. Let me say in relation to some of the hypocrisy that has come from the other side that recently in the media a Queensland Liberal senator criticised the level of fees paid Legislative Assembly 3998 23 October 1990 to the QCs involved in the inquiry into black deaths in custody. It seems that, as far as the Liberal Party is concerned, there is one rule for QCs who are members of the Labor Party and another rule for QCs who are former Liberal members of Parliament. I think members opposite should address this hypocrisy in their contribution to the debate. In the limited time that is left to me, I want to say in relation to the Cooke inquiry—and I think this goes to the crux of the concern allegedly raised by the Opposition—that I understand that at present the budget of the Cooke inquiry has not been exceeded so there is no problem. The Minister has simply foreshadowed a concern if the inquiry runs way over its timetable. That situation is being monitored. No decision has been taken to cut the resources or the fees of Mr Cooke. If the inquiry does run over time, that situation will have to be addressed. From what I have heard from members opposite, and from my understanding of the motion, this Government would have no problem supporting the motion. It will listen to what comes forward. However, I do not see any problem at all in supporting the motion. Government members will support—and I stress this because the wording of the motion is a bit ambiguous—the current budget for the Cooke inquiry. The Government has carried over $1.3m for the inquiry into this current financial year. The inquiry's current budget will be supported. However, the Government will not support any unnecessary use or any unnecessary waste of public money. In conclusion, I indicate that if the inquiry runs way over its timetable and there has to be a new special allocation, we will then judge that special allocation—and the administration and structure of that special allocation—of further funds as may be required on the basis of what we regard as financially responsible. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time has elapsed. It is now the General Business—Matters of Public Interest debate. I call the Leader of the Opposition. MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Economy Mr COOPER (Roma—Leader of the Opposition) (11 a.m.): It is apparent that, in relation to economic matters, everybody in this country, except the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, knows that this nation is in the grips of a very damaging and a very dangerous recession. It is dangerous because people have developed a very great fear that this downturn, which is killing businesses and jobs, wrecking families and stifling development, is not an end in itself; that it is not a temporary state at all; that it is in fact a symptom of a long-term, intractable malaise in the political and economic maladministration of this country. Australians know that this recession, which the Prime Minister and the Treasurer refuse to acknowledge, is not the result of cyclical quirks of the commodity markets or some unpredictable macro-economic problem over which they have no control. If that was the case, there would be an expectation that, in due course, things would return to normal and that Australia would return to the prosperity that Australians have become used to. That is not the current mood in this country. The ordinary Australian now fears very deeply—even if the Prime Minister and the Treasurer do not—that he is paying for chronic mismanagement of the economy over a long period and will continue paying for it forever with chronic instability and chronic basic shortcomings in our economy. The ordinary Australian knows that only lip-service has been paid to the real problems that Australia confronts, namely, those relating to micro-economic reform, productivity, exports, waterfront reform and the balance of payments together with the urgent need for sweeping industry reforms. Ordinary Australians know that, in recent years, those issues should have been addressed as matters of great urgency and that they have wrongly put their faith in this Government to do just that. They know that the problems were identified years ago and are still on the back burner. For far too long, those problems have been deemed by far too many to be just too hard. The result is probably the deepest level of concern about the direction and the future of this country that has been experienced since the Great Depression. I Legislative Assembly 3999 23 October 1990 am not being alarmist. I am being realistic and reflecting the concerns of a majority of Australians. If the Federal Government and this Government, which are working hand in hand, are not getting that impression from their constituency, they are even further out of touch than their actions suggest and their usefulness to the Australian people is at an end. The straw that broke the camel's back for many individuals and businesses was the fuel crisis that arose because of the Middle East crisis. No blame accrues to Australian Governments for the crisis. The causes of it were obviously completely beyond their control. That we were so vulnerable to the impact of this latest energy crisis has everything to do with the failure of Government. We were like the little pigs who built with straw and sticks—one good puff and over we went. What are we getting from the Federal Government? Inane suggestions that it is not as bad as it was in 1982 and 1983! The Federal Government claims that the high interest rate policy has done its job—it has done its job all right—and that restraint can be eased. It claims also that, by the middle of next year, the economy will turn around. For the past seven years, the Federal Government has been saying that the economy would turn around by the middle of each year. The only thing that even looked like turning around was opinion polls. At last, Australians are waking up to the fact that Hawke and Keating are really just another disastrous Labor pairing in the tradition of Cain and Jolly and Whitlam and Cairns. In common with their predecessors, in typical cynical fashion they are seeking a political result, not an economic result. They have not lifted the lid on interest rates out of concern about the suffering or damage that they have caused. They have lifted the lid because they have received the political message. They know that they are doomed. Australians can now expect the motivation for the economic mismanagement of this nation to shift from ideological gutlessness to blind panic. During this decade in Australia, only one Government had the guts and foresight to make the right economic decisions on behalf of its constituents. That was the National Party Government of Queensland, which lived within its means and kept taxes and spending down. Time after time it balanced Budgets, created cheap power, addressed waterfront reform and created voluntary employment agreements. The National Party Government borrowed only what it could afford to repay. It fully funded its superannuation, workers' compensation and third-party schemes and created jobs faster than any other State did. Year after year, the National Party Government proved that it could manage a growing economy in the best interests of the people of this State. On that basis I offer some advice to the Prime Minister and the Premier. A special Premiers Conference is scheduled to be held in Brisbane at the end of this month. Last week, the agenda to be discussed at that conference was leaked to the country in the Federal Parliament. It reads like the script for a mad hatter's tea party. It is an agenda for yet another talkfest. Australia is suffering a recession. At a time when people are going broke and families are being destroyed, the Federal Government should be addressing such emergencies rather than engaging in a talkfest. If people believe that all that talk might actually achieve something, there are topics that certainly ought to receive attention, such as waterfront reform and the need to address environmental issues that are holding up billions of dollars in developments throughout this country, not out of concern about the environment but for the votes of the environmentalists. The Premiers Conference must not be just another talkfest. The time for talking is over. This is the time for action. The Prime Minister and the Premiers should scrap their plans for a talkfest. Instead, they must look squarely in the face the scale and the urgency of the problems facing this country and should undertake not to leave Brisbane until such time as they have obtained answers for the immediate and urgent implementation of remedies to overcome those problems. They must find a way to immediately ease the impact of the fuel crisis before it adds several points to inflation, kills more businesses and costs even more jobs. They must immediately ease the payroll tax burden on businesses to help boost employment. As well, the Prime Minister and the Premiers must find ways of getting off the ground languishing projects such as the Legislative Assembly 4000 23 October 1990

Comalco expansion at Gladstone and the nickel ore project at Townsville. They must give immediate commitments for Federal support for infrastructure development, if that is what it needs. They must get those projects moving at all costs, and that can be done. The Prime Minister and the Premiers should stop talking about waterfront reform and do something now. In order to boost productivity, this year—not in five years or never—they must reach agreement to speed up dramatically the move towards enterprise agreements. They must scrap the iniquitous Inter-State Commission report on road-user charges and fund roads from the fuel tax from which roads were always supposed to be funded. They must address the whole range of micro-economic reform issues. Australia has had a gutful of the ALP's warm inner glow and its pussy-footing with economic reform. As long as the Government has the will, the desire and the commitment, it will find that it can easily come to grips with those issues. Queenslanders and Australians generally have had a gutful of voodoo economics and the threats and arrogance that are associated with ALP party politics. The people want leadership, and they want it desperately. However, as long as the Prime Minister has his head in the sand and as long as the Premiers do not recognise the great urgency of the problem, the people will not get the leadership they want. It is not a time to panic, but it is a time for the politicians of this country to start earning their pay, to start governing and to stop playing politics. The Archbishop of Brisbane and many other church leaders hit the nail on the head when they identified the problems that Queensland and Australia face. Quite often, the politicians do not get it right. In too many instances, the Federal Government—and the Labor Government in Queensland is intent on following the Federal line—is not prepared to come to grips with the real issues, but instead, looks constantly for excuses. Environmental Damage at Gulnare Inlet Mrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (11.09 a.m.): I bring to the attention of honourable members what I consider to be an urgent issue—the damage that is being done to the environment in the Whitsundays. Gulnare Inlet is a narrow inlet into the south-western end of Whitsunday Island. The inlet is approximately 5 kilometres long, with a breadth of approximately 400 metres at the lower end diminishing to 200 metres or less half way up the inlet. It is very narrow, shoaling to a metre or less half way up the inlet at low tide. Throughout its entire length, Gulnare Inlet is lined with mangroves and there are extensive mangrove forests in the upper end of the inlet. The inlet is a turtle habitat, with turtles being a common sight. Also to be observed are white-breasted sea eagles, osprey and brahminy kites. Those raptors are singled out for mention amongst other sightings due to their dependence upon marine life to be found in the habitat. Wading birds such as oyster-catchers, whimbrels, herons etc. also frequent the mangroves. Daily, Gulnare Inlet is used by commercial ski-boat operators based on Hamilton Island. I have observed one or more ski boats operating up and down the inlet and, in particular, in the upper reaches of the inlet where it is narrow and shallow. To my dismay, inquiries have revealed that the Hamilton Island interests operate under a special permit from the marine park authority and other responsible departments. That permit was granted by the former National Party Government. For two or more years, the permit has been operating. It seems that the precincts of the resort have become saturated and that neighbouring public estate must be annexed. It is obvious that Gulnare Inlet is a classic marine and wildlife habitat and breeding area and is one of only two mangrove-lined inlets in the Whitsunday group. All boating activity must impact on the area and, in due course, degrade the habitat. However, until the advent of water-skiing, the inlet was used mostly by yachts and displacement vessels as an anchorage. On the other hand, ski boats proceed repeatedly up and down the waterway at very high speed, discharging toxic exhaust into the water and churning up the shallow bottom. In addition, the wake of those boats induces constant wave action, which continually washes into the mangroves lining the inlet. I emphasise that continuous high- speed operations must accelerate fatigue in the environment and, if one element of the ecosystem is impaired, that will impact upon the whole system. Legislative Assembly 4001 23 October 1990

It is a matter of great concern to me that resort-based commercial tourist and other activities will impact unduly and prematurely on the national park to its detriment and that of other users of the park. Strict control must therefore be exercised, with decisions always weighted towards the environment. Water- skiing in a delicate area is an obvious example of detrimental use. Because the inlet is handy to the resort base, operators see no reason why they should not automatically appropriate any other area of the national park for their commercial gain. Now that a permit has been issued and a precedent has been set, the operators are crying that their livelihood is threatened by objections. It was obvious that, upon sanction of that activity, damage would follow. Operators should not have been encouraged to expect the use of the public domain for their living. It appeared to me to be paradoxical to read in our local newspaper that a person apprehended with any part of a turtle, whether obtained under sinister circumstances or not, will incur a $1,000 fine and confiscation and then to find that the agencies that are responsible for the enforcement of that protection may unknowingly be permitting the destruction of a habitat of those creatures. I find it strange that, in literature available from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, activities such as water-skiing, paragliding etc. do not appear to be recognised as affecting sensitive areas. Were such activities to occur at a depth of, say, one metre above a coral colony, the reaction would be immediate. To continually stir up the bottom in a shallow inlet would have a similarly harmful effect. In the Yachtsman's Handbook to the Whitsunday Passage, a definitive guide, the phrase "excellent all-weather anchorage" occurs only twice. The two instances are Nara Inlet on Hook Island and Gulnare Inlet. It is unnecessary to elaborate upon the incompatibility between boats at anchor and sports boats that pass and re-pass at high speed; the nuisance is unacceptable. The displacement vessels, which are the major users of Gulnare Inlet, do so for its tranquillity. On the other hand the water skiers are primarily interested in a stretch of calm water for maximum speed. It is unlucky for the majority that the inlet is within easy reach of Hamilton Island. Water skiing in Gulnare Inlet interferes with the right of other users to pursue their normal boating recreation. Because it is not possible at all times for ski boats to maintain the statutory separation from anchored vessels, I believe that the permit for skiing has been granted on petition from the operators without due consideration of the circumstances. Airlie Beach residents of 45 years are witness to the acceleration of the impact of man-made intrusion into this unique area. Although for a great part this intrusion is inevitable, I look to the agencies that are entrusted with the management of the area to lessen the impact as far as it is within their power to do so. I recommend that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority include high-speed water sports in the zonal category for activities which, by their nature, subject sensitive areas of the park to constant and heavy use. Further, I see justification for an urgent review of the use of this fragile part of the national park by agencies that are precipitating its destruction. Queensland Police Service Mr DUNWORTH (Sherwood) (11.17 a.m.): I rise to discuss a matter of great public interest. "The policing system in Queensland is in chaos." Those prophetic words were uttered by the present Minister for Police and Emergency Services when he addressed a conference of the Queensland Police Union on 4 April 1989 as the then ALP spokesman on Police. He said that that situation was due to a lack of staff and resources and the failure to make decisions. Times have not changed. The Minister went on to say— "Queensland's policemen and policewomen are being asked by the Government to do the impossible: reduce the level and incidence of crime in our state and to do it with the most undermanned force in Australia and a reduced police budget." Mr Hollis: What about the extra 400 we put in in this last Budget? Legislative Assembly 4002 23 October 1990

Mr DUNWORTH: There are 206 to date, so the Government is 194 short. In the same speech the Minister said— "Events of the last two years have put public confidence in the Queensland Police Force at its lowest ebb ever, resulting naturally in low police morale and ever increasing police resignations." Further on in the same speech he stated— "A better deal is needed by the citizens of Queensland and a better deal is needed for our police force if it is to have any chance at all of doing its job properly." What has changed after 12 months of the Goss Labor Government? Everyone, except the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues, knows the answer to that. The answer is that nothing has changed. In fact, things are worse. An article in the Gold Coast Bulletin on 6 October 1989, under the heading "Crimes soar but solved cases fall", stated— "Police clean-up of crime fell from 40 to 36 per cent with 1 000 more assaults, more robberies, rapes and break and enters in Queensland in the last financial year." We must prepare ourselves, because the latest crime statistics will be worse. There has been an increase of 26 000 in the number of crimes committed this year. Why else would the Government criticise the basis on which the 1988-89 statistics were collated when they were checked by the Fitzgerald commission before they were released? That was the reason why they were delayed. In the same article the present Police Minister said that the report was an indictment on both the previous Government and the then Premier, Russell Cooper, who served as Police Minister throughout that period. Surely the present Minister must reach the same conclusion about his own performance and that of his Government? What is the position with law and order? Everyone knows—and today's Leahy's cartoon in the Courier-Mail says it all, "The safest people in Australia: Crims." What a joke it is! This is probably more appropriate to Queensland than anywhere else in Australia, because this State has the lowest police-to- population ratio in Australia, the lowest spending on police per head of population in Australia and the lowest paid police force in Australia. In addition, so far this year there have been 315 armed robberies reported in Queensland, which is a 200 per cent increase. Law and order has broken down under this Government and crime is on the rampage. What has the Goss Labor Government done for the Queensland Police Service? Mr Santoro: Absolutely nothing. Mr DUNWORTH: That is correct, absolutely nothing. On 10 December last year, Mr Mackenroth promised that he would increase next year's police budget by 20 per cent, but the result is that there has been a 0.4 of 1 per cent increase in spending, with an actual 14 per cent decrease in the police budget allocation for the solving of major crimes. Mr Mackenroth also said that he would install an extra 1 200 police by the end of Labor's first term in office. The result is that there have been record resignation rates—the highest in Australia, and costing the taxpayer approximately $44.5m—which are a result of low morale and stress both on the job and at home due to financial pressure. Mr Mackenroth was also going to increase police officers' pay to make it equivalent to that of the best paid police officers in Australia, but said that they would have to wait until July of this year. Nothing has happened, and it is now the end of October. The result is a fiasco. There was to be a consultant's report, but, 10 months later, we have finally been told that it did not proceed, even though one of the Minister's own staff members told the Sun just three weeks ago that the reason it has not been released is that it is not finished. Did the report cost $600,000, as reported, and what did it conclude? The police have a legitimate claim for increased wages, as was illustrated by the example given by the Queensland Police Union of a police officer without allowances who would have been better off by $25 a fortnight if he had stayed at home Legislative Assembly 4003 23 October 1990 with his wife and two children and gone on the dole. A senior constable with 15 years service is paid $28,600, and a senior sergeant, who is probably in his late thirties or early forties, is paid $34,600. Police officers risk their lives and undertake work that is not only dangerous but also extremely stressful. They lose their lives in looking after the welfare of the public, and they do the jobs that others would not wish to undertake. They keep order and they protect people, and they deserve to be adequately compensated. Presently, many undertake a second job to survive. Poor pay leads to a fertile climate for corruption. A letter from a police officer that was sent to me last week states— "Sir, let me tell you the Police Service is in turmoil. It is not only the prolonged wait for the pay increase, it is the hopeless management running the Police Service. If morale gets any lower there will be a strike, the men are fed up." At present, the Queensland Police Union is talking about a strike because it believes that that is the only way to achieve reasonable remuneration for its members. The CJC has publicly supported increased payment for police, yet the Minister for Police has called the secretary of the Queensland Police Union a whinger because he pointed out the list of broken promises and the dismal performance of the Minister in his portfolio. On the public airways the Minister has also called the Treasurer of the Queensland Police Union a liar for trying to represent the union's members. At the same time, it was reported that the Minister met with the union three times in eight months. Is he trying to avoid the union, or assist it? Presently, Japanese tour group leaders are warning of dire consequences for the tourism industry, which is one of the few bright lights left in Labor's induced recession. Unless law and order are restored on the Gold Coast, the tourism industry will suffer. The Japanese are offering to pay for additional police and equipment, and the Minister finds that acceptable. Where is this Government's pride? Do Queenslanders now accept charity from the Japanese to protect their citizens? This is part of the degrading hand-out philosophy of the Labor Government. Is the money for the promised pay rises in the Budget? I cannot find it. If the Minister applied the same standards in Government as he applied in Opposition, he would resign and allow this extremely important portfolio to be championed by a Minister who is not enfeebled by responsibility and who has the muscle to push through Cabinet the approval for the funds that are necessary to fulfil this Government's promises and restore law and order to this State. When forming his Cabinet, the Honourable Wayne Goss, as Premier of Queensland, indicated that any Minister who did not perform would be transferred to the back bench to allow a more capable person to serve as a Minister. Surely the Premier regards this as an inadequate performance. Police services in the community need to be given a high priority by the Government; otherwise, crime will overwhelm us all. Perhaps the Minister would feel more comfortable if he had more time to concentrate on the sale of the Government aircraft. The Police Service requires a high priority and a capable Minister. Sentences Imposed on Women Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (11.27 a.m.): I rise to speak on a matter of public interest that concerns the manner in which women are treated before the law. Specifically, I wish to refer to a case that was reported in the Sunday Mail of 14 October 1990. In the Brisbane District Court, Suzanne Mary Greskie pleaded guilty to a charge that she corruptly promised free sexual services from her employees in return for protection from punishment. Greskie also pleaded guilty to keeping a bawdy house at Maroochydore. She was sentenced to 12 months' gaol on both charges, the two sentences to be served concurrently. Today, I am not here to defend the act of prostitution; nor have I ever met Suzanne Greskie. However, this case was reported at the same time as a much more famous case—that relating to Don Lane, who has also been sentenced to a year's gaol on 87 counts of misappropriation of public money. Legislative Assembly 4004 23 October 1990

Issues relating to crime and criminal justice have never been as prominent in the nation's affairs as they have been in recent years. It is timely to note that there is no evidence that women get off lightly before the courts. In fact, women are more likely to go to gaol for a first offence than are men. The overwhelming majority of women sent to prison have been convicted of property crimes or driving offences. Few women have been sentenced to prison terms for violent offences and, when they have been, the woman's crime has often been that she killed her male partner after enduring years of domestic violence. Other offences for which women receive prison sentences are drug-trafficking and breaches of court orders. Women in prison are more likely to have committed a victimless crime, such as prostitution or possession of drugs, than are male prisoners. If the general public has trouble coming to terms with the fact that Don Lane, who held an office of great responsibility, abused his position by misappropriating vast amounts of public money and received a 12-month sentence whereas a brothel madam, who gave free sex to four CIB detectives, effectively received the same sentence as Lane, then people should also be aware that the law of prostitution plays a double game with women. In the main, men are not arrested and prosecuted for approaching women and suggesting that they engage in sexual intercourse for payment of a fee. The law penalises the woman who sells her tools of trade in a transaction that might enable her to control her own income and her own sexuality. The law relating to women has been drawn up with reference to the way in which men define women, that is, as wretched whores who are responsible for their ability to lead men into committing offences against them. If the law is to reinstate itself to be in any way relevant to the true needs, abilities and responsibilities of women, it must be redrawn from the perspective of a woman as a person. In his report, Tony Fitzgerald, QC, stated— "The most common reasons for becoming a prostitute are: lack of employment prospects (usually because of the lack of skills), lack of affordable housing and the need to support dependents or pay debts. For people who need money and have no skills, particularly young people, the lure of big money is great. Some prostitutes join the industry for a limited period or for a specific purpose, for example, to earn money to pay for expensive consumer goods, pay a debt, meet an extraordinary expense caused by misfortune or illness or to pay for luxuries." Money is important. It should be recognised that the prostitute is the wage-earner. Women become prostitutes in order to earn a wage. The law which condemns women for carrying on that trade does not take into account the lack of equal opportunity for women in legitimate and lucrative careers open to men. It is easier for the community to salve its conscience, to take quick revenge by putting somebody in gaol, than to do the hard work and undertake the self-analysis involved in addressing the underlying social issues which result in a democratic and free society imprisoning large numbers of its women for this victimless crime. The depressing facts about prostitution—the drugs, the organised crime and intimidation—do not necessarily mean that prohibition of it and other sex-related activities is the best way of meeting social need. Prostitution is age-old and will continue while people are prepared to buy and sell sex. For the overall benefit of the community, it may be better to control and regulate prostitution, not merely prohibit it. On page 193 of his report, Tony Fitzgerald stated— ". . . public health considerations are probably better served by legal, controlled prostitution where women can be urged or forced to go for health checks, or at least feel free to do so without the fear of prosecution. Safe sex practices might also be able to be enforced as part of a regulated system of prostitution, and education of clients and prostitutes would be easier. Licensed brothels could even be required to hand out literature on the risks of sexually transmitted diseases. These matters are of particular concern because of the current worldwide major health problems associated with sexual activated, including Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Legislative Assembly 4005 23 October 1990

. . . a regulated system of prostitution could eliminate many of the problems associated with the industry. Any such system should have appropriate controls and a strong emphasis on education of prostitutes about private and public health considerations. Such a system would reduce prostitutes' present vulnerability to pressure for unsafe sexual practice and inability to seek help when they are being abused." I look forward to the Criminal Justice Commission's report on prostitution. For too long the double standards with regard to this act have unfairly punished women. In the past, the law has been aimed at hindering women from earning independent incomes. In past ages, prostitution was perhaps the only method by which women could do so. The tide has turned. We live in a more enlightened age. Men can no longer halt women's ability to earn an independent income. Our present laws regarding prostitution are somewhat anachronistic. We can no longer close our eyes to this act and pretend it does not happen in Queensland. Nor can we continue to place women in prison for this victimless, non-violent act. In economic terms, it costs the taxpayer approximately $35,000 to keep a prostitute in prison for a year. In social terms, those women, many of whom have suffered great social disadvantage such as homelessness, poverty, unemployment and illiteracy prior to their imprisonment, gain nothing from a prison term. Needless to say, prison does nothing to improve the position of those women. After imprisonment, they have the additional handicap of the stigma attached to ex-prisoners. The prison system of this State should not be used as a form of punishment for women who represent no life-threatening risk to public safety. The laws of this State should be redrawn to reflect the perspective of women as individuals. In The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir stated— "This humanity is male and man defines woman not in herself but as relative to him; she is not regarded as an autonomous being . . . She is defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her: she is the incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is the subject, he is the absolute—she is the other." In common with many other Queenslanders, I will be very interested to see who leaves prison first: he who once had the backing of the establishment and abused our trust or she whose vulnerable profession is as old as the ages. Rural Crisis Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (11.36 a.m.): The subject to which I shall refer is indeed a matter of public interest. One only has to read the newspaper to ascertain that something is wrong in Australia. I refer to the rural crisis and other related matters. On Monday, 22 October, the Courier-Mail displayed a photograph of Mr Graham Nichols, a Dalby chemist, with an effigy of a small- businessman being hanged at a rally conducted at Dalby. The article stated— "More than 2 000 rural Queenslanders turned out for a hanging at Dalby yesterday." Mr Elliott: Nearly 3 000. Mr FITZGERALD: As the honourable member for Cunningham reminds me, the figure was closer to 3 000. Government members interjected. Mr FITZGERALD: I notice many jocular and jovial interjections coming my way from Government members. On Monday, 22 October, an article in the Toowoomba Chronicle stated— "Rural crisis rally says it's time for change. Change policies or change Govt." Legislative Assembly 4006 23 October 1990

It contained the phrase "almost 3 000 angry farmers". Therefore, according to newspaper reports, between 2 000 and 3 000 farmers turned up at a rally at Dalby. I am also concerned about an article that appeared on page 4 of the Toowoomba Chronicle of Monday, 22 October, which was headed "Health problems increase as farmers battle crisis". That article states— "The rural crisis is affecting nerves other than the hip pocket—farmers are losing their nerve and the stress could soon kill." A Government member interjected. Mr FITZGERALD: I notice that a member of the Government is laughing. I hope that he is not laughing at what I am saying. The article also states— " 'Indigestion, depression, tiredness, malaise, eyes with a haunted look, not sleeping.' " These are the words of a doctor. The article goes on— "He said farm children were also showing the effects of living in a rural recession." 'Men who feel they're a failure can't inspire their children and their children are showing it. 'Children that see their fathers work like a slave for nothing can't be inspired to work." I refer now to an article in Saturday's Courier-Mail headed "Hard times hit country businesses". Businesses are the next to suffer. The farmers find themselves in crisis, then the small businesses in towns follow. That article states— "Sale losses of up to 30 percent were forcing small businesses in rural communities into receivership, Dalby hardware owner Mr Jim Buckley said yesterday." Mr Buckley is the president of the Dalby Chamber of Commerce. I often wonder what effect these comments have on the rest of the citizens of Queensland. I wonder what they think when they observe these headlines. Some people say, "The farmers are having a tough time. It is a pity." I believe this should be of major concern to all Australians. Of course, it is of major concern to those people who are affected. I warn honourable members that everybody will be affected. There is no way in the world that the problem will stop with the small-businessman at Dalby. He will not be the last one who is affected. People ask themselves, "What is the root cause of this?" Many people say that they are upset with the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. They wonder why they are upset with the present Federal Labor Government. I will explain why. The Federal Government has had a policy of keeping the dollar high. It has done that by allowing interest rates to be increased to a level at which the necessary overseas money could be attracted into Australia. Of course, the interest rates overseas were a lot lower. People say, "So what? What was the effect of this?" When the dollar was pushed to the 84c level for a sustained period, people who were exporting their product overseas found that they could not get as many Australian dollars for that product as they had in the past. That is one of the root causes of the problems in the wool industry. When the Australian dollar was worth US 77c, as it is now, or even less, one would receive more Australian dollars for one's product than when it was worth US 84c. So massive stocks of wool have built up. In addition to those problems, our main buyers have been out of action. Russia, which is one of our biggest buyers, has had economic and political problems. The Eastern Europeans are usually big buyers, but they have been out of the market. The Japanese are extremely shrewd buyers. When there was a surplus, they sat back and waited for the floor price to come down. The high dollar has meant that the Australian wool-grower has been taking less and less for his product. The same applies to the wheat industry. There is a potential for conflict—a war—in the Middle East. Some of our major customers in the Middle East Legislative Assembly 4007 23 October 1990 have not been allowed to buy Australian product. The Australian wheat farmers have been bearing the full brunt of that attack. That means that there is a limited opportunity for Australian farmers to sell their wheat. Of course, with the wheat price reduced from about $165 a tonne to about $135 a tonne—— Mr Elliott: $74. Mr FITZGERALD: $74 on-farm—first payment—I have been advised by the member for Condamine. That is an absolute disaster. The sugar industry is suffering in exactly the same way. These problems are all the result of Federal Government policies. The vegetable-growers are also being affected. Throughout Australia one finds onions that are imported. As an union-grower, I have a pecuniary interest in this subject. We are going to plough onions into the ground unless we can sell the product. We have fertile country and the ability to produce a crop, yet on television last night I saw that in Victoria a lot of potatoes are being ploughed back into the ground. A lot of companies are importing French fries into Australia, while Australian farmers are ploughing their potatoes back into the ground. A lot of second-quality pears, which are slightly marked and would normally be sold to the fruit juice industry, are being dumped. There is no market for those pears because juices can be imported more cheaply than they can be manufactured in Australia. The high Australian dollar has allowed this to happen. The farmer runs into debt because he cannot sell his product. He suddenly finds that he is paying more and more interest—up to around about 20 per cent. This is of major concern. It will take at least five years of reasonable prices for these people to get themselves out of trouble—if they can. Mr Schwarten: What is the solution? Mr FITZGERALD: The member for Rockhampton North asks me, "What is the solution?" I have great confidence in the people of Dalby. A recent newspaper headline stated, "Rural people are angry and it is Hawke they want to hang". I am not in favour of capital punishment. However, I think that if the honourable member read the article, he would understand that the solution is to get rid of the Federal Government. I did intend to speak about some other issues. We must look after those industries that can support the Australian life-style. I refer to the rural industries and, of course, the mining industries. There is not enough access to the mining areas of Australia. The Mining Review of July 1990 states that approximately 26 per cent of Australia is locked up and not available for mining. The mining industries and the primary industries are providing the exports that enable Australians to live a reasonable life-style. The Australian standard of living is not just falling; it is absolutely crashing. Nothing can be done in the short term for primary industries except to get monetary policy right. Monetary policy also affects the mining industries. Another thing that is affecting the mining industries is the inaccessibility of land. I will say more about that, but I will leave those comments till later. About 26 per cent of Australia is unavailable for mining, and that percentage is growing all the time. That publication contains a map showing all the land that is already restricted. Of course, in Queensland not only the national parks but also the fauna reserves are restricted. It is at the whim of the Minister as to whether he allows negotiations to take place in regard to a fauna reserve and whether he allows the mining industry to move onto a fauna reserve. If one has to rely on the Minister, Mr Comben, then I am afraid I have great concerns with regard to future access to fauna reserves. We have to decide whether we want to have a solid, strong Australia that is going to provide our children and our children's children with a future, or whether we want to lock up reserves and make even more land unavailable for mining. On 22 March, the Minister for Resource Industries, in answer to a question from me, said— "I have explained to them"— that is, the people who had been to see him— "as Minister for Resource Industries, it is my responsibility to put forward to the Government my views on the development of our natural resources, and that Legislative Assembly 4008 23 October 1990

any final decision taken on the development of those resources will be taken by Cabinet collectively . . . " I say to the Minister for Resource Industries that if the Minister for the Environment, Mr Comben, makes decisions that affect the Government, they also affect the Minister's portfolio and that of the Premier. I am calling on the Minister to make land accessible to mining—— Time expired. Higher-education Facilities in Cairns Dr CLARK (Barron River) (11.47 a.m.): Friday, 19 October, was an important day in Cairns. It was on that day that I addressed some 500 students, teachers, parents and other concerned members of the community who attended a rally in support of upgrading higher education facilities in Cairns. I quote from a submission to the Government for higher education facilities in Cairns— ". . . the cream of our youth are not afforded the opportunity to pursue their particular career in life in their home area and this is a matter of grave concern to residents who feel that this unsatisfactory state of affairs has been tolerated for far too long a period." That quote was from a submission made by the Cairns Chamber of Commerce not in 1990 but in 1974, almost 16 years ago to the day. It is to the credit of the Chamber of Commerce that it is still at the forefront of current moves to upgrade the provision of education in Cairns. That submission was supported by all local authorities, the Cairns Port Authority and all local members of Parliament, including the then member for Barron River, Mr Bill Woods. The residents of Cairns and far-north Queensland are still wholeheartedly supporting the sentiments contained in that 1974 submission. Unfortunately, its words are as true now as they were 16 years ago. It was the view of the Government of the day, as expressed by the Minister for Education, Sir Alan Fletcher, that the provision of those higher educational facilities was not warranted at that time and that it was unlikely to be warranted "in the foreseeable future". I am pleased to say that that is not the view of the Queensland Government in 1990, which has pledged its support for the provision of higher education facilities in far-north Queensland. To return to my history lesson—the people of Cairns did not give up their quest for higher education and, 10 years later, took up the fight again. The Mulgrave Shire Council commissioned Cummings Economic Research Services, which prepared a report entitled "Case for a Tertiary Education Institution in the Cairns/far-north Queensland region". That report reached the conclusion that a higher education institution in Cairns would be viable, was necessary, and could play a substantial economic and cultural role in a region that had traditionally not needed to look to Government to achieve the main thrust of the community's progress. Incidentally, Mr Bill Cummings, the author of that report, is still very much involved in the continuing campaign for upgrading educational facilities in Cairns, and I wish to recognise his efforts. As a Mulgrave Shire councillor, I became a member of the Far-north Queensland Tertiary Education Committee, which was subsequently formed to lobby for the establishment of a tertiary institution in Cairns. That committee presented a submission to James Cook University, which has as its charter the provision of tertiary education facilities to all of north Queensland. On 2 April 1985, the university established a working party to consider the submission. On 6 February 1986, nearly a year later, acting on the advice of the then acting vice-chancellor, Professor D. H. Trollope, the council resolved to advise the Minister for Education, in part, as follows— "1. Council supports in principle the establishment of a University College in the Cairns region under the James Cook University of North Queensland Act 1970-1984 Part IV Establishment of Colleges . . . Legislative Assembly 4009 23 October 1990

2. The function of the College to be that of introducing University courses, including advanced education courses, or parts thereof, appropriate to the needs established in the Cairns region. 3. A Committee of Council to be set up with the following terms of reference: (i) to liaise with the Far North Queensland Tertiary Education Committee; (ii) to determine the extent and nature of the needs for the provisions of Higher Education in the Cairns region; (iii) to estimate the resources, both physical and human, necessary to meet these needs; (iv) to report to Council as soon as practicable with a view to making recommendations to the Governor in Council in accordance with the Act, and to permit an approach to be made to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) for consideration of any resulting proposals in the planning procedures for the 1988-90 Triennium." At a special meeting in Brisbane on 19 September 1986, which was convened by CTEC and attended by the vice-chancellor and the assistant vice-chancellor, the university was requested by CTEC to commence teaching in Cairns in 1987 utilising the TAFE facilities. First-year subjects contributing to the degrees of Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Social Work, Bachelor of Psychology, and Bachelor of Education, the Diploma of Teaching and the Associate Diploma of Community Welfare were taught, and a total enrolment of 117 students was achieved, representing a student load of 85. To return to the present position and the rally to which I referred at the outset of my speech—why was it felt necessary to again draw the attention of both the State and Federal Governments to the need for higher education in Cairns? Did not the people of Cairns get their wish for higher education? The answer is that they got only a taste that whetted their appetite. The sad fact is that in Cairns the provision of facilities for university education has failed to meet the expectations that were raised in 1987. Despite their undoubted ability, not enough students are able to take up the challenge of university education. Thus, the participation rate in higher education for north Queensland is a mere 12 students per 1 000 head of population. The national figure is 37 per 1 000, while the figure for south-east Queensland is 25, twice that of north Queensland. The present third wave, if I may describe it in that way, of action to bring the plight of higher education in Cairns to the attention of the decision-makers in Government has been spearheaded this time by the students themselves at the Cairns campus. I wish to recognise the efforts of the students union in Cairns and, in particular, its president, Suzanne McLean, for her commitment to the cause of higher education on behalf of the students. Although student numbers have increased from 117 to 276 and the budget for the campus has increased from $350,000 to approximately $1m, more students would be studying in Cairns if more courses or subjects were available. But the courses are not available because the necessary resources have not been provided by either James Cook University or the Federal Government. In fact, in 1990, the number of courses offered was two fewer than that offered in 1987. Neither the diploma of teaching nor the bachelor of education is currently available. They are the courses that I taught. When I left, I was not replaced. Those courses are no longer available. At present, the only course that can be completed in Cairns is a BA in a limited range of subjects. For other courses, students have to go to Townsville. In the area of capital facilities, the problem is getting worse rather than better. Teaching staff operate from converted units in two separate locations. The administration centre is located in a house and the teaching occurs on the TAFE campus. On occasions, additional space is hired elsewhere in the city. On one occasion, a church hall was used. The library is still not adequate, and student services are also a problem. Essentially, the growth of the Cairns campus has stalled. It has stalled because of a lack of funding from the Government and from the James Cook University. It has Legislative Assembly 4010 23 October 1990 also stalled because an ambitious plan to provide a 53 hectare site with buildings at Smithfield just north of Cairns looks set to fail. It would appear that the land to be provided for the site is in jeopardy, and four years after it was hoped to be provided the titles to that land have still not been made available. So it seems that it is back to the drawing board. We must go back to writing submissions convincing Governments of our case. However, this time we are much more optimistic. We have enormous support from all sections of the community and, in terms of statistics, our case is excellent. The growth rate for the north Queensland area is 4.26 per cent. In the first half of the 1990s, a 12 per cent increase is expected in the 15 to 24 age group, which comprises potential university students. To achieve our goal, we wish to see the establishment of a joint State and Federal working party in order to get a clear commitment to a long-term plan for Cairns from James Cook University, the Federal Government and the State Government. We are seeking a plan that will meet the future educational needs of the community in Cairns. Until such a commitment is made and such a plan is adopted, I could well be making the same speech in another 10 years' time. As I said, we want established a working party to make recommendations to the community. Those recommendations should be adopted by the Federal Government so that the higher education that the community needs will be provided. I would like to see a separate campus—a university college on a separate site. There may be other means of achieving this goal, but I think that, as a matter of urgency, this working party must be set up. Time expired. Gazettal of Land at Beaudesert as Prison Reserve Mr LINGARD (Fassifern) (11.57 a.m.): In the few moments that remain in this debate, I wish to bring to the notice of the public, and especially to the notice of the people of my electorate, what I believe is a massive sidestep by the Minister for Corrective Services and his department. I am pleased that the Minister is in the Chamber at present. I refer to a block of land on the outskirts of Beaudesert which is gazetted as a prison reserve. I believe it is referred to as R205. This block of land came into contention at the time when it was decided to build a prison at Woodford rather than on this particular block of land. For the last 10 years, this block has been leased by AMH—Australian Meat Holdings, often referred to as Tancreds. I know that the lease on this block of land becomes available next year. I was approached by the Beaudesert State High School and I approached the Works Department on behalf of the agricultural section of that school hoping that it could take over the lease when it became available next year. However, I was informed by the Corrective Services Department that it wanted to take over the lease. That was confirmed also by the Works Department. However, the official notification that was received from the Department of Corrective Services indicated that a spokesman for the Corrective Services Department said that the reserve, only about 32 hectares, was not being considered as a site for a prison. I bring to the attention of honourable members the fact that obviously Boonah and Gatton have been considered as sites for a women's prison. The notification indicated further that a spokesman said no future plans had been made for the site and that no decision had been made on what would happen with the land when the present lease ran out. Joining this controversy was Mr Don Petersen, who stood against me as the Labor Party candidate, a man who was not employed before the last election but who since has, funnily, found employment with the Department of Family Services. However, the Education Department has now been advised by Mr Ross Dunning, the Director-General of Administrative Services, that this land is not available for the school because it will be used by the Department of Corrective Services for the gazetted purpose. Legislative Assembly 4011 23 October 1990

The original indication was that this land was not intended to be used by the Department of Corrective Services for either a women's prison or any sort of prison. However, as I have said, in checking I have been told by the Works Department that the lease was to be taken by the Department of Corrective Services. Now, Mr Dunning, in writing to the Education Department, has admitted that this land cannot be used by the Education Department and that it will be used by the Department of Corrective Services for the gazetted purpose. The Minister must be honest. If it is the case that the prison is to be established in Beaudesert, he must admit that that is what will happen. Beaudesert has a very positive record in looking after boys' institutions such as Boys Town. The people of Beaudesert have a very positive attitude towards Boys Town. They also have a very positive attitude towards Palen Creek. They have no qualms about that. However, they do not wish to be deceived. PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE FOR ELECTORAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW Report on Matters Affecting the 1991 Local Authority Elections Arising out of a Report of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission on the Local Authority Electoral System of Queensland Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (12 noon): I lay upon the table of the House the report of the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review on matters affecting the 1991 local authority elections arising out of a report of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission on the local authority electoral system of Queensland. I wish to thank the Deputy Chairman, Mr Mark Stoneman, and all other committee members, Dr Lesley Clark, Mr Tony FitzGerald, Mr Bob Quinn, Ms Molly Robson and Mr Rod Welford, for their hard work on this historic review project. I wish to record the committee's appreciation of the fine, scholarly assistance rendered to the committee by its research director, Ms Janet Ransley, and the committee's appreciation of the professional assistance by Mrs June Warren and Ms Jan Shuttlewood of the secretarial staff. I lay upon the table of the House the submissions received by the parliamentary committee on this matter. I move that the report be printed. Whereupon the documents were laid on the table, and the report was ordered to be printed. COMMITTEE OF SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION Eighteenth Report Mr BARBER (Cooroora) (12.01 p.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the eighteenth report of the Committee of Subordinate Legislation, and I move that it be printed. Whereupon the document was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. At 12.02 p.m., In accordance with the provisions of the Sessional Order, the House went into Committee of Supply. Legislative Assembly 4012 23 October 1990

SUPPLY Estimates—Third and Fourth Allotted Days Estimates-in-Chief, 1990-91 Housing and Local Government Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government) (12.03 p.m.): I move— "That there be granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year 1990-91, a sum not exceeding $12,058,000—General Public Services, Department of Housing and Local Government (Consolidated Revenue)." It is with much pleasure that I outline the Government's Budget commitments to housing services and local government services in Queensland for 1990-91. Before setting out the major initiatives being undertaken in these areas, I want to comment on how important the linking of these two areas into one department is in achieving the Government's overall strategic objectives. The creation of the Department of Housing and Local Government provides a unique opportunity—probably the best in Australia—for tackling many of the needs of Queenslanders in a more effective way than in the past. The goal that the Government has set for the new department is to— ensure that all Queenslanders have access to secure and appropriate housing at a price they can afford; develop strong, autonomous and accountable local governments; and improve urban development and coordination strategies in order to build and maintain local communities as desirable places in which to live and work. We must set realistic targets for improvements each year and plan for sustainable changes to the way that this Government services both housing and local government in Queensland. I am proud to now set out our detailed program for these services for the year. Many honourable members will know by now that Queensland has— the lowest proportion of public housing in the country—only 2.8 per cent compared to the national average of 5.2 per cent; one of the lowest rates of home ownership in the country—less than 68 per cent compared to the national average of over 69 per cent; the highest rate of people relying on the private rental market—more than 22 per cent compared to the national average of 19.1 per cent; and more than twice its per capita share of people relying on the insecure tenure of caravan parks. Fixing up that mess will be a long and difficult task, but the challenge has been accepted by the Government and by the hard-working and loyal staff of my department. How are we going about these changes? Earlier this year, the Government finally signed the Commonwealth/States Housing Agreement, which is an agreement between the Commonwealth and each of the States and Territories for funding housing assistance for 10 years from 1989 to 1999. Among other things, the new agreement provides an increase from $143m to $158m in grants from the Commonwealth to Queensland in 1990-91 compared to the previous year. These extra funds are being provided to give Queensland a fairer share of national funds because of its population level and growth rate. As it is part of the deal, the Goss Government will also provide more money, increasing its matching grants from $28m in 1989-90 to nearly $41m in 1990-91. Over the next three years, at least $174m in additional funds will be directed to housing assistance in Queensland. I am happy to be able to say that, with these CSHA Legislative Assembly 4013 23 October 1990 funds and other sources, this Budget contains a commitment of over $870m for housing services in Queensland this year. However, the significance of this year's Budget is not only the dollars, but also the fact that this Government is committed to using the money available in more efficient and effective ways. This is a fiscally responsible commitment. Our money will be directed where it is needed most. Through more appropriate and innovative approaches we can expand our housing programs in a responsible way. Not only will the scale of the programs be increased over the coming years but the management of the programs will also be changed. My department is currently reviewing its policies and procedures, which will ensure that assistance is provided in a fairer and more consistent way. In total, this Budget will plan for completion of 2 800 rental dwellings, commencement of 2 800 more, house around 8 000 families and single people in public housing, provide home loans to a further 8 000 households and help another 8 000 through a range of other programs. I shall now consider some of the specific achievements in housing made to date and those which we will be working to achieve this year. Public housing The capital works budget for 1990-91 is $210m, using CSHA funds and internal revenue. As I just indicated, this money will allow the department to start another 2 800 dwellings this year. This compares with an average of 2 000 commencements for the last five years of the previous Government. It will also be used to buy land for future housing and begin the substantial job of upgrading our older poor-quality housing to bring it to a standard comparable with the housing being built today. The size of the capital works program is very significant, but just as significant is the fact that this Government will be building in areas such as the existing well-serviced areas of Brisbane and in non-metropolitan towns with a high need and which have been ignored in the past. Also, there will be more appropriate accommodation choices available for people in need; for example, more and better one-bedroom units for older and single homeless people, houses with sufficient bedrooms for large families and modified housing for people with disabilities and the frail aged. My department will be using new methods to find out what people need and where they need it. Members should ask themselves: is Queensland so different from the rest of Australia that there are fewer people here needing help to find secure and affordable housing? Can this alone explain why, with 17 per cent of Australia's population, Queensland had only 6 per cent of Australia's public housing waiting list? Such figures were the direct result of policies that restricted access to the waiting list by deliberately painting a better picture than actually existed. The many initiatives that this Budget provides for will make public housing far more acceptable for people who need it most. However, I expect that the demand for public housing will also increase significantly as a result of these changes. We will be doing our very best to meet the need, but it will take time and we will not be able to match all expectations. I stress that it is not only the quantity of public housing that will be increased but also the standard and appropriateness. This does not mean considering only the type of housing but also considering the location, facilities and environment of that housing. I have stopped the building of very large distinctive estates on the urban fringes. The Government will also be promoting integrated developments of public and private housing. In future, new public housing should be indistinguishable from private housing. I look forward to the day when people will not be able to say, "Oh look, you can tell that is commission housing." Three out of every four people we house go into existing housing. Most of the clients we are now housing are not only on low incomes but have other disadvantages as well, such as ill health, a disabled family member, a history of family crisis or violence and so on. If we are going to give people a real chance of establishing secure and affordable homes for themselves, we must give them a fair start. If we are going to keep the housing viable and useable into the future we must maintain it at reasonable, modern standards. I am sad to say that the older housing stock being offered to our clients has Legislative Assembly 4014 23 October 1990 been allowed to completely run down. I am also concerned that some of our longest standing tenants have not had a fair go. Some of those tenants have been in the one house for 20 years or more and have never been told that they can request an internal repaint of their houses. This year, the upgrading budget will be used for some of the following priorities— providing kitchens to longstanding tenants in housing built before 1975; giving pensioners the option to convert their bed-sitters to separate bedroom accommodation and also having security and insect screens on doors or windows; providing front fences to houses on busy streets to ensure children's safety; providing air-coolers to pensioners living in far-western Queensland; and providing letterboxes on request to tenants in detached houses. We believe that our tenants should be treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve—not like second-class citizens. Within the upgrading program, I have also allocated $3.5m for site landscaping and area improvement. That will be used to start to improve the worst, most stigmatised areas of public housing. It will also help to make Queensland's older and higher-density estates safer communities and give them better facilities. The sorts of things that I want to see achieved are— sufficient secure car-parking spaces; efficient speed-control measures in medium-density housing; appropriate community rooms, especially for pensioners and other tenants in poorly serviced communities; site drainage where none has been provided in the past; safe play areas; proper security lighting to help reduce violence; and removal of the distinctive numbering system on medium-density developments. I have also made provisions for tree-planting in bare neighbourhoods to give a better image and to provide shade, privacy and greater security, as well as to help in the fight to green our State. Area improvement is also about getting Governments to talk to each other about co-ordination and planning of services. I want to encourage other Government departments and local authorities to work with my department to overcome the backlog of needs in the most underserviced areas. I am aware that some of the less sensitive Opposition members see little value in that kind of expenditure, and that saddens me greatly. Here we are in 1990; many things have changed dramatically. There is a great deal of evidence that quality neighbourhoods are happier and safer neighbourhoods. I want to see that situation apply in areas of public housing. Still, some people think that providing public housing only means providing basic bricks and mortar. It is that terrible left-over attitude from the past that results in public housing being stigmatised and easily identified. To help deal with some of the problems that I have just described, I have also increased the Budget provision for maintenance by a third, to $30m. In previous years, average maintenance per dwelling was totally inadequate. I am sure that many honourable members have had long and bitter experiences of trying to get basic maintenance for tenants in their electorates. It will not surprise honourable members that expenditure on maintenance in Queensland in 1988-89 was approximately $200 per dwelling less than the average for all the other States. One lady waited five months for a stove—a basic cooking facility. That has to stop. The Government has to provide the money for those basic facilities. Another way to remove the stigma of public housing is to encourage our tenants to have their say in the decisions that affect them. If that is done, tenants will be enabled to take their place as residents of the broader community. That sort of program has increased tenant satisfaction and has improved the image of public housing in those States that have used it. I am pleased to be able to say that a number of tenants' Legislative Assembly 4015 23 October 1990 groups have already been established in Queensland and are running successfully. For example, some groups in medium-density housing are expressing interest in bidding for the gardening contracts for their neighbourhood. I am sure that honourable members would all agree that that type of involvement in their own housing is a very positive step. One of the important innovations included in the Budget is the earmarking of $10m to expand Queensland's fledgling housing cooperative sector, previously started by the Commonwealth Government. Those funds will be used to add another 100 houses to the existing cooperatives. I see cooperative housing—encouraging tenants to make their own decisions and at the same time to take on greater responsibilities—as having a real place in Queensland's housing solutions. It represents part of the total philosophy of the Government in letting tenants have real rights and incentives to manage their own housing; being treated more like home-owners than second-class citizens! I have just described the major items included in the $210m program for expanding and improving public housing. In addition, in accordance with provisions in the CSHA, $46m of the housing budget has been allocated to specific-purpose housing programs. Those funds are used to meet particular community needs. For example, they provide for— bond and rent assistance for people struggling in the private rental market; grants to local government and community organisations which are combined with local resources to meet local specialised housing needs; capital for the purchase of crisis housing to help reduce the tragedy of our homeless people; and rental housing for Aboriginal and Islander people. In the Budget, $25m is specifically earmarked for that program, which is administered by the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, my colleague the Honourable Anne Warner. The Budget also provides more than $9m of State funds for the continuation of the Housing Accommodation Assistance Scheme in 1990-91. That scheme has been used to provide rental housing through community agencies for elderly people and people with disabilities. Home Ownership On 19 August 1990, my department's new Home Ownership Made Easier (HOME) loans were launched. I must say that I have been overwhelmed at how well received those loans have been. I also acknowledge the positive support that members gave for those home loans during debate on the State Housing Act Amendment Billon 3 October. Last month, the HOME Shared scheme commenced and, to date, almost 500 families have been offered assistance under that program. Early indications are that the program will predominantly assist families with incomes below $400 per week; that is, families who earn less than 75 per cent of average weekly earnings in this State. Over the full year, $500m will be available for these schemes. In an important first for Queensland, the money for these loans will be raised off-Budget. In addition, up to $100m will be available to finance the Government's share in the HOME Shared scheme. By the end of the year, I expect that around 8 000 loans will be offered. That will represent approximately 20 per cent of total lending to home-buyers in Queensland, which should have a significant impact on building activity and should generate additional employment. At the same time, I do not want to lose control of the rate of lending and disrupt the real estate market, so careful control on the rate of lending is being exercised. The recent amendments to the State Housing Act provided a further boost to the flexibility of my department's programs. Those amendments now provide for the department to use the new HOME scheme to re-finance struggling home-purchasers. That will allow borrowers who are at the end of their resources to keep their existing homes and to reduce their housing costs to a more affordable level. That will be used a lot by broken families. The family housing package provides interest rate subsidies for Legislative Assembly 4016 23 October 1990 households that are suffering under the burden of high interest rates. Since the scheme was started, more than 2 500 households have been given a much-needed boost and had their circumstances made just that little bit easier. The Budget includes a further $5m for the package. The overall program for assisting home-owners has been designed to overcome the present and unfortunate distinction that Queensland has of having one of the lowest rates of home-ownership in Australia. Other Housing Initiatives At the present time, a major priority of the department is the complete review of housing policies and procedures. The review process to date has discovered just how much work has to be done to develop and document clear policies for providing and managing the department's housing programs. It is a very daunting task, but one that must be done. The review will result in policies that are fair and equitable and will provide guidelines that can be clearly understood by staff, tenants and the general public. I must say that I have a lot of sympathy for the hard-working and dedicated staff of my department, who have tried hard with little direction or support. All of that will change. I am also going to provide proper training for our staff. I have a lot of good people in my department, and I want to give them the opportunities that they deserve. In the past, Queensland had a bad record of providing for user rights. This Government has made a commitment to substantial development in that area. As part of that development, a new system of appeals, including an independent appeals tribunal for hearing complaints from the clients that we assist, will be established. Another initiative is the development of annual housing assistance plans, which will provide details of what my department intends to do each year and what resources are available. I recently had the pleasure of launching the inaugural Queensland housing assistance plan. It is the first document of its type in Australia and I think it is fair to say that it will be a hard act for the other States to equal. In future, the process of developing State plans will provide opportunities for tenants, community groups, the industry, local government, other departments and any other interested individuals to have their say in what housing needs exist and what should be done about them. To assist in this process, I have provided funds to establish a mechanism for community consultation about the development of next year's plan. For the first time in Queensland, the process of community consultation will highlight the major regional variations that exist. We acknowledge and understand that the housing conditions and needs in south-east Queensland may not be the same as those in other regions, nor will the solutions to those housing needs be the same in every region. My department will also be working to improve the coordination between the various forms of Government housing assistance. In fact, the housing and support requirements of all special needs groups will for the first time be given the consideration that those people deserve. As an example, my department will shortly be appointing Aboriginal or Islander field and liaison officers to assist with developing policy and improving services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. We will also appoint a disability services coordinator to ensure that our housing is designed to meet the needs of people with disabilities and that it is appropriately linked to support services provided through other agencies. In the youth area, for the first time we are looking at new initiatives specifically to cater to the needs of under 18 year olds. The next two years will see the department decentralise the delivery of its services and make sure that they are accessible to the people who need them. As the first step, the department has introduced a 008 phone service for all country clients to obtain information and advice about all housing services, but that is not good enough. It is no good having decisions made in Brisbane where we are not always aware of local needs and conditions. I want to establish a number of properly staffed area offices throughout Queensland in major population centres so that, wherever people live, they will have full access to our services. Next year the first area offices will open in Woodridge and in north Queensland. Other offices will then be developed in a planned and coordinated fashion. Legislative Assembly 4017 23 October 1990

As I have outlined earlier, the amalgamation of the old Queensland Housing Commission and the Local Government Department gives me the unique opportunity, in cooperation with local governments, industry and community groups, to develop and implement a range of strategies to try to reduce the cost of housing and increase housing affordability. One of the most significant initiatives being undertaken in this area is a project referred to as the system review. The object of this project is to simplify the approval of land and building development while ensuring that the system accommodates the social, economic and environmental needs and concerns of the community. While this project is aimed at streamlining approval processes generally, it will have a particular impact on housing. Recent national studies have shown that enormous cost-savings in excess of $1 billion annually can be achieved in the development process by rationalising the current way we do things. I should also point out that a significant component of this initiative involves a review of current appeals and dispute resolution procedures in Queensland. What is needed is a process of resolving disputes which is accessible, timely and cost-effective. With the changing housing requirements of the community there is a real need to encourage innovation within our housing industry. A major initiative of the Government is the active promotion of the Green Street joint venture which is a program aimed at providing more housing choice and diversity, cost- effective and affordable housing and better residential environments and suburban design. A key element of this program is the Australian model code for residential development which, for the first time in Queensland, provides a rationalisation of existing and often out-dated residential development standards. Amendments to town-planning schemes and subdivision of land by-laws are being proposed by local governments to incorporate these new standards, which will lead to a wider choice of residential accommodation throughout the State. The need to provide viable alternatives to the continuing urban sprawl that has characterised the recent growth of our metropolitan areas is well recognised. My department has commenced a number of projects aimed at providing options for the promotion of urban consolidation. These projects include a review of the medium density requirements of local governments in Queensland; a better understanding of community and industry perceptions and requirements in relation to higher density forms of residential development; and the impact of increasing urban densities on physical and community infrastructure. These projects have national applications and are being coordinated with a number of major studies currently being undertaken in other States and by the Federal Government. Indeed, it should be noted that a number of the initiatives currently being undertaken by my department involve Commonwealth funding allocated under the housing development program, and the contribution of the Commonwealth Government is acknowledged and appreciated. The total commitment by both the Commonwealth and State Governments towards these initiatives is approximately $1m. I see local governments as partners with the State Government in the re-shaping of our communities. Local governments already play a key role in the development of this State by virtue of their responsibilities for planning, building and administrative matters within their areas. My department is intricately involved with local governments. Not only is it concerned with the administration of the Local Government Act and other Acts which collectively form the base charter for the third level of Government, but also it is heavily committed to the local government regulatory and approval processes to ensure that the needs of the private sector, the public sector and, of course, members of the public are dealt with fairly. With regard to town-planning matters, I am pleased to advise members that there are 108 town-planning schemes in force in Queensland and these will help to ensure that orderly development occurs in these areas. With regard to building matters, members would be aware that the Building Act and the standard building by-laws apply throughout the State to ensure economic and safe building standards are applied. The provisions of these instruments are administered by the department. All members would be aware that the building industry gives rise to a large Legislative Assembly 4018 23 October 1990 number of disputes requiring speedy resolution and my department is involved in the associated objection and variation processes. My department devotes a significant portion of its resources to furnishing local governments and others with administrative and financial advice. The department has built up a proud record in this area and it is recognised throughout Australia for the high standards which have been achieved. I believe that local governments are capable of a far greater and more responsible role in developing communities and in ensuring that services are well-planned, coordinated and integrated. In order to develop the partnership between local governments and the State of which I spoke earlier, my department is committed to providing the framework for the continued development of the local government system in Queensland in a manner which reflects the needs of the Government, local governments and the community, and to ensuring that regulatory systems operate so as to protect the integrity of the local government system and maintain appropriate local government standards and practices. Members would be aware that the local government electoral system has been investigated by the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission. EARC has reported that some 56 local governments need to change their electoral boundaries and/or divisional representation prior to the local government elections in 1991 in order to satisfy the principles of voter democracy. Ensuring these electoral principles are met is ultimately the responsibility of my department. It represents an enormous challenge. If the task is to be completed on time so that local governments contest the next elections on more democratic grounds, it will require cooperation and a giant effort not only on the part of my officers but also on the part of local governments and other Government bodies involved in the process. It is impossible to meet our new priorities with outdated laws, regulations and procedures that frequently go back to the years before World War II and often longer. We have consequently embarked upon an extensive legislative reform program insofar as local governments are concerned which I believe will facilitate a higher standard of community service. The Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act was passed on 23 August 1990 and I hope it will come into force in March next year. It is impossible to meet the present and future demands of the State without modern planning, development and environment legislation. I am of the view that this new Act will be a significant improvement on the existing legislation. The Act simplifies the planning system and reduces the number of instances where appeals to the planning and environment court may be instituted without in any way derogating from the rights of the public to participate in the decision-making process by way of objections and appeals. A number of innovative procedures have been introduced into the Act which will be of benefit to local governments and other participants in the planning process. Some of these are— provision for dealing with different applications concurrently with one right of appeal; staged rezonings of land; restrictions on the scope of conditions which may be attached to an approval to use land with the conditions attaching to the land; the right for any person to take an action for suspected breaches of a town-planning scheme; the introduction of requirements for economic impact assessments, environmental impact statements or site contamination reports for prescribed developments and wherever the local government or the Minister considers that certain issues need to be further examined before a decision can be made; and provision for identification of contaminated sites at an early stage. The 1990 Local Government Ministers conference established a task force on environmental management, which will be chaired by my department. Funds of $50,000 have been allocated as the department's contribution towards a research project on the current and potential roles of local government in the environment, with a particular Legislative Assembly 4019 23 October 1990 focus on intergovernmental aspects. At this point, I wish to also briefly mention the other initiatives arising from the Local Government Ministers conference in which my department was involved. One of these is the conference being held to examine the relationship between local government and ethnic affairs in Queensland, which my department has taken the initiative to convene. Funding assistance of $5,500 has been provided by the Commonwealth Government. The department is also carrying out research for a task force involved with local government and the arts that is reviewing the role of local government in the arts and in the cultural development of Australia. Local government is becoming more involved with planning, developing and delivering human services in Queensland. Since May 1990, the department has convened a series of meetings involving representatives of State and Commonwealth departments, local government and the community sector to identify impediments to the efficient and effective provision of human services in Queensland. It is hoped that initiatives arising from this process will enable new arrangements for intergovernmental cooperation to be put in place, ensuring that communities throughout the State have access to an adequate range of human services. Each of these projects is important in the development of well integrated, caring communities. I am very pleased that Local Government Department officers are playing an active part in each of them. The first stage of the review of the Local Government Act has been completed. Mr Ken Mead, a former Director of Local Government, has been engaged to prepare a range of option papers based on submissions received from local government and the public as a result of the discussion paper released last December. It is anticipated that further public comment on the principles upon which a new Local Government Act is to be based will be sought early next year. Since the Fitzgerald commission of inquiry, people everywhere are demanding—and quite rightfully so—to have a greater say in decision-making. They are no longer happy to just sit back and let things happen around them but, rather, are seeking assurances that the right decisions are being made. Greater community participation in the decision-making process is now a fact of life. By inference, this means there must be greater accountability on the part of elected representatives for the decisions they make. The new Act will reflect the Government's commitment to this process by putting in place mechanisms to provide for greater autonomy and flexibility on the part of local governments while at the same time recognising that, in common with any other form of government, local authorities must be accountable to their voters for their decisions. Legislation to provide for the subdivision of land and buildings or structures where mixed uses are proposed to be established within a particular development and for the creation of an appropriate management structure, which would protect the interests of the individual owners, is being considered. The Building Act is also being reviewed to incorporate new building regulations currently being developed on a national basis through the Australian Uniform Building Regulations Coordinating Council, a body with representatives of all States and Territories, the Commonwealth and the Australian Local Government Association. My department is represented on the council, which is developing national technical requirements for buildings that are to be contained in the new Building Code of Australia. The second edition of the Building Code of Australia was released recently and Queensland proposes to call this up to replace the technical requirements presently contained within the Building Act. This will necessitate a review of the Building Act and removal of many of the anomalies that will occur within the Act. The adoption of the Building Code of Australia will also necessitate a complete review of Appendix 4 to the Standard Building By-laws, which governs house construction within Queensland. Appendix 4 will be replaced by the Queensland Home Building Code. For some considerable time, I have been concerned about the safety aspects of the transport, storage and management of flammable and combustible liquids and other dangerous substances. Recent accidents resulting in spills and fires have highlighted the need for tighter controls in these areas. Matters relating to the safe transport of these Legislative Assembly 4020 23 October 1990 products are being looked into by the Transport Department. My department, however, is presently examining what is needed in the other areas to ensure safer communities. The Flammable and Combustible Liquids Regulations made under the Local Government Act are being reviewed and in the very near future I hope to finalise new regulations. The regulations seek to ensure that reasonable standards of safety and uniformity for the storage of flammable and combustible liquids are achieved throughout the State. The new regulations propose to replace the existing technical provisions with AS1940, which is the Australian standard code for the storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids and which will introduce the concept of an appeals and variations panel to hear objections lodged against licensing decisions made by local government. The Crown will be bound by the technical provisions of the regulations. Legislation to protect persons, property and the environment from the establishment or continued use of unsafe premises containing dangerous substances is presently being considered. The legislation will seek to establish scientifically based target risk levels which cannot be exceeded by premises on which there are dangerous substances; coordinate and implement new and existing legislation related to the storage and handling of dangerous substances on premises through a local government one-stop shop system, which is designed to assist industry; and protect lawfully established premises containing dangerous substances from future surrounding land use changes, which could cause those premises to become an unacceptably high risk. If the dangerous substances Act is introduced, it is quite likely that the Flammable and Combustible Liquids Regulations, which presently are made under the Local Government Act, will be transferred to the new Act. Shortly, I will introduce legislation dealing with the fencing of domestic swimming pools. This will be an important step towards reducing the incidence of child-immersion accidents and fatalities. The department intends to build on the work already undertaken by consultants to develop a framework within which individual local authorities are able to prepare performance-based by-laws—as opposed to prescriptive by-laws—which recognise specific needs. As all honourable members would no doubt know, for many years I have had a particular interest in the welfare of animals. As a consequence, I have assumed responsibility for the Animals Protection Act. Even my long association with animal rights, however, left me totally unprepared when I discovered that Queensland was at least 10 years behind many of the other States in the area of animal welfare. Animal welfare in this State has been sadly neglected. Queensland has an Act which was written in 1925. The RSPCA— a voluntary organisation—has only a handful of inspectors and is virtually left to enforce the law as it applies to animals Statewide. A meagre $40,000 was made available last year for this purpose, and the RSPCA received $15,700. This year, the Goss Government has increased the funding to at least $260,000 and the RSPCA will receive $150,000. The Government has also established a committee to review the Animals Protection Act and to develop regulations covering experimental animals. I am hopeful that very shortly, new legislation can be introduced into the House. To ensure that local government and the public are totally familiar with the requirements of the new legislative arrangements which will arise from the department's legislation review program, discussion papers will be released and officers of my department will be embarking upon an extensive series of seminars around the State, where appropriate. This will require a large commitment of resources by my department, which will continue to provide administrative, managerial and financial advice to the Mornington Shire Council through the coordinating and advisory committee on which I am represented. Administrative grants totalling approximately $2m will, as in past years, be provided to both the Aurukun and Mornington Shire Councils. Funding for the Torres Shire Council has been reduced, and I consider this is a positive step towards restoring elected government to the community. Funding for the Burke Shire Council has been stopped Legislative Assembly 4021 23 October 1990 as it is felt that the time is appropriate for that local authority area to no longer be subsidised by the Government. The Local Government Grants Commission will continue to receive administrative and technical support and financial assistance from my department to help meet operating costs. I have asked the Local Government Association of Queensland to consider forming a small committee comprising representatives of local government to review the methodology applied by the grants commission in the distribution of this year's general purpose grants and to advise the commission and me of any changes that might be desirable. I regard this committee as a further avenue by which local government can have an input into the distribution process. On behalf of the commission, the department has also engaged consultants to undertake a study aimed at developing a suitable methodology by which to distribute the grant to Aboriginal and Islander Community Councils. The department has provided additional funds to enable the commission to complete its study of the relative road construction and maintenance costs faced by local authorities. The assessment of road expenditure is a crucial element in the determination of grants to individual councils, and this project is seen as a major step forward in refining the grants commission's methodology. At the outset, I said that the establishment of the Department of Housing and Local Government provided me with an important opportunity to address a wide range of related community issues in a more coordinated way. A special unit has been established in my department to develop the timely and coordinated planning of urban growth strategies throughout the State. The principal involvement is in the running of the south-east Queensland 2001 growth management conference on 7 December this year. That is a project to be chaired by the Premier and jointly sponsored by the Premier, the Treasurer and me. Although it involves at this time a relatively small financial commitment, it is a first step in a process which will, hopefully, allow Queenslanders to be able to manage growth in order to build a State in which they want to live rather than be forced to suffer from the results unplanned and uncoordinated decisions. It is also clear that proper planning cannot be carried out without realistic and reliable data on population changes, migration trends, household projections and other necessary indicators of growth. Time expired. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! I desire to inform honourable members that, on the Vote proposed, I will allow a full discussion on all the Minister's departmental Estimates (Consolidated Revenue, Trust and Special Funds). For the information of honourable members, I point out that the administrative acts of the department are open to debate but that the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset) (12.32 p.m.): The Minister's speech was an exercise in high- speed reading more than anything else. Although he would like honourable members to believe that everything is rosy in the Local Government and Housing portfolio, that is not so. Local government is known as the third tier of government. Before they entered Parliament, many honourable members were involved for many years in local government. It has always been extremely important. However, the Government has treated local authorities with utter contempt. The Minister mentioned the wonderful benefits of amalgamating Housing and Local Government, but they have not materialised. Local government has been dudded and the people of Queensland have been dudded. Local government has been reduced to almost divisional status, and councils generally are unimpressed with that arrangement. Honourable members need only travel throughout the State to obtain that reaction. What notice is taken by the Government of the wishes of local authorities? Councils have come out against daylight-saving. Did the Government take any notice of the wishes of the councils? The answer is a definite "No". Councils have indicated that they do not support a four-year term. What notice will the Government take of councils on that matter? I presume it will take the same notice as it did on the daylight-saving issue. When will the Government start listening to the level of government that is closest to the people? I know what will Legislative Assembly 4022 23 October 1990 happen to any Government that ignores the wishes of local government. At present, local authorities are extremely unhappy with the Government's performance. The Minister mentioned pensioner units. In its Budget, the Labor Party promised a 20 per cent increase in one-bedroom pensioner accommodation to 1 100 units. It promised also the completion of 2 800 pensioner units. So much for promises! Let us see how the Government's performance stands up. That is what really counts. Over the past couple of months, the Department of Housing and Local Government has advertised proposals for one-bedroom pensioner units. I have the advertisements with me. At first, the department sought submissions for up to 300 such units. A few weeks later, another advertisement appeared and the number was reduced to 250 units. At that time, 50 one-bedroom pensioner units were dropped. A few weeks later, advertisements appeared seeking proposals for 110 one- bedroom pensioner units—a drop of 140 on the previous proposal. The advertisements even carried a footnote to the effect that previous advertisements were for 250 one-bedroom pensioner apartments. Builders must be wondering what is going on. One cannot blame them for that. More importantly, how can pensioners believe a Government will match its promises when they observe obviously ad hoc decisions being made on the run. Those 110 one-bedroom units will be spread throughout an area from Ipswich to the Gold Coast, and east to Redland Bay. That is Queensland, is it? One does not have to be a Rhodes scholar to realise that that is not a very good start to providing a promised 20 per cent increase in one- bedroom unit accommodation. We can put that down to another broken promise. I remind the Minister that the public get sick of broken promises and they will not cop many more of them. The Government will soon lose the confidence of the people. At present, there are signs of that happening. I turn to the HOME scheme, which was debated recently in this Chamber. I had reservations about that scheme. Noel Whittaker also has grave reservations about the scheme. The Minister cannot ignore him. In the Budget, Labor provided for approximately 8 000 loans for home-ownership. That is 1 415 fewer than was achieved in 1989-90 with the same amount of funding—$500m—under the housing policies of the former National Party Government. Mr Burns: You only budgeted for $360m, old fellow. Mr GUNN: The Minister should not refer to me as "old fellow". Under the previous Government's policy, funds totalling $508m were approved for housing loans, with the bulk of the funds—some $328m—going into the interest subsidy scheme. Because Labor did not want to continue paying the interest subsidy at a cost of approximately $16m a year, it wiped the interest subsidy scheme. That scheme was helping the little battlers whom the Minister professes to admire so much. Mr Burns: Under your scheme they required a $14,000 deposit. They were mostly second home buyers. You weren't helping the battler at all. Mr GUNN: That is rubbish. What is the Government doing? It is adding the interest onto the loans that people are taking out under the HOME scheme. Financial adviser, Noel Whittaker, hit the problem right on the head. No doubt the Minister has read the weekend column in the Sunday Mail in which Noel Whittaker pointed out that some of those people will end up owing more than they originally borrowed. He pointed out that, if they get into trouble, particularly in the current housing market climate, the value of their asset may not be sufficient to cover the increased loan. What a second-rate scheme this has turned out to be! With a waiting-time of more than 12 months, how practical can that scheme be? Surely no vendor will wait that long? As a matter of fact, Noel Whittaker advised them not to wait. Let us examine what Mr Whittaker had to say. The Federal Government abolished the home savings grant and then proceeded, under the Hawke Government, to wind down the first home owners scheme. Legislative Assembly 4023 23 October 1990

Mr Booth: That was a tragedy, wasn't it? Mr GUNN: It was a tragedy. The State Labor Government has wiped the interest subsidy scheme, which is a clear indication that it will favour public rental housing policies in preference to home-ownership. I have accused this Government of that, too. That is the policy of this Government: rental schemes, not home-ownership. It is an indication of the influence Canberra has on this department's new direction. I attended many housing conferences, and I can assure honourable members that that is absolutely correct. Government members interjected. Mr GUNN: The interjectors on the Government back benches are babes in the woods. They have been in this place for only five minutes. As the brochure points out—and this is important—if one's income is $500 a week, one can borrow up to $64,000, with weekly repayments of $135, plus rates and charges, which amount to another $40, increasing by 6 per cent each year. As Whittaker points out, at the end of the fourth year that debt has increased to just over $73,500. One can borrow $64,000, pay all that money over a four-year period and, at the end of the fourth year, be left with a debt of $73,000, which is $9,000 more than was originally borrowed. As Whittaker says, it is in keeping with the modern trend; if people cannot pay the interest, it is just added on to the bill. That helps the battler greatly! I turn now to the interest rate. When I was the responsible Minister under the National Party Government, it was 13.75 per cent. Under this Labor Government, it is now 14.95 per cent. Why not go to a bank or building society? There is little difference. In fact, banks and building societies are now offering loans at a fixed rate of 14.5 per cent over a five-year period. This 14.95 per cent is offered over a 10-year period. The annual report states that the Government identified that the existing loan schemes had reached the end of their effective life. What bunkum! Labor could not wear the cost of subsidising the interest for the battlers. It was not prepared to assist the battlers. This new scheme will make them pay, and they will pay dearly. Whittaker goes on to advise people against the HOME scheme and advises them to go to a building society or a bank. The Minister mentioned swimming pool fences. The Government has started a real bush fire. It has opened a can of worms with the proposal to force swimming pool owners to fence their pools. The Minister will be sorry he started this one. Mr Burns: You will have to watch your metaphors. How can you start a bush fire with a swimming pool? Mr GUNN: The Minister will need a swimming pool to put out the bush fire that he has started. It is obvious that the Minister and his advisers are now trying to find a way out of this political hot potato with which they are faced. I am sure that the Government is aware that the anti-fence lobby intends to stand candidates at the next State election in the marginal Government electorates. Whether or not that happens remains to be seen, but it indicates the depth of the feeling in the community on this proposal. I do not intend to debate the proposal in detail. However, I will point out where it will not work and, hopefully, that might prompt some reasoned thinking on the part of the Government. If honourable members drive through Moggill towards Karana Downs—and that was part of my area for six years—they will notice a new estate that has been developed for housing. This estate is in a prestige area and is likely to attract homes that will have swimming pools at some future stage. There is also a dam on the estate. Is the Minister going to fence the dam, too? Mr Burns: Do you want me to? Legislative Assembly 4024 23 October 1990

Mr GUNN: It is up to the Minister. Mr Burns: Go on, put your money where your mouth is. Mr GUNN: Is the Minister going to fence the river? He would have to fence everything. The Government might not own the dam; it probably does not. Mr Burns: All your supporters would have a fainting fit if your wish was carried out. Mr GUNN: I would not want the Minister to fence any of my dams. They are used for cattle. However, there is nothing to stop a child from wandering off. What about the creeks, floodways, ditches, canals and so on? What about the canal estates; is the Minister going to fence those off, as well? The example I cited of the housing estate at Moggill was selected merely to point out the problems that this Government will face as a result of this initiative. Swimming pool fencing may work in a standard suburban housing development, but it will not work in acreage estates, rural areas and coastal areas where natural watercourses—— Mr Burns: The council will have a discretion. It is in the Green Paper. Mr GUNN: That is a better flick pass than Wally Lewis does. Mr Burns: It was in the Green Paper in March. Mr GUNN: The Minister is trying to flick pass to the council. The poor old councils are always the ones that cop it. Mr Burns: Did you know the Local Government Association asked for standard by-laws? Mr GUNN: I am telling the Minister where the legislation will not work. Mr Burns: They asked me to do it. Mr GUNN: I am telling the Minister where it will not work. They will not do anything about it, particularly in the canal estates, and—— Mrs WOODGATE: I rise to a point of order. Mr Temporary Chairman, I draw your attention to the fact that the honourable member is talking about future legislation regarding swimming pool fencing. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! That is a valid point of order. The Minister is talking about future legislation. Mr GUNN: Many things are contained in Green Papers. If honourable members were not allowed to talk about that, they would not be talking at all. There is nothing wrong with that. I will be listening to the honourable member's speech. If she puts a foot out of place, I will take a point of order. In all seriousness, I am not worried; the honourable member is all right. I can only assume that the Minister is being snowed by the bureaucrats in his department. There is no earthly doubt about that. I think that the Minister is being snowed. Mr Burns: What, by swimming pools? Mr GUNN: By the Minister's departmental officers. One has to watch them. They do it, and they do it pretty well. Mr Burns: Did they do it to you? Mr GUNN: They tried it on my first day as Education Minister, and they did not succeed. I was warned, and now I am warning the Minister; do not be snowed by them. My advice to the Minister is to take note of what the people say. The Minister should Legislative Assembly 4025 23 October 1990 talk to those little battlers whom he admires. He should visit every council in Queensland and take notice of what they have to say. Mr Burns: I have been to 94 of the councils. Mr GUNN: But the Minister has not taken much notice of them. Mr Burns: Did you ever visit 94 in 10 months? Mr GUNN: Yes, I did. I visited all the councils. Mr Burns: They called you the phantom. They said, "We've never seen him. Old Bill never came near us." Mr GUNN: That was a Labor member. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! I ask the honourable member to return to the Estimates under discussion. Mr GUNN: I will. The Minister and I have been in this Chamber a long time, and we have a habit of becoming involved in arguments. I am saying that the Minister's departmental officers should be kept on tap and not on top. That is an old truism. The situation will get worse. I am very concerned about the Minister's HOME scheme. The Minister will recall that the other night I mentioned that scheme and the fact that the interest rate of 14.9 per cent will apply for 10. Interest rates are coming down. Mr Burns: They are going to come down to 15.5, but they have still got to come down a long way. Mr GUNN: No. Today, ANZ and Westpac are offering 14.5 per cent over a five-year term. Mr Welford: A five-year term! Who can pay it off in that time? Mr GUNN: That is for a five-year term. The Minister is tying these people up for 10 years. He did say to me that, early in the new year, he would have a look at that scheme. The Minister has to look at that scheme very seriously if the Government is going to help the battler—and the Minister and I have a mutual respect for the battler. Fixing the interest rate at 14.9 per cent for 10 years is not the way to do it. It will be done only with the provision of a low interest rate. Mr Burns: Currently they are getting better than anyone provides them on that deposit. What you are talking about is battlers who cannot get a start. What Whittaker was talking about was people with 5 per cent. Tell me someone who can go into a building society with five grand and borrow a hundred thousand. They will not lend. The only people that will lend to them is the Queensland Government. Mr GUNN: It is funny that people who want houses are coming to see me. I have a great interest in this matter. I want to see those people get houses, but many of them have not got five bob. I do not know how they are going to raise the $2,000 deposit, but the matter does not end there. Mr Burns interjected. Mr GUNN: The other night I told the Minister that the Government has had to knock back applications from many people who have been badly wounded. Most of those who have visited my office have told me that there applications were knocked back by the Minister's departmental officers. Mr Burns: That is the right way to do it. You do not put people into homes they cannot pay off. Mr GUNN: The Minister is missing the point. Mr Burns: There is $17m in loans out there. Legislative Assembly 4026 23 October 1990

Mr GUNN: There is an expectation by members of the community that they are eligible for these loans. Apparently, those people have not read the small print. All those people have an expectation of moving into their own home. They intend to save a deposit of $1,000 or $2,000 and move into their own home. No matter where one travels in the community, one hears that expectation. I have said to some people, "Look, it is not quite what you think it is and, in your own interest, I do not believe you can afford it." For instance, two incomes are generally required for a family to earn $500 a week. To a weekly repayment of $135, a person has to add $40 for maintenance, repainting, rates and general services. That totals $175. If the woman falls pregnant, the household becomes a one-income family. What is the Government going to do to help that family? Mr Burns: They are paying $140 a week rent. Mr GUNN: Many of them are not. Those people in Housing Commission properties are not. Members of the community are gravely concerned about this scheme and the problems associated with it. I am also very concerned about it. As Whittaker has stated, in a couple of years' time this scheme will be referred to in headlines in newspapers everywhere because the Government will be taking back many of those houses. Mr Burns: Under your scheme, do you remember all the houses you sold up at Eagleby? Remember the ones you sold up at Eagleby? Mr GUNN: What the Minister is saying is utter rubbish. The previous Government's scheme was a good one. If home-buyers could not pay 25 per cent of their income, the Government actually made up the difference. During the last year that the National Party was in Government, a total of $16m was paid out under the interest subsidy scheme. It was a wonderful scheme. Talk-back radio gives an indication of the public interest in the Minister's portfolio. This morning, I heard the Minister speaking on the radio and he did not go very well at all. Unless he revises the present scheme and helps the battler whom he is always talking about, he is going to cop more and more criticism. Those comments also apply to local government. Members of the Government do not know where they are going. Mr Burns: I was on about Harbourtown this morning. Mr GUNN: That did not go very well, either. What is the Minister going to do about the Harbourtown development? Is he going to allow a ministerial rezoning? One of the problems with the Australian Labor Party in Queensland is that it is following the other Labor States that have absolutely failed in their policies. Mr Booth interjected. Mr GUNN: That is right. The Government has adopted exactly the same policies. Mr Booth: The Canberrites. Mr GUNN: Yes, Canberrites. Mr Burns interjected. Mr GUNN: The Minister should not hang his star on New South Wales, either. Mr Burns: You are trying to hang someone else's star. Mr GUNN: No. Queensland had a very good scheme. Whittaker is absolutely correct when he says that if home-buyers cannot save $2,000 in 14 months, they cannot afford to buy a house. Mr Burns: He does not know what he is talking about. Mr GUNN: I have always had a lot of respect for Mr Whittaker. Mr Burns: I always find that a bloke who has to advertise in the paper to teach you how to be a millionaire would be a millionaire himself. Legislative Assembly 4027 23 October 1990

Mr GUNN: I do not think that I will be. Mr Burns: If he knows how to become a millionaire and invest his money, why hasn't he done so well? Mr GUNN: I believe that he is respected in financial circles and that it is time that the Government took notice of him. The Minister has taken much of my time. Nevertheless, once again I give timely warning about this problem. I hope that the Minister does stick to his promise to review the position, because I believe that many people in the community will be disappointed with this scheme. They have an expectation that they will be able to obtain cheap housing. However, it is not cheap housing. Many of the people who visit not only my but also the offices of other members cannot afford this scheme. It would be better if they waited until they had a decent deposit, not $1,000 or $2,000. They will pay $135 a week for four years and at the end of that time they will owe more than the original sum they borrowed. Mr Burns: Every low-start home scheme does that. Be sensible. That is what low-start is about. I am paying off with the Commonwealth Bank and I owe them more than I started with. Mr GUNN: The previous Government used to subsidise those people. Mr Burns: You have not borrowed anything. You have been getting subsidised loans as a farmer for the last 25 years. Mr GUNN: Rubbish! That is the joke of the season. Mr Burns: You haven't borrowed in the real world. Mr GUNN: I want to answer that. The Honourable Minister is well and truly under a misapprehension. I will tell him what happens in relation to the farming community. I guess that in some areas many farmers will say that Keating is right, that the trading banks are screwing a lot of the rural sector by adding another 1 per cent to the rate. Through the HOME scheme, a person can borrow at 14.9 per cent money with which to build a house. But a person who wants to pay off a farm or go on to the land has to pay close to 20 per cent. That is what is happening today. That is a shocking and sad state of affairs. Mr Burns interjected. Mr GUNN: The Minister should start fighting for the battler. The boundaries are bigger than the Brisbane City area. On the land there are plenty of battlers who are just existing. The Minister would know that. He has been a member of Parliament long enough to know that. I think he has been pretty fair during that time. The rural community is facing disaster. Some people in the Federal Government have acknowledged the conditions that are being faced by rural people, some of whom will soon be unable to feed their families. The banks have been very, very hard on them. I hope that this Government will take notice of that. I will not be calling on the Government for anything. I never have. I can say that during my time on the land I have never asked the Government for one bean. I do not intend to. However, there are many needy people in the community who require help. I hope that the Minister will consider ways of doing so under this particular scheme. Mrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (12.55 p.m.): This Government has an inbuilt desire to enable working- class people to share as best they can in the good things of life. That includes access to all the opportunities that come with home ownership. This Government does not believe, as previous Governments have, that working class people have a worse relationship to their house and land than do middle and upper class people. There is an easy, natural relationship between householders and the houses and land they use. If they own the house and land, it gives them the greatest possible freedom in their use. Legislative Assembly 4028 23 October 1990

I believe it is also true that on average the lower one is on the income scale, the more one's happiness depends on one's enjoyment of local things. Professor Jean Martin's study on the extent of people's working and leisure activities away from home was surprising in that it highlighted the amount of outreach that the rich have that the poor do not. For a whole variety of reasons, poorer people stay closer to home. It is not just that they cannot afford to wander. Something about the structure of life that keeps people poor also keeps people local. So it seems that pensioners, single parents and other working class people are likely to depend more than any others on the quality of their home patch. Access to home ownership seems to me to be the basis of equality. As was outlined earlier by the Minister, adequate, appropriate and affordable housing is one of the community's most vital concerns. To address these concerns, the Government has embarked upon a comprehensive range of programs covering both housing demand, financing and supply issues. This Government has recognised a very real responsibility it has to ensure that the community of Queensland is properly housed. In relation to the public sector housing area, the Government has already announced a number of initiatives, including a major review of housing policy, expanding public housing and developing new and improving existing housing schemes. In particular, the Minister has outlined in some detail the family housing package and the HOME scheme which will, I am sure honourable members will agree, make a significant contribution to the task of bringing housing within the reach of a greater section of the community. It is interesting to note that, in the past 10 to 20 years, the housing needs of the community have changed quite dramatically. One and two person households currently make up approximately 50 per cent of the housing market. Put another way, 30 per cent of the market is the traditional household of mother, father and two children. Yet the rules, regulations, procedures and practices that govern the provision of housing have changed little. Quite obviously, we need to do it better. The Minister has outlined the opportunities that the Government has to work in consultation with local authorities, industry and community groups to develop and implement a range of strategies aimed at reducing the cost of housing, increasing housing affordability and providing greater choice in housing. To assist with this aim, a new housing affordability division has been created within the Department of Housing and Local Government. The role of the division is to develop and promote innovative housing strategies that will increase community accessibility to adequate, appropriate and cost-effective housing; to provide a focus within the department for the community, industry groups, local authorities and other State Government departments with respect to housing issues; to develop policy options with respect to increasing community access to appropriate housing; to liaise with industry and community groups to ensure consultation on major housing policy issues and to initiate the development of projects demonstrating innovative housing practices. As was outlined earlier by the Minister, a significant initiative currently being undertaken by the Government is a project aimed at simplifying the approval of land and building development, while ensuring that the system accommodates the social, economic and environmental concerns of the community. There is no doubt that considerable savings can be achieved by rationalising the current way in which things are done. This review has the support of industry, local authorities and the community. The aim of the project is to achieve a decision in the shortest possible time with the minimum of delays while allowing a complete consideration of relevant matters to yield the best possible decision. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. Mrs BIRD: The Minister highlighted the Government's support and promotion of the activities of the Green Street joint venture in Queensland. The joint venture program, which has the broad support of all levels of government and industry, is aimed at changing the way we think about our residential environment to provide for— greater diversity in housing forms and types, to reflect changing household structures and to help balance existing household stock and household occupants; techniques to generate cost-effectiveness in residential land development and therefore provide more affordable housing; and Legislative Assembly 4029 23 October 1990

rationalise residential land development techniques to provide for greater safety, better integration of open space and natural features and an improved residential amenity generally. As has been stated previously, the community's housing needs have changed, and that requires a reassessment of the standards and practices that dictate the provision of housing in Queensland and, for that matter, nationally. The release of the Australian Model Code for Residential Development has provided a useful focus for changing our current standards. The model code is based on extensive research and consultation, including a study of more than 200 existing codes throughout Australia. Through the Department of Housing and Local Government, the Government was a key player in the preparation of that code. To assist with the adoption of the model residential code, the Commonwealth Government initiated the residential regulation review program. The objective of that program is to facilitate the efficient provision of greater housing choice by ensuring that local authority residential regulations take account of contemporary cost-effective practices. To date, grants totalling approximately $185,000 have been provided to nine local authorities throughout Queensland to implement this program. The department has initiated a series of projects aimed at promoting the provision of innovative and flexible medium-density residential accommodation types in conjunction with promoting the economic and community benefits of urban consolidation programs. A research study commissioned during the year will provide the necessary framework and database for development of a multi-unit code that will have national applicability. The project focuses on the development and testing of new multi-unit codes developed recently by local authorities in Queensland. This will involve the documentation of specific medium-density developments and an assessment of the perceptions of residents both within and surrounding such developments. Funds have also been provided for detailed documentation of a proposed medium-density residential development in the City of Brisbane. That development implements the Brisbane City Council's model Residential BR (4) design guidelines. In the past year, the question of both physical and community- based infrastructure has been the topic of much discussion, particularly in the context of increasing urban densities and adding to the cost of housing. A series of projects initiated in this area are aimed at— proposing realistic standards for community infrastructure for serving increased densities in increased urban densities; providing a method of assessing both immediate and long-term costs of providing necessary infrastructure augmentation; providing a method for fairly apportioned costs of such infrastructure augmentation; and recommending procedures to assist servicing authorities to provide infrastructure when the augmentation requirements of development are beyond the capabilities of individuals. For the information of those honourable members who do not know, I point out that the Whitsunday electorate has two fast-growth areas, one to the extreme north and the other to the extreme south. That is all that those two areas have in common. The population to the south, namely, at North Mackay, Andergrove, Beaconsfield and Bucasia, consists of employed middle-class families. Those to the north in Proserpine, Cannonvale and Airlie Beach are workers attracted to the employment opportunities in the tourist industry and developments. They are usually families with three to six children. It must be assumed that both of these districts have a need for ongoing housing assistance and public sector housing. Why then did the previous National Party member for Whitsunday, Geoff Muntz, respond—albeit in a very small way—only to those in the south of the electorate? Surely those families who, because of a lack of housing, make caravans in caravan parks their homes deserve the very same considerations. Was Legislative Assembly 4030 23 October 1990 it so obvious—even to Mr Muntz—that those people in caravan parks were Labor voters? One could be very cynical. Those days are gone. The people in Proserpine can now look forward to a range of options from which to choose. In 1990-91, public housing in the Whitsundays will be increased to accommodate 44 households, while in Mackay 40 of the 400 households awaiting public housing—some for up to four years—will be accommodated. I am very pleased that that capital works program will also provide an opportunity for local apprentices to be involved in the construction of a detached house as part of a youth training project. That will be one of around 70 such projects around the State involving apprentices and TAFE students. That training opportunity is approximately double that which was available in the previous financial year. Many studies prove that if we crowd too many people together they recoil from one another, become less cooperative and eventually hate each other. If people are stacked into caravan parks, that drastically reduces their activities. They cannot keep pets, perform renovations or grow plants. The question posed to the Minister early this year was how to extend the option of home-ownership to every household that wants it, regardless of class, without risking a damaging boom in land and house prices. The Minister and his department have supplied the answers. On behalf of those new home-owners of 1990-91 in Whitsunday, I extend my thanks and congratulations to the Minister, his staff and the Department of Housing. Mr COOMBER (Currumbin) (2.38 p.m.): The opening statement of Budget Paper No. 3 is— "The adoption of program management throughout the Queensland Public Sector is a means of improving resource allocation and management by shifting focus from inputs . . . to results . . . No longer is it sufficient for public sector managers to simply account for the funds allocated by Parliament—the Government and public expect to know what results have been achieved by the spending of the funds and whether 'value for money' has been received." Let me consider program management in evaluating this Government's performance. If the public of Queensland shift their focus from what was promised for the input to the results, they will be extremely disappointed and betrayed. They are now questioning whether or not they have received value for money. The catchphrase in Queensland business is that this State is suffering the malaise of paralysis by analysis. The road to change for local government will be a rough and uncomfortable journey. Not surprisingly, people are expressing concern and anxiety at the speed and volume of change and are feeling considerable unease about the outcome of reviews. It is only natural that people fear the unknown. The Electoral and Administrative Review Commission investigations of local government will undoubtedly have a profound effect on the structure of local government in Queensland well into the next century. The major problem that affects local government is the uncertainty as to when the next local government election will take place. Mr Burns: 23 March. Mr COOMBER: Is that right? Mr Burns: I have just read the report of EARC. It is 23 March. Mr COOMBER: 23 March 1991. Mr Burns: That's right. Mr COOMBER: That is good to hear. At least the date is set and everyone can work on that. The Minister has stated that the local government elections will be held on 23 March 1991. Until now, in the minds of some members of the Minister's department Legislative Assembly 4031 23 October 1990 that date seemed flexible. There is no doubt that major questions surround the internal divisional boundaries and the appropriateness of the external boundaries of many councils. The EARC position paper No. 1 raised those problems that affect approximately 54 local authorities. However, the external boundaries of many councils have not been changed in 60 years, despite populations having either overwhelmed or deserted them. Local government would be better placed if, after the EARC investigations, it could speak on behalf of the community and could be given a serious role in the planning of Government policies and programs that impact upon local communities. That will not occur under the Labor Government, however. As part of its future directions policy, towards the end of this year a conference called "SEQ 2001" will be staged at Parliament House with approximately 90 delegates. The conference is an insult to local government throughout Queensland. I notice that two Federal Ministers are to be invited to the conference—Mr John Kerin and Mr Simon Crean—both of whom live outside Queensland and have a very basic, limited knowledge of south-east Queensland. In addition, there will be 18 State Ministers, 29 local government mayors and chairmen and an overwhelming number of community groups totalling approximately 50. In order to meet the demands of the anticipated population boom over the next 10 years from Noosa to the border, those people are to guide the planning for regional growth in south-east Queensland. Mr Burns: Your figures are wrong. You should have talked to me before you made this speech. Mr COOMBER: Those figures came straight from the Minister's department. Perhaps the Minister should contact his department. Mr Burns: There will be more than 18 or 21 local authority people. Mr COOMBER: I said that there would be more than that. The figure was 29. Mr Burns: You could go on to 49 and you would be closer to it. Mr COOMBER: I do not know where they will be put, because they are supposed to be coming here. Mr Burns: The Upper House Chamber down there, and there will be advisers upstairs and speakers downstairs. Mr COOMBER: I am happy to hear that. Local government will be happy. It is quite a joke that the Government has imported many heads of departments from New South Wales and Canberra to manage the public service in Queensland. Now it is importing politicians from Canberra to assist in the planning of this State. Local government is tiring rapidly of the responsibility to coordinate services throughout the region. It has been involved in regional planning for decades, particularly in south-east Queensland. Local authorities provide strategic plans and, in the main, performance of the plan is closely adhered to. The Albert Shire strategic plan, for instance, provides a framework for development in the corridor between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. With the passage of time, the recently passed Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act will be the greatest liability to development in this State. Planning must serve the community and society as a whole; it must not serve only the interests of the Government, the developers or individual planners. Because the Act will be used in the interests of the Government, it will stand condemned for changing a system under which planning was a responsibility of local authorities to a State-based system. The time delays, the double standards and the red tape will strangle the approval process. Whether one is a trade union official, a civil libertarian, a schoolteacher, a lawyer or a person who comes from a host of other non-business backgrounds—as most of the Labor Party members do—if an application to a local authority or to the department takes one week or one year, the implication of cost is irrelevant. One must understand the system and how confidence and the whole Legislative Assembly 4032 23 October 1990 structure of the economy revolve around sound business practices and a professional approach to planning. It is not local authorities that have failed the challenge of regional planning; it is the State Government. Schools, hospitals and roads are placed into the overall scheme at the end of the approval process, not at the beginning, as business would ensure. Some building applications are subjected to aspects of the Heritage Buildings Protection Act, but the final appeal is to the Minister, not to some form of judicial body. Hence, with a change of Minister or a change of Government, double standards can occur. Rather than being the level of Government that decides the infrastructure of the area, local government has become a referral agency. Let us consider how business confidence will react to the trendy Labor Government. In 1988-89, approximately 1 463 rezonings were gazetted. In 1989-90, approximately 1 566 rezonings were gazetted. Let us wait for 1990-91. Let us watch business decay with the loss of investor confidence. What dire straits business confidence must be in for investors to threaten to remove all of their business investment from Queensland to other parts of the world, as Daikyo did not long ago. What double standards are there when half of Surfers Paradise lies stagnant, with land owned by Australian investment not being redeveloped, successfully affecting every business on the Gold Coast? Foreign investment guidelines affect local government in many ways. Before approval can be given by the Foreign Investment Review Board, investment in development, land and commercial property must be considered by the local authority. The approval process is long and costly to the applicant and also to the local authority. Cases in which approval is given and Foreign Investment Review Board approval is refused—not by the Federal Government, but by the State Government—are extremely frustrating. After all, is not this department indicating that strategic planning is the way to go? Councils in south-east Queensland do undertake strategic planning and in the case of the two applications refused by this Government—not by the Federal Government—investment income of close to $1 billion was forfeited to the region after the strategic planning requirements of the local authorities had been satisfied. The Liberal Party notes that the Government is spending some $25,000 to launch Operation Waterwise. We support the education of our young people in order to reduce the number of drownings in domestic pools, canals, rivers and the sea and I am pleased that a person of the stature of Laurie Lawrence has been selected by the Government to undertake that promotion. The question of pool- fencing will shortly be debated in this Chamber. The Liberal Party will not support any form of retrospective legislation as is proposed in the discussion paper. I note that there is no allocation in the Budget to assist the pensioners of this State in the payment of annual rates and charges. Until recently, the pensioner discounts provided by local authorities were matched by the State. The percentage contributed by the State is now considerably less than the discount provided by the local authorities. Perhaps the Minister can explain why this is the case, or is this another case of the Labor Party—be it the Federal Government or the State Government—crippling pensioners and other elderly people, that is, the people least able to pay? In his speech the Treasurer said— "The Queensland Government is firmly committed to wide-ranging micro-economic reform as a means of improving the efficiency and productivity of the Queensland economy. . . . I should mention in this context that the Government intends to apply a 0.5 percent capital guarantee fee to the borrowings of the Queensland Electricity Commission. . . . The Government will give consideration to extending this discipline in future Budgets to other authorities benefitting from a Government guarantee." Legislative Assembly 4033 23 October 1990

In anybody's language that includes local government. Therefore, future local government borrowings from the State Government through the Treasury may in fact be subject to a capital guarantee fee, which will be passed on to the local authority and paid for through its rates. This is in fact another tax; another fund- raising technique of the Labor Party that will increase rates in every local authority in Queensland. Also, of course, it is another broken promise of this Labor Government. It promised no more taxes and has once again failed to keep its promise. One area I wish to refer to during this Estimates debate is the assistance that is allocated in the Budget to local authorities for disaster relief. Earlier this year, following the floods in western Queensland, $20m out of a total flood-relief allocation of $68.5m was allocated to local authorities for the restoration of public assets. I am happy to note that the Minister has indicated that there will be an increase from that $20m to $30m for assistance to local authorities in 1990-91. The counter-disaster State Emergency Service, which coordinates support primarily through a central control group and local authority and disaster district centres, has been allocated $5.38m out of this fund. Local government has to play a leading role in encouraging private-sector involvement in infrastructure provision and to assist in making Queensland the leading economy in the Asia/Pacific region. The continual process of change and investigation and the establishment of committees is being felt by local government more than any other level of government in Queensland. Road-funding has to be addressed and additional revenue sought from the Federal Government to assist in local road construction and maintenance. The Minister seems hell-bent on instituting pool-fencing by-laws. It will cost the people of Brisbane and the Gold Coast some $500m to conform to the new regulations. All this money to save possibly five to seven toddlers per year from drowning. It is my view that $500m spent on our road system would save many more lives each year. Page 25 of Budget Paper No. 2 indicates that the wages component for the Department of Housing and Local Government has increased from $14.5m in 1989-90 to $17.7m in 1990-91. In 1989-90, administration charges were $55.4m and these have risen to $63.4m. Perhaps the Minister knows how many more staff he has employed, but already the trail of the Labor Government is self-evident, with an expanded public service. Animal protection and the RSPCA are winners in this Budget. They are now the responsibility of the Department of Local Government. Animal control and enforcement of by-laws is carried out by local government and we agree that this is the correct department to monitor animal care and control. I am pleased that the RSPCA has benefited from this Budget to the tune of some $150,000 and that animal protection now has a sensible working budget of approximately $250,000. I note that the department is to undertake a systems review; a review of all State and local government development approval processes. The Liberal Party supports a simpler approval process but one that has the proper checks and balances in place to protect the people of Queensland. There must be a concerted effort to provide cheaper land. The development process is costly and any change to the development approval process that saves time would be a move towards cheaper land. Finally, in the few minutes remaining to me I wish to address the matter of pornography and sex shops, which is being addressed by the department. Several local authorities have proposed similar amendments pertaining to this matter. I understand that the department is seeking legal advice and that Minister Burns is currently reviewing the situation. The department's position is that town-planning schemes are considered an inappropriate method of gaining control over such matters basically because these matters are considered to be of a moral nature and not of a town-planning nature. It is possible that an objection may be taken to a town-planning by-law—— Time expired. Mrs WOODGATE (Pine Rivers) (2.53 p.m.): A reading of Budget Paper No. 3 indicates that the Department of Housing administers four programs, namely, home loans, rental accommodation, specific assistance and corporate services. It is with respect to the two former programs—home loans and rental accommodation—that I wish to Legislative Assembly 4034 23 October 1990 speak more specifically today. A simple sentence appearing on page 246 on Budget Paper No. 3 states the position in relation to home loans quite succinctly. The goal is— "To maximise home-ownership opportunities for families and single people." The Government's major product is the home-ownership Made Easy—HOME—program. This program has broadened the access to home-ownership by Queensland families and single people through low deposit, low start, fixed interest rate loans. Another initiative under HOME involves the provision of funds for HOME Shared. This scheme enables those who are unable to afford outright ownership to make a start by purchasing a share of their home. Adequate, appropriate and affordable housing is one of the community's most vital concerns. This Government and the Minister for Housing have recognised the very real responsibility of ensuring that the community in Queensland is properly housed. During 1990-91, funds for the provision of public rental housing will total more than $210m. The construction of 2 800 new dwellings is scheduled to commence, more than 1 550 of which will be located in rural areas. Outlays on assistance to individuals and non-profit organisations will total approximately $50m through the family housing package, mortgage relief scheme, bond assistance, rent assistance and the housing accommodation assistance program. It is estimated that $500m in home loans will be advanced in 1990-91 through existing housing trusts and the newly established HOME trusts. Under the HOME scheme, loans will be made available at an interest rate of 14.96 per cent and will be fixed for 10 years. Loans of up to $100,000 will be made available on a deposit of at least $2,000. An additional $100m is also available for the purchase of the Government's share in shared home-ownership arrangements. The great Australian dream is still to own one's home. This Government is certainly going a good way down the track to make that dream a reality. Housing is one of the most fundamental social needs. As the Treasurer said in his Budget Speech, most other social welfare measures pale into insignificance beside the need for a roof over one's head. As I have said, rental accommodation has nevertheless not been neglected in this year's Budget because the major initiative will substantially boost the provision of rental accommodation during the first term of the Goss Labor Government—the first of many terms, I might add. As a first instalment, $210m will be made available for public housing in 1990-91. All policies and procedures related to this program are currently under review. Tenants are being provided with opportunities to become involved in aspects of design and management of their housing. Joint venture arrangements are being investigated with a view to diversifying the housing tenure mix in local communities, thereby reducing the concentrations of public housing. I have referred previously in the House to 600 vacant blocks of land in Albany Creek in my electorate that are owned by the Department of Housing. I welcome the development of this land by the department and look forward to a mix of public and private homes. I also look forward to planning input being obtained from local residents and the local shire council, including planned open space, local shopping areas and buffer zones. All those features could add up to a most tasteful development at an affordable price. Similarly, at Bray Park, land owned by the Department of Housing could be developed as low-cost housing by both the public and private sectors. Over the past 10 to 20 years, the housing needs of the community have changed quite dramatically. One and two-person households currently make up approximately 50 per cent of the housing market. Put another way, 30 per cent of the market comprises the traditional household of mother, father and two children, yet the rules, regulations, procedures and practices that govern the provision of housing have changed little. The Government needs to do it better in terms of providing housing. As the Minister has outlined, the Government has opportunities to work in consultation with local authorities, industries and community groups to develop and implement a range of strategies that is aimed at reducing the cost of housing, increasing housing affordability and providing greater choices in housing. To assist with this program, a new Housing Affordability Division has been created within the Department of Housing and Local Legislative Assembly 4035 23 October 1990

Government. The role of this division is to develop and promote innovative housing strategies that will increase community accessibility to adequate, appropriate and cost-effective housing; to provide a focus within the department and in the community for industry groups, local authorities and other State Government departments with respect to housing issues; to develop policy options with respect to increasing community access to appropriate housing; to liaise with industry and community groups; to ensure consultation on major housing policy issues; and to initiate the development of projects that demonstrate innovative housing practices. As recently as last month, I received from the office of the Deputy Premier and Minister for Housing and Local Government a copy of the Queensland Housing Assistance Plan for 1990-91. The plan described in detail the ways in which various forms of housing assistance will be provided in 1990-91 to our fellow Queenslanders, and also provided a clear indication of the Queensland Government's priorities for this financial year. I commend this booklet to my fellow members. It makes very interesting reading. The letter from the Minister which accompanied the plan advised that because of severe time constraints under which the department has operated this year, it was not possible for the first plan to be subjected to widespread community consultation. However, next year's plan will reflect the input of groups throughout Queensland. I urge all honourable members to provide feedback to the Minister on the contents of the plan. The plan points out that the major directions to be established in the future approach to housing services in Queensland are: expanding the provision of secure, affordable housing through both the home lending and public and community rental housing programs; ensuring Government housing programs and services are responsive to client needs; and improving and destigmatising public housing for existing and future tenants, which will involve improving the condition and standard of houses and the movement away from building large housing estates. During my time as a councillor on the Pine Rivers Shire Council, I spent some time studying and investigating the joint venture for more affordable housing program. In company with officers of the town- planning and building departments of the council, I visited areas where the scheme had been put into practice. The program started with a view to achieving cost-effectiveness in the way in which land is subdivided and developed for housing. The search for cost-effectiveness meant that an examination was made of the whole way in which residential land is provided. The issues ranged from locational and planning concerns relative to new residential areas, that is, to make the best use of, and economically extend onto, existing service infrastructure, through to design issues relative to the extent of roads and the size of allotments provided, that is, reducing such standards to decrease costs, and to the way houses are sited so that the best use of the residential allotment can be made, that is, the efficient siting of houses, particularly on smaller allotments. An examination of the whole way in which residential land is provided generated an increase in the number and importance of issues, including the issue of cost-effectiveness. The issues included pedestrian safety, access to functional open space areas and other qualitative aspects, as well as the need to improve or consider the way a street looks. The joint venture for more affordable housing became Green Street. Green Street is, now, about rationalising the way we think about, plan and design the places where we live—our residential environments, particularly through the development of the Australian model code for residential development. That process of rationalisation has led to the realisation that, if we vary traditional approaches to the provision of residential environments, many of the so-called housing problems in Australia can be addressed. In summary, Green Street now addresses the following needs: housing choice and diversity—the need to provide greater diversity in housing forms and types, to reflect changing household structures and to help balance existing household stock and household occupants; cost-effectiveness and affordability; better residential environments and suburban design—the need to rationalise residential land development techniques to provide for greater safety, better integration of open space and natural features and an improved residential amenity generally. Legislative Assembly 4036 23 October 1990

As I said earlier, Australia's households and life-styles are changing. Half of all households have one or two people, and a third of them include only one adult. There are now more active older people in the community. Federal, State and local Governments and the residential development industry are meeting this challenge with cost-effective, proven building and land development techniques which increase choice and affordability. Green Street subdivisions suit young families, the newly married, working couples, retirees and single people. Green Street provides a wider choice. We Australians share many values and our fundamental needs are similar. We all want good housing. However, we do have a diverse population. Not everyone wants to have a big garden or to pay for a large lot. Not everyone wants the same number of bedrooms in his house. Furthermore, people themselves change. A house is much harder to change. Will children be able to stay in an area as they grow up and look for different sorts of housing? Can mum and dad move into an area to be close to their grandchildren? When a choice is not available, people get stuck with housing which does not suit them or which requires a higher proportion of their investment than they would wish. Admittedly, it could be that only a small proportion of the housing stock needs to be different, as long as it provides the opportunity for some potential or future members of the community to make an appropriate choice. I find myself asking, "Does the housing being provided in my electorate match or anticipate the diverse needs of the community?" Provision of different and more affordable housing may well be the answer. There have been publications on some housing innovations, including smaller allotments, front, rear and side set-backs, street widths, kerb and gutter treatments, street construction standards, common trenching of services, and overground storm water. I will refer to one of those innovations. I am often asked by people whether I consider small lots to be a bad thing. I have always answered "No", as I believe they widen people's housing options and can provide a high quality environment. In today's changing society, many households neither want nor need large gardens. However, they are not willing to accept villa unit type living with its minimal open space. A major way of creating appropriate and affordable housing is with individual lots of 400 to 500 square metres. Small lots could, of course, mean a crowded, poky, substandard environment. They need not, and with careful design they do not. On lots of that size, care must be taken with the siting of houses. It is then possible to achieve private, sunny, open space to each house, good orientation to light and a varied and uncrowded street scape. Planning, engineering and building regulations are a way of maintaining reasonable housing standards. Sometimes, however, traditional regulations start to become less appropriate as circumstances change. It is worth while reviewing them every few years to make sure that they still serve a useful purpose or are appropriate in every case. When technology changes, community expectations change or economic circumstances change, regulations may need to be adapted. Many regulations will not change, because there is no need for them to do so. But in other cases, old regulations which do not respond to changed conditions can actually stifle good quality development. Let us take a couple of examples from the good old days. Many nineteenth century roads were 99 feet wide so that a bullock team could do a U-turn. Now we design our roads for modern vehicles so as not to waste scarce land. There was a time when straight grid roads were considered to be the best town- planning practice. That was before cars became such a threat to pedestrian safety. Now we tend to build curving roads which slow the traffic. Change for the sake of change is pointless. However, new and appropriate rules have been introduced because, without them, it is not possible to provide high-standard, up-to-date, affordable housing. A number of alternative forms of development with updated or more appropriate requirements are now successfully implemented in Australia. For example, in Victoria, narrow streets have been built at a significant saving and with no accidents to date. In examples in South Australia, Western Australia and our own Legislative Assembly 4037 23 October 1990

State, flexible siting requirements standards have led to high quality estates on small blocks with substantial cost-saving. I have probably spent enough time speaking on Green Street. In conclusion, I congratulate the Minister, Tom Burns, on the way in which he has tackled the problem of housing in both areas of home loans to purchase and rental housing. I pay tribute to the Minister also for the inclusion in the Budget Estimates of $13.5m for the purchase of dwellings to be managed by community organisations. That assistance will meet the needs of people experiencing personal crisis, the frail aged, people with disabilities, the homeless—— Mr Schwarten: The senile. Mrs WOODGATE: I take that interjection. I include the senile and youth under 18 years of age who are unable to be housed in private or public rental housing. It is estimated that 100 new dwelling units will be made available in 1990-91. Mr Gunn interjected. Mrs WOODGATE: I am not certain how many will be made available in the electorate of Somerset, but I will check on the figure. In my electorate of Pine Rivers, a long-term objective of staff at the Drop-in Centre is to obtain a house. That would enable the staff at the youth Drop-in Centre to carry out their work effectively as, after the initial session at the Drop-in Centre, young people who are homeless are placed in crisis accommodation which, of course, is short-term—only a few days. Although that is a valuable resource, what is needed is a permanent house with a supervisor where the youth are safe and the issues of rejection, emotional instability, lack of skills, poverty or grief and loss can be responded to and the delicate but vital work of rehabilitation can be completed. I understand that the locals from my Drop-in Centre have written to the Minister, Mr Burns. They have been given my assurance that I am very supportive of their request and their needs. It is gratifying to see that money has been allocated for just that type of situation as we are experiencing in Pine Rivers. Time expired. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Dr Clark): Before I call the honourable member for Mirani, I ask members who choose to stay in the Chamber and talk to lower their voices. Mr RANDELL (Mirani) (3.08 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to join in this debate on the Housing and Local Government Estimates. I will give the Minister, Mr Burns, a bit of praise. He is doing his very best. He works hard, and he is one of the few Ministers who fairly promptly answers letters that I forward to him. I give him full credit for that. The Minister has always been fair with me. That is all I can ask. The Minister's word is his bond. He is a tough cookie and he does not give very much. However, as I say, when the Minister says he will do something, his word is his bond. I give him full credit for that. It is a pity that some of the other Ministers could not follow his example. I wrote to some Ministers as long as three months ago and, as yet, I have received no reply or even an acknowledgment. In repeated phone calls for advice I am usually told, "We will call you back when we have got some more information." That phone call never comes. I congratulate the Minister on the presentation of his Estimates, even though he spoke very quickly. Things look good and, if the Minister carries out what is promised, I think they will get a lot better. The Minister kept to the facts, which is good to see. He did not vent any spleen on the previous Government, even though he has done so on other occasions. This document contains many initiatives that were begun by the former National Party Government. The Minister will acknowledge that. The Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement funding has risen from $143m to $158m. That was in the process of being negotiated when I was the responsible Minister. I kept in close Legislative Assembly 4038 23 October 1990 contact with the people who were negotiating on my behalf, and I think an agreement was reached that was satisfactory. It ensured that Queensland was not disadvantaged. I wonder whether the Minister could tell me in his reply whether that funding will be increased automatically every year in line with the CPI, whether it will just be the same amount every year, or whether negotiations will take place? It is just not right that the States have to go to Canberra and beg for money. That is State money. It is a tragedy for Australia that Canberra was ever built at all. There are third generation public servants in Canberra who have no idea at all what is going on in the real world. It is about time they got out and took a look. I notice that the Minister has increased the Budget provision for maintenance by a third to $30m. That is good. If one builds something, one certainly has to maintain it. The Budget also provides $9m of State funds for the Housing Accommodation Assistance Scheme, which assists elderly people and people who have disabilities. That is also very good. I think I have given the Minister enough praise. I believe that when he took on this portfolio, he underestimated badly the magnitude of local government and the Local Government Department in Queensland. He underestimated the importance of local government. I think that the Minister had his heart set on housing. I do not blame him for that. However, I believe that the Minister has wrecked or pulled to pieces a department that was set up by the former National Party Government and was doing an extremely good job for Queensland. Local authorities recognised that. They could go to the department for advice, and they were very appreciative of it. I believe that it was a tragedy that we lost the head of the Local Government Department, Mr Ken Mead. I was very pleased to hear the Minister say today that he is doing some work for him on a consultancy basis. I think that is great. Mr Mead has been replaced by a departmental head who, by all accounts, is an expert on housing. I have no personal criticism of Mr Persson. However, I often wonder whether there are not people in Queensland who could do the job just as well. The Minister should have appointed somebody who had a great knowledge of local government in Queensland, and I think that he has already realised this. Mr Burns: Maurie Tucker is there; he is very good. Mr RANDELL: But he is only in an acting position at present. What will happen in the future? Mr Burns: He is the Director of Local Government. Mr RANDELL: When I was the Minister for Local Government I honestly believed, and I still believe, that the department was set up in such a way that the liaison between it and local authorities in Queensland was very good and very much appreciated. When I speak to some of the people in the department whom I know—— Mr Palaszczuk: It didn't take you long to become a knocker. You're a knocker. Mr RANDELL: People in the department do not know where they are going. They do not know whether they are going to stay where they are or be moved somewhere else. When I was the responsible Minister, nearly all the officers of the department were hard-working, dedicated, loyal men of integrity. If the Minister gives them loyalty, he will get loyalty in return, regardless of politics. I urge the Minister to place more importance on the Local Government Department because it is probably one of the most important departments in Government in Queensland. I think that the Minister recognises that now. I heard him say that he has been around to 97 local authorities in Queensland in 10 months—— Mr Burns: Ninety-four. Mr RANDELL: I am sorry, 94 local authorities. I wonder whether the Minister is not being kept out of the office. I went around 78 of them. That is quite a lot. Today, I propose to talk about the Housing Estimates. The crisis in housing in Queensland and the growing queues for housing and rental accommodation in Queensland can be directly Legislative Assembly 4039 23 October 1990 attributed to the high interest rate policy of the Federal Labor Government. I know that it is going to get much worse before it gets better. Throughout the State, families are being forced to live in cramped conditions by sharing small one-bedroom units, cramming into houses and sleeping outdoors, under bridges and in cars. Welfare agencies such as the St Vincent de Paul Society and the Homeless Persons Centre know the story. Their accommodation is at capacity. They can testify that pensions are inadequate to enable pensioners to afford high rentals. I think everybody knows that. At this point I draw to the attention of the Minister the urgent need for more housing accommodation in the town of Sarina in my electorate. Four pensioners are listed as requiring pensioner units and 37 people seeking family accommodation are on the waiting list. Some of these people urgently need homes. It might not seem many but for a little town such as Sarina, 37 is a lot of people. At present, the Government is building five homes and a duplex. We are grateful for that. However, there is an urgent need for more housing and duplexes—— Mr Pearce: Some of the past members refused that type of welfare housing in your electorate. Mr RANDELL: I do not think the honourable member would know what he is talking about. Mr Pearce interjected. Mr RANDELL: I cannot hear what the honourable member is saying. I saw him the other night at a function. He is a very amiable man. Since 1984-85—about the same time as Federal Labor policies began to bite—there has been an increase of more than 100 per cent in rental applications lodged throughout the State. The heavy demand for Housing Commission rental accommodation can be attributed to high private sector rents, unsatisfactory and overcrowded accommodation and an influx of interstate and overseas arrivals. That is contained in the annual report of the Housing Commission. Waiting-times for placement into homes can vary from 6 to 9 months in the fastest moving metropolitan suburbs to more than 3 years in tourist centres such as Cairns and the Gold Coast. Housing rental costs in Brisbane rose by 9 per cent between December last year and May this year. The average residential rental in Brisbane is now around $150 per week. The State Government boasts of its "generous" 1 550 new rental dwellings in rural communities. If only it could boast of an equivalent increase in the number of jobs in rural communities. Because of high interest rates, businesses in rural towns around the State are putting off staff and State Government moves such as closing down rail centres and increasing truck registration costs are crippling rural economies. There seems to be a total lack of concern. I do not say that there is a lack of concern on the part of the Minister, but there is a lack of concern or a lack of comprehension in some quarters about what is going on in rural areas. The State Government's solution to the housing crisis, Home Ownership Made Easy, or the HOME scheme, has holes in it, and they are growing bigger. Even the experts are pulling it to bits. Although it was mentioned earlier, I will refer again to the comments of the financial adviser, Noel Whittaker, in last weekend's Sunday Mail. He pointed out that the alleged virtue of the scheme is that home-buyers acquire a home on only $2,000 deposit, with repayments of 27 per cent of gross family income. For many this would be cheaper than rent, but, unlike previous schemes, this one adds interest on to the end of the bill. For example, if a person's income is $500 a week, he can borrow up to $64,000 with weekly repayments of $135, increasing by 6 per cent each year. All honourable members have seen the pluses in the glossy brochure that the Minister issued, but what it does not say is that by the end of the fourth year the debt will have risen to just over $73,500. Under the old scheme, any excess interest was written off as a subsidy and the debt could not rise. According to Whittaker, this is the same principle—adding interest on at the end—that sent all those lenders in Victoria to the wall. Legislative Assembly 4040 23 October 1990

Mr Burns interjected. Mr RANDELL: I have not got a lot of time. I will have to listen to the Minister later. Whittaker further stated— "If the H.O.M.E. loan has cheaper payments than the bank or building society, it is only because these repayments are not covering the interest and part of the interest is being added to the loan." The HOME interest rate is 14.9 per cent. Instead of waiting 14 months, which is the present waiting time for HOME loans, Mr Whittaker urges home-buyers to go to a building society that lends on a deposit of 5 per cent. He praises the previous housing loan subsidy scheme and the Commonwealth Government home savings grant, both of which have been abolished by the Labor Governments. It is obvious that this Government is keen to cash in on a housing market before interest rates inevitably come down. Otherwise, why would it specify a fixed interest rate of 14.9 per cent for 10 years? Why also does the Government have a 12-month waiting time for interviews under the HOME scheme? Is it trying to keep applicants in the dark for longer so they will not realise the shortfalls of the scheme and go elsewhere, as Mr Whittaker says they should? It is not fair to make applicants wait for 12 months or more and to give them an interview, only to find that they may not be eligible. In the meantime, they could have organised a building society loan and be paying off a home already. I have so much to cover that I will go straight to the changes in local authority electoral divisions as recommended by the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission, the implementation of which will completely change rural Queensland. It is suggested that there should be a relative consistency throughout all shire councils in Queensland between the amount of general rates levied and the size of the area which any elected member of a council should represent. From the basis of the attack that EARC has made in rural shires, and it is obvious that a gross misrepresentation will occur between the number of elected members per rural local authority, the general rates collected from such local authority areas and the size of the areas represented by individual local authority representatives. I can illustrate my point very simply by referring to the examples offered by the Shires of Nebo and Broadsound. They are either partly or fully located in my electorate. Previously, I was chairman of the Broadsound Shire, and I think the member for Broadsound has that area located wholly in his electorate. In Nebo Shire, 96 per cent of the total rates received will be from the owners of rural lands which form 99 per cent of the total shire area. The figures for Broadsound Shire, which is located in the electorate of Mirani, are somewhat different. The rural lands in Broadsound Shire form 99 per cent of the shire but contribute only 64 per cent of the general rates received for the total shire. This lack of correspondence is caused purely by the fact that two large mining towns, Dysart and Middlemount are located in Broadsound Shire. Nebo Shire has only one mining town, Glenden, and a small railway town called Coppabella, which contributes virtually no general rates whatsoever. EARC's general conclusions concerning those two shires are amazing. Although Coppabella contributes virtually nothing in general rates, in the future, it will send a member to Nebo, which is something that had already been done in the interests of fair play. Glenden will have no fewer than five members to supervise a general rate collection of $3,746.60. Meanwhile, the three remaining rural members will be left to supervise an area which contributes a general rate collection of $319,073.13. I might also add that Glenden and Coppabella are very small towns that can be traversed in a motor car in less than 20 minutes. In Nebo Shire, the three rural members will represent a rural area of 10 033 square kilometres. As the member for Broadsound would know so well, the position in Broadsound Shire is hardly any better than it is in Nebo Shire. Broadsound Shire has an area of Legislative Assembly 4041 23 October 1990

18 307 square kilometres, which will be represented by three rural members. The rural district, which has an area of 18 295 square kilometres, will generate a general rate of income of $950,474.82. I turn to the urban centres in Broadsound Shire. EARC has recommended that five members represent Dysart, which contributes $353,494.98 in general rates, and four members represent the town of Middlemount, which generates a general rate income of $242,201.28. However, those figures ignore mining company levies that are paid to the councils in those mining towns. As a result of the large mining company levies, a low level of general rate is paid by a few ratepayers in the towns. For example, in Nebo Shire, the towns of Glenden and Coppabella have only two general ratepayers. The point I am trying to establish here is that, without knowing the future disposition of general rates expenditures and disbursements, it can be fairly said that the administration of local government in those two shires is being put in the hands of numerous town-dwellers who, in fact, contribute next to nothing in general rates. Many people in those small towns believed that fair play is hardly being adhered to. The payment of the vast majority of general rates both in Broadsound and Nebo Shires will be left to the man on the land, who has already been given a super kick in the guts by the Federal Government. This is just one more blow that is now being delivered to him by the State Government. The rural ratepayer will be unfairly represented at the council table when the decisions are being made on how the council will spend its money. Broadsound Shire, which will have a rural contribution of just under a million dollars will have only three representatives. Far too much reliance has been placed by EARC on the use of the Dauer-Kelsay Index, which really makes no effort to correct the distortions in Queensland in relation to the sparsity of its population and the huge sizes of individual local authority areas. In the Nebo and Broadsound Shires, a 12-year-old schoolboy can work out that EARC's findings will lead to a gross distortion of democracy. Fundamentally, he who pays the rates should have some say in the matter. That simply will not happen. Twenty years ago, Glenden, Coppabella, Dysart and Middlemount did not exist. They exist now due only to the wonderful job that the previous Government did. Surely I have brought to light a situation that will result in the most blatant gerrymander this State has ever seen. The present Government has thus far sheltered behind the findings of EARC as an independent body. Mr Burns: It is an independent body. Mr RANDELL: Does the Minister think that what I just read out is fair? I hope that the Minister will not continue to hide behind this smokescreen as it presents a distorted image of the real situation and is a travesty of natural justice. When the Minister hears facts such as those I have outlined, surely he would not come out and say that there has been justice in those cases. Time expired. Mr McGRADY (Mount Isa) (3.23 p.m.): Of all the issues which this State Government has to face, none would be more important than that of housing. Good housing goes hand in hand with good health and, to some extent, good education. In the 10 months that I have been a member of the Queensland Parliament, nothing has given me more satisfaction than participating in debates, discussions and decisions which affect the housing of people in city and country Queensland, both in the private sector and the public sector. High interest rates certainly have had an adverse effect on people trying to buy their first home. I am a great believer that Australians should be encouraged to take the decision of purchasing a home and that Governments should assist them where possible. I suppose all of us in this Chamber can recall when we first entered the home market. I often wonder how, with the high interest rates being charged, today's young people can possibly afford to buy a house. The gradual reduction in those rates we are now witnessing is certainly welcome. Therefore, it is with a great deal of satisfaction Legislative Assembly 4042 23 October 1990 that I welcome the Goss Labor Government's initiative in promoting the concept of home-ownership via the Department of Housing and in particular through the HOME scheme. I suppose that in politics it is quite easy to make headlines out of controversial issues. Oppositions try to do this all the time. In Queensland's case, it is all to no avail. However, each and every one of us in this Chamber should actively support the initiatives by the State Government and, indeed, the Minister for Housing, the Honourable Tom Burns, in regard to the HOME scheme. As all members realise, the HOME scheme enables people who otherwise would not have been able to enter the arena to now purchase their own home. The scheme is radical in that it allows people to move into a home of their choice at a substantially lower than usual deposit and makes arrangements for people who cannot afford to initially purchase a house to purchase a share in the house that they are renting. I believe that this scheme will go down as one of the great success stories of the Goss Labor Government. As most of us realise, this current financial year some 7 000 families will be able to move into a home of their own, something which, without this scheme, would have simply been a dream. Although the amount of money which is being set aside for the housing program in Queensland is a vast improvement on that provided in previous years, it is still certainly nowhere near enough. We are still only scratching the surface of the problem. In my opinion, the $500m which is allocated annually to the HOME scheme should be doubled. In my electorate of Mount Isa, which takes in the township of Camooweal together with the City of Mount Isa, a severe housing shortage still exists. One of the facts of life is that the mining industry has regular peaks and troughs. At present, the mining industry is going through a miniboom. At a time when Mount Isa Mines Limited is making record profits, it tends to plough those profits back into the development of the mining operations. This of course means that people travel from all around the country to Mount Isa either in search of work or because they have been employed by contractors. Naturally enough, on occasions such as this there is a chronic shortage of houses both in the rental market and in the public sector. My great concern is the lack of housing for low-income workers. Contrary to the feeling throughout the State that all people who work for mining companies earn big money, this is certainly not the case. On a daily basis, people come into my office in an endeavour to obtain Department of Housing accommodation. It is heartbreaking to have to tell these people, particularly the ones with young families, that there are simply no houses available and that they will have to wait. Of course, this is a legacy of the previous 32 years of non-Labor Governments. However, today I must pay tribute to the efforts of the Minister, for in the past 10 months he has certainly taken action which has provided additional houses in Mount Isa and which will provide further houses in the coming financial year. It goes nowhere near solving the problem, but at least action has been taken. Again, I stress that more money should be allocated to encourage people into the home-ownership program. One other area of concern that I have relates to senior citizens. There is an urgent need for more single-unit accommodation for senior citizens and others to be built in my area. I certainly hope that the Minister takes that message on board. Although I can pay tribute to the tremendous work which the Department of Housing is doing under the leadership of Tom Burns, there are one or two problems which I want to outline to the Committee today. The first is the method by which the Department of Housing constructs its homes and in particular the specifications which it gives to potential builders. In the specifications which are issued to people wishing to tender for work, the commission usually nominates a certain type of brick to be used in the construction. Although that in itself is quite commendable, the problem I have is that the bricks nominated in the Department of Housing's specifications are made in the Mackay area and have to be imported into Mount Isa. At the same time, Mount Isa has a brickworks which makes bricks that are certainly suitable for that city's climatic conditions and which have been used by almost all private builders and developers in the city and, just as importantly, are as economical as the imported ones. I think it is quite ironic that, although Mount Isa has a local Legislative Assembly 4043 23 October 1990 brick industry, the Department of Housing sees fit to specify bricks which cannot be made in Mount Isa but which have to be imported from Mackay. I have made representations on this issue to the Minister asking him to change that aspect of the Department of Housing's policy. I again appeal to him to take on board the comments which I make and to try to assist local industries where possible. As I explained earlier, Mount Isa has a large number of flats for rental. The introduction of the Rental Bond Authority certainly goes some way in assisting those people who cannot afford to pay the bond at the time of rental. However, there is a problem in that flat-owners have to wait some time before the bond money is refunded to them. They have to wait for the inspection and the paper work to be processed before the bond is repaid to them. I suggest that the Minister give serious consideration to allowing, in places such as Mount Isa, the bond money to be invested in a trust account by the local Department of Housing or the local courthouse, and when the tenant leaves the house the local inspector can carry out an inspection and refund the bond money to the land-owner there and then. This would certainly speed up the whole process and at the same time take away the chance for flat-owners to give preferential treatment to those people who can walk into their office with the ready cash as opposed to having to go through the present Rental Bond Authority. Some members may feel that is a trivial issue. However, I believe that it will go a long way towards assisting those people who do not have the ready cash to still rent a flat. I received tremendous pleasure from the Minister's announcement that all senior citizens' Housing Commission homes in north and north-west Queensland will be air-conditioned. I had the greatest of pleasure in officially switching on the first air-conditioning unit in a pensioner unit. That is certainly an excellent initiative of the Minister and his department. Another issue that brought me great pleasure was the Minister's decision to provide ducting in all Department of Housing homes that are to be built in north- west Queensland. Time and time again, National Party Ministers, who were the so-called champions of country people, refused to initiate such a program. This initiative certainly goes some way towards assisting people to have air-conditioning in their homes. However, I again implore the Minister to give serious consideration to going all the way and providing air-conditioning in all Department of Housing homes in the north and north-western parts of Queensland. I realise as well as anybody would that to provide air- conditioning in all those houses would be a large financial undertaking. However, a number of schemes could be implemented. I believe that tenants would be prepared to pay off the cost involved on a weekly basis. I am more than happy to discuss my suggestions with the Minister on a personal basis and, indeed, to conduct a survey of the people of my electorate who at present are renting Department of Housing accommodation. The climatic conditions that the people of north-west Queensland face are severe, to say the least. In this day and age, air-conditioning should be considered not a luxury but a necessity for the people who live in that part of Queensland. The Minister spoke about trying to obtain greater tenant participation in decisions of the Department of Housing. That is to be applauded and certainly encouraged, because I believe that the more responsibility one gives to people, the more they will appreciate it and will certainly rise to the occasion. I hope that gone are the days when the Department of Housing built estates full of identical houses. That in itself creates a stigma in the minds of some people. Today, with modern technology and improved design capabilities the department should be able to provide good housing that is designed to meet the climatic conditions in different parts of the State. The requirements of a tenant in Stanthorpe are certainly not the same as those of a tenant in Burketown or Mount Isa. In the interests of the people of this State, a greater emphasis should be placed on improved exterior and interior design. The policy of involving tenants in the quest to improve housing design should be encouraged. I turn now to local government. At the appropriate time we hear politicians from all political parties mouthing platitudes about local government being the level of government closest to the people. That goes without saying. The present inquiry into various aspects of local authority boundaries—both internal and external—is certainly Legislative Assembly 4044 23 October 1990 long overdue. In many cases, the recommendations in the EARC's report endorse what I have been advocating for many years within the local government movement. There is no doubt that, in many councils throughout Queensland, internal boundaries are rigged simply to keep conservative forces in power. It is most pleasing that the independent commission has exposed boundary rigging and made recommendations which, in the main, should bring a greater element of democracy to many of our councils. A wider issue, which is probably just as important, is the discussions that are now being held about the external boundaries and, in particular, the proposals to amalgamate specific shires, towns and cities. In this day of technological advancement and computerisation and with the high cost of plant and equipment, the case for retaining many of the present councils cannot be justified. I can well understand the feelings of councillors, aldermen and council staff who are opposed to the amalgamation of their particular councils. However, nothing can convince me that shires and cities along the coastal strip of Queensland should be operated as separate identities. I believe that, with the amalgamation of councils, there will have to be a dramatic saving of the ratepayer's dollar. To some extent that has been proved by the number of joint boards that exist in Queensland. The opponents of amalgamation use many arguments to try to disprove this claim. However, I believe that there would be massive savings in plant and equipment, a better utilisation of computers and more equitable use of the resources of council staff. In this day and age, I cannot help but disagree with the opposition that is forthcoming. I have spoken in favour of the amalgamation of coastal shires and cities because I believe that they have a natural community of interest. However, an investigation of the smaller and remote shires reveals that the Government, the Minister and the Parliament will have to be extremely careful in trying to wrap a number of small shires into the one package. Some weeks ago, during an address at the Gold Coast, the chairman of the commission, Mr Tom Sherman, suggested that Burketown and Mount Isa councils should be combined. The reason he gave was the financial stress of the Burke Shire. Whilst a community of interest exists between Mount Isa and Burketown because they are both isolated communities, we have to be very careful in trying to package shires. Quite honestly, because of problems faced by residents of remote areas, in some cases there is no community of interest. Opposition members interjected. Mr McGRADY: Before I became a member of Parliament, I had very little respect for the National Party and what it did to this State. I can honestly say that, during my 10 months in this place, nothing that the National Party has done has caused me to consider changing my mind. I can well understand people being critical of some of my comments. Basically I am saying that it is all very well for coastal shires and cities to amalgamate, but it must not be done right across the State. In common with many other Government departments, the Department of Housing and Local Government is going through major changes. Many of those changes are welcomed by the people of Queensland. However, I add a note of caution: Governments can change systems but, if they are to succeed, they must carry with them the people who are going to be affected.The amalgamation of shires and cities is something about which the Government will have to spend a great deal of time explaining the reasons and the rationale behind the recommendations and convince the ratepayers in those shires and cities that the amalgamations will be in their best interests. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (3.38 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to join in this debate on the Estimates for the Department of Housing and Local Government. The member for Mirani commented on the Minister and the staff in his department. I join him in congratulating the staff in the Minister's department for the cooperation and support that I and the staff in my office have received from them. I assure the Minister that that is appreciated. It does not help me as much as it helps the constituents whom I am trying to serve. Honourable members should consider that aspect. Mr Booth: He wants a few more houses in Gympie. Legislative Assembly 4045 23 October 1990

Mr STEPHAN: The Housing Commission has not been backward in building houses in Gympie. I have no complaints in that regard. That is one aspect that pleases me no end. Mr McGrady: Could you speak a bit closer to the microphone? We can't hear you. Mr STEPHAN: I think that the biggest problem is that, whether or not he has his hearing aid on, the honourable member is sitting too far away from the speaker. Mr Beattie: I thought you were bigger than that—making a personal attack on my friend. Mr STEPHAN: I would not do that. The member for Mount Isa made the comment that with high interest rates, he was not sure how some people can survive. I thought that, in his position, the member for Mount Isa would have taken the opportunity to speak to one of his friends in Canberra, Mr Keating—Mr "Cheating"—and convince him that interest rates are too high, that they have been hurting the community and that they have been doing a great deal of damage to the Australian economy. If he had carried that message through to Canberra, the effect of high interest rates would be different from what it is now. That interest rates have been hurting the Australian community has gone unnoticed in Canberra. The Prime Minister tried to ridicule one of the notable constituents in Brisbane by telling him that he does not know what he is talking about. It can easily be seen which of the two does not know what he is talking about. In his speech, Mr McGrady made the comment that he would not join the National Party. I can assure him that he has not been asked to join the National Party. Under those circumstances, there is no hassle or problem at all. I get the idea that the honourable gentleman would feel more at home if he were back in Mount Isa, still carrying out the duties of mayor of the city. Mr Booth: He is opposed to daylight-saving. Mr STEPHAN: I have noticed that he was opposed to daylight-saving. In the House, he did not vote against daylight-saving. He went out of his way to ridicule some honourable members who opposed daylight-saving, and then he sat there very firmly and voted for it. Mr Randell: He sat down very low in his seat. Mr STEPHAN: Yes. He tried to hide under the seat, but it would have been noticed in Mount Isa. The member has a problem with what he believes in and what he does. He should remember that it is one thing to stand up and say something, but it is another thing to do something. I refer to the financial aspects of the Housing Commission report that was released today. In 1989- 90, the income received from rent by the Queensland Housing Commission Fund was $114,216,000. In 1988-89, the income received from rent was $98,929,000. In 1989-90, income received from interest was $43,805,000, compared with $30,723,000 received in 1988-89. From those sources, income increased substantially. To a large extent, that increase was offset by the expenditure on interest on loans, which increased from $20,527,000 in 1988-89 to $35,851,000 in 1989-90. Expenditure on community support programs increased from $6,994,000 in 1988-89 to $25,254,000 in 1989-90. The subject of interest on loans raises a great deal of concern. When the National Party was in Government, the interest subsidy scheme was available. I have mentioned it before, but that scheme served an outstanding purpose. Once people's repayments exceeded approximately 25 per cent or 27 per cent of their income, the interest subsidy scheme came into operation. That scheme has been taken away. Now, although some assistance is available, the amount of money that has not been paid in interest is added to the loan. Whether the loan is for $30,000, $40,000, $80,000 or $90,000, after 12 months, the amount of the loan is increased by the amount of interest that has not been Legislative Assembly 4046 23 October 1990 paid. In the long term, that will have a tremendous effect on the amount of money that is owed and the ability of the people to repay their loans. I believe that that policy is not going in the right direction. I refer to the HOME scheme and the effect that it is having upon my constituents who are waiting for an assessment. A few of my constituents have made the comment that, initially, they were told that they would receive an assessment in 12 weeks. However, when they inquired as to when they would receive the assessment, they were told that the period would extend for another two or three months. That is not in the best interests of the people who are waiting for a loan. To wait six or eight months, or even longer, just for an assessment that determines whether people are eligible to receive a loan does not do anything for their confidence. They will be waiting, hoping and wondering whether they will get a loan and what they will do with it. They then have to find a house. In many instances, I know the people concerned. It is only natural that they will look for a home in the interim. Although it has been spelled out to them that it is dangerous to sign any contracts before they are told that they will receive a loan—they go and look at what is available, find a house that they like in the right price bracket and in the right locality and then wait and yearn for a decision, and I think that any honourable member in the same circumstances would find that he or she would do exactly the same thing. It is not good that constituents have to wait so long for a loan. Another matter I wish to comment about concerns the loan scheme for pensioners. In the last couple of days it has been brought to my attention that possibly the purchase price of the land could be taken into consideration when a loan is made to pensioners, who could in turn rent a house through a community organisation. The price of land is becoming a fairly large component of the cost structure. I will be speaking to the department and the Minister about this matter. It would go a long way towards helping pensioners and the community organisations involved if the land component could be taken into account as part of the loan scheme. Mr Mackenroth: I will mention it to him. Mr STEPHAN: I see that the Minister is sitting behind Mr Mackenroth and is nodding his head. He appears to be taking my comments on board. The Minister made the point—possibly in jest—that all I wanted was more funding and housing for the Gympie area. The housing that has been established in my electorate has been very well accepted. In particular the cluster housing has been very successful. I had my doubts about cluster housing when it was first suggested. A fairly substantial number of homes, either houses or units, were to be put into a limited area, but this housing has proved to be a success. Adequate areas are provided where young children can play, either in their back yards or in a community group. Mr Randell: It was a National Party initiative. Mr STEPHAN: It was a National Party initiative. Government members realise that, but that is not the point. Mr Beattie: Come on, get serious. Mr STEPHAN: I am not trying to fly the flag of the National Party, I am simply trying to point out how successful this scheme is. I do not ridicule the honourable member for Brisbane Central at every opportunity, only sometimes. Mr Randell: He leaves himself open a bit. Mr STEPHAN: Yes, he does leave himself open, but I overlook that from time to time. It is important that from time to time members of provincial and metropolitan seats in Brisbane go out into the country and see what is going on. If they see the problems experienced in the country, they would get a different idea about what the country-dweller has to put up with and what is required in those regions. Very often Legislative Assembly 4047 23 October 1990 the comment is made that anyone outside provincial areas who owns 10 acres of land must be a millionaire and therefore does not need any assistance whatsoever. That is not correct by any stretch of the imagination. Ten acres of land in the country is not worth as much as 2 square feet in some of the inner- city areas. Such a comment is not relevant. In the few minutes I have left I wish to refer to local government. I did not quite catch some of the Minister's comments earlier in the debate. I believe he said that 49 local authorities would be closer to the mark. I am not trying to put words in his mouth, but I hope the position is not reached where Queensland has only a few large local authorities, which will be inefficient and of no assistance to the people whom they are trying to serve. More factors should be considered than simply the size of the local authority and the number of constituents in it. The member for Mount Isa actually highlighted this fact in his speech. He pointed out that he did not necessarily want the Shire of Burke included in his own electorate of Mount Isa. He said he wanted larger local authorities, but then contradicted himself. Mr Booth: He did not talk about coastal councils. Mr STEPHAN: No. The relevance is there. Mr Beattie: It was a sophisticated argument. You could not understand the relevance. Mr STEPHAN: I can understand it. Many matters must be taken into consideration. If the Government simply considers size and community of interest, it will contradict itself. Community of interest, representation and all the other activities must be considered. I question the decision to produce a report on the internal boundaries before the external boundaries are actually known. Mr Randell: That's crazy. Mr STEPHAN: It is ridiculous. Mr FitzGerald: This House made that decision. Mr STEPHAN: This Chamber made that decision to look at the internal boundaries first and then at the external boundaries. What will happen with the 50-odd local authorities that have been told that they cannot go to the election on their existing internal boundaries? In a month or so they might find that their external boundaries have either been expanded or decreased. What position will they be in for the next two or three years? The councils will have a big axe hanging over their heads ready to fall. They are not too sure what they will have before the local authority elections. If the local authorities have to go to the election without even internal boundaries, the Government is not meeting the demands of the local authorities concerned. The Government must look at the matter realistically and decide what the long-term benefit will be. One cannot help thinking that the Government has jumped into this with the idea that it will make a decision early in the piece. It has now discovered that it was not on the right track, that it has run off the rails. This will not benefit the whole community or local authorities generally. There are many authorities that could be considered suitable for amalgamation or for external boundary changes. I sound a note of warning and point out that, although the effects are not always apparent to those who are making the changes, they are keenly felt by those who live in close proximity to the boundaries. The Government should ensure that it is aware of the repercussions of changes made to the boundaries, especially when community of interest is shifted from one local authority area to another. Time expired. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (3.54 p.m.): One of the hardest achievements and greatest changes that can be boasted of by the Goss Government lies in the area of Local Government and Housing. Previous National Party Governments neglected public housing and allowed battlers and low income earners who lived in inner city Legislative Assembly 4048 23 October 1990 areas, in particular in my electorate of Brisbane Central, to go through a great deal of hardship over a long period. This hardship was exacerbated by a heartless lack of planning surrounding the holding in Brisbane of Expo 88. In common with most other Queenslanders, I went to Expo and enjoyed it. However, I was mindful of the fact that, although the event was important to the future of this city and this State, it caused a great deal of hardship for the people who lived nearby. Poor planning and lack of consideration for people who lived on the south side resulted in many families being thrown out by selfish and greedy landlords. Many boarding houses, which had become the only possible residences for many single people, were closed down or turned into much more profitable sources of income for the benefit of greedy landlords. This lack of planning and lack of concern on the part of the previous Government was reflected in Housing Commission waiting lists. Members on the Government side of the House are led to express mirth when they hear the honourable member for Gympie refer to the achievements of the National Party in public housing. What a joke! The achievements of the National Party centre on a waiting list that extended further than from Brisbane to Bourke. It was a disgrace, and well might members of the National Party now squirm. They are embarrassed because, after 32 years in Government, they have nothing of which to be proud. Mr Randell interjected. Mr BEATTIE: If I were the member for Mirani, I would not wave that finger around because it might go off and part his hair. A lack of forward planning meant that the amount of public housing available in the inner city diminished significantly. However, I am delighted that this Government is now placing an increased emphasis on housing affordability. The Deputy Premier has moved quickly to redress many of the housing needs of the State, in particular the inner city areas. As early as 19 March 1990, he wrote to me and indicated that the Department of Housing and Local Government had been authorised to purchase land at 47 Boundary Street, South Brisbane, 10 Franklin Street and 135 and 137 Vulture Street, Highgate Hill, for use as sites for future apartment accommodation. The announcement was well received and well supported by my constituents, and I am delighted by the Minister's decision. That announcement was followed in September this year by a statement from the Minister that $600,000 would be spent on inner city public housing. One, two, and three-bedroom apartments will provide immediate housing relief to people who are currently waiting for accommodation from the department. The department is now involved in a program of spot purchasing of existing dwellings in areas in which there is little vacant land on which to build low-cost accommodation. Madam Temporary Chairman, you would be aware that the availability of vacant land is one of the major problems related to housing in the inner city. In recent years, costs have gone through the roof. The Government must ensure that people in the lower income bracket are looked after. The only way in which that can be done is by following the present Minister's example and undertaking spot purchases to ensure that the people to whom I have referred can be looked after. Inner city areas have problems that other areas do not have. These can only be resolved by a long-term strategic plan. I congratulate the Minister for initiating this program. This Government has demonstrated an awareness of the demand for affordable housing in the inner city. The purchases of property in the West End area, to which I have already referred, will go part of the way towards meeting this need and the demand. Let me say at the outset that it was pleasing to note that the Minister moved so quickly to do something to provide affordable housing. Of course, this is only the beginning. Honourable members would be aware that the Government has already announced a number of initiatives, including a major review of housing policy, which was long overdue; expansion of public housing; development of new housing schemes; and the improvement of existing housing schemes. In common with many members on the Government side of the Chamber, I strongly applaud the family housing package and the HOME schemes, which have begun to make a significant contribution towards putting housing within the reach of a larger section of the community. Legislative Assembly 4049 23 October 1990

Any person who has studied housing in recent times would know that over the past 20 years community needs have changed dramatically and that, in more recent times, changes have escalated. For example, I point out that 30 per cent of the housing market comprises the traditional household of a mother, father and two children. However, I point out that one and two person households currently account for approximately 50 per cent of the housing market. As recently as last weekend, an article appeared in the Sunday Mail headed, "One-parent families top 360,000". The article states— "More than 360,000 families in Australia have single parents, according to the latest statistics. An Australian Statistics Bureau report shows 45 percent of single mothers go out to work (58 percent of them full-time), while 75 percent of single fathers work (93 percent full-time). The report says single-parent families make up 8 percent of the 4.5 million families in Australia recorded in June this year. It found that of the single-parent families, 314,000 (87 percent) had a mother only and that married or de facto couple families made up 3.8 million of Australia's families. The remaining families were unusual cases, for example, where the brother was in charge of the family. Two or more members worked for a living in 51 percent of families, no members in 21 percent and one member in about 28 percent." The article illustrates that there is clearly a radical change in circumstances taking place. It shows that there needs to be a corresponding change made in the procedures, practices and regulations that govern the housing area. The former National Party Government sat back and allowed these changes to take place in community outlook and composition without responding to the new housing needs. Members of that Government simply pretended that the change was not happening. They were a bit like the three monkeys, except that they were all deaf and dumb. The changes have been recognised by the Goss Government. The Minister has set out a new approach that will involve a closer working relationship between the department and industry, community groups and local authorities. It will result in the implementation of new strategies that are aimed at increasing housing affordability, reducing the cost of housing and providing a greater choice in types of housing. To facilitate those aims, a new housing affordability division has been established within the Department of Housing and Local Government with the specific responsibilities of achieving the following— (a) To provide a focus within the department for the community, industry groups, local authorities and other State Government departments with respect to housing issues. (b) To develop and promote innovative housing strategies that will increase community accessibility to adequate, appropriate and cost-effective housing. (c) To develop policy options with respect to increasing community access to appropriate housing. (d) To liaise with industry and community groups to ensure consultation of major housing policy issues. (e) To initiate the development of projects demonstrating innovative housing practices. But, of course, the Minister has not left the need for change there. He has indicated strong support for and promotion of the Green Street joint venture in Queensland, a matter to which the honourable member for Pine Rivers made detailed reference earlier. Mr Schwarten: A very eloquent one, too. Legislative Assembly 4050 23 October 1990

Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection. It was a very eloquent reference. I acknowledge the contribution by the honourable member for Pine Rivers. The Green Street joint venture, in simple terms, is a program aimed at changing the way we think about our residential environment to provide for things such as— (1) greater diversity in housing forms and types to reflect changing household structures and to help balance existing household stock and household occupants; (2) techniques to generate cost-effectiveness in residential land development and therefore provide more affordable housing; and (3) rationalising residential land development techniques to provide for greater safety, better integration of open space and natural features and an improved residential amenity generally. Any thinking person would endorse the Green Street joint venture. Again, any thinking person would also support the Minister in his attempts to initiate projects aimed at simplifying the approval of land and building development, while ensuring that the system accommodates the social, economic and environmental concerns of the community, something which was seriously neglected by the previous National Party and National/Liberal Party Governments when they were in coalition. Those quality of life issues such as housing, the state of the environment, where roads go, traffic, parking and so on are not only vitally important to our future and to the future of our children, but in a very cynical way will determine what sort of Governments are elected in this State. Any Government or party which ignores the importance of those issues—like the National Party did in the past—does so at its own peril. Before leaving the issue of housing, I place on record my support for housing cooperatives and indicate that a number of those cooperatives are operating in my area, both in Spring Hill and on the south side, and they are an essential ingredient in helping people to find accommodation by people banding together and working on community needs. I place on record also my support for the South Side Urban Research Group—SURG—and its associated activities, and workers such as Gary Penfold who have spent a great deal of their time trying to assist those people who have been scarred by major projects such as the Expo site and are today searching for accommodation. In conclusion on this issue, I congratulate also the Minister for announcing in February this year—and subsequently pursuing with the State Housing Commission—the upgrading of the standard of accommodation units for aged pensioners. The upgrading will mean that over the next two years the commission will spend up to $2.4m converting many of its 3 000 bed-sitters to one-bedroom units. It means that all pensioners at present living in bed-sitters will have the option of converting to units. The change will mean greater privacy, with the bedroom area of the old bed-sitter converted into a separate room which can be closed off from the remaining living space. The Minister believes, and I agree, that at least 50 per cent of pensioners are likely to accept the offer. It would appear that the existing 3 000 bed-sitters could be converted at an average estimated cost of $800 each. The Minister said that the new one-bedroom units to be built in the future would be significantly larger than the previous bed-sitters, with a 10 per cent increase in living space. That is another initiative that will be applauded by pensioners. All in all, this will mean a higher standard of living for the commission's elderly tenants. It is another illustration of this Government's commitment to improving the lot for Queenslanders when it comes to housing. I move now to the area of local government. I applaud the initiatives by the Minister in supporting the integrity of local authorities, but I issue a word of warning to the Brisbane City Council. Over a long period, the Brisbane City Council has demonstrated gross arrogance towards the constituents of this city. Recently, I drove along Bellevue Street, Milton. What did I find? I found that the Brisbane City Council has allowed Castlemaine Perkins to close off the street by putting a gate across it. I happen to be a supporter of Castlemaine Perkins in other ways. However, that action goes to show that the Brisbane City Council is prepared to do any deal or come to any arrangement which totally ignores the wishes of the local people. As someone who lives Legislative Assembly 4051 23 October 1990 nearby, I find that behaviour offensive. I use that road and I do not like a gate being put across it simply for the convenience of the Brisbane City Council. I know that Castlemaine Perkins is a very responsible company and that it will take whatever steps it can to address that imbalance, because it does not reflect the wishes of the local people. I hope that the Lord Mayor is aware of that and that she, too, will take the appropriate action. Mr Welford: She couldn't care less. Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection. She could not care less. The other matter that concerns me is the issue of the environment. The Minister has introduced a new definition of "environment". That is significant because it shows that the Government is doing something in substantive terms to protect the environment. But one does not find the same responsibility from the Brisbane City Council. At this moment it is rushing through a deal for development of the Deagon bushland. I will be delighted to hear what the honourable member for Aspley has to say about this matter when he speaks. The Brisbane City Council had a secret economic impact study carried out. That study has been contradicted by a major assessment that says that it is not well done. In fact, the major assessment recommends against the proposed project at Deagon. Deagon contains one of the most significant areas of bushland left near Brisbane. But the Brisbane City Council simply could not care less. It is rushing the development through in a very secret and underhanded way as part of the normal process that the Lord Mayor wants to pursue because she really does not care about the people who live in this city. Yet the Brisbane City Council is imposing an environmental levy. Mr Elder: Too often overseas. Mr BEATTIE: Too often overseas, indeed. She almost needs to obtain a passport to come home. Too often, we find that she is not prepared to do anything really meaningful about the environment. She imposed a token environmental levy; however, when it comes to doing something to protect the heritage and the environment of this city, very little is done. I was pleased that at least an announcement was made about Mount Coot-tha. My colleague, the member for Mount Coot-tha, would also be delighted that an announcement was made. However, it is not enough. More needs to be done. When significant changes are made in the planning area, we must keep an eye on what the Brisbane City Council is doing with the Spring Hill plan and the Paddington development plan. It has shown a gross discourtesy to the people who live in those suburbs. Again, it has shown that it is not prepared to listen to those people. Under the provisions of that Act, we will have to watch very carefully what the council does. I know that specific powers have been given to local residents to object, which is fundamentally important. But we cannot have—it has been happening in the Brisbane City Council under the Liberals—convenient back room deals done to look after the mates of the Lord Mayor and the Liberal Party. It is not good enough. Time expired. Mr J. N. GOSS (Aspley) (4.09 p.m.): Mr Temporary Chairman—— A Government member: That wasn't a bad photo in Sunday's paper. Mr J. N. GOSS: I thank the honourable member. I missed it in Sunday's paper; I saw it in Monday's paper. I am very pleased that the Minister's colleagues take such great interest in me. I rise to speak predominantly on the Housing Estimates. A number of significant changes in housing over a number of years have caused confusion and heartbreak to many first home buyers. The criteria that the Government applies to funding can make or break struggling home-owners, as well as have a great effect on the building industry. The elimination of the home savings grant and the abolition of the home subsidy scheme have left the future of many home-owners in doubt. All they have left is the HOME scheme set up by the present Government. Legislative Assembly 4052 23 October 1990

Although I support any scheme that encourages home-ownership, I must say that I am concerned about the viability of this scheme and to ensure that it does not make it impossible to pay off a home in the short term. I am concerned about the people who see their debt increasing. I am also concerned about Government employees—for example, teachers—who may be transferred after four years. I would like to know what will happen to those people who are transferred after four years who find that they have a debt that is $8,000 more than the original amount borrowed. There is no guarantee that the value of their home will have increased by that amount. After being in the scheme for four years and paying off their home for all that time, they might find that they are out of pocket. The present Government has been in a panic to purchase welfare housing. It has purchased a block of luxurious units for well above what I believe was the current market value. A price was put on these units, and the Government rushed in and purchased the block, much to the agent's delight. Mr Beattie: Where was this? Mr J. N. GOSS: At Highgate Hill. I believe that the units are quite luxurious. The existing tenants were asked to leave. They were told that the units were to be made available for welfare housing. The purchase of a block of luxury units for well above the market value was a waste of money. More units could have been purchased somewhere else and more people could have been housed. Mr Beattie: What about the people in the inner city? Do you let them go and live somewhere else? Mr J. N. GOSS: The member for Brisbane Central is just trying to beef up the number of electors in his own area. He is not really concerned about the good financial management of this Government or this department. He just wants more electors in his area. Mr Beattie: What a callous disregard for fellow human beings. Mr J. N. GOSS: The honourable member should know. The number of public servants and even the number of contract employees has increased, as well as the number of employees receiving substantially higher salaries. All this adds to increased costs and slightly less housing. What is of concern is the number of State employees or people under contract who this year have moved to Brisbane from the south after doing an enormous amount of damage in the housing industry down there. In Sydney, for example, some pensioner units were developed, each at a cost per unit of between $300,000 and $400,000. I hope that there will not be a repetition of that reckless spending in Brisbane. I know that $600,000 has been allocated for the inner city units that Mr Beattie wants to see purchased. However, the Government has to be careful with public money. It is no use spending hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars and not being able to house a sufficient number of people. The Government must make a commitment to the replacement of all the asbestos materials in older homes. I know that some allocation has been made under the roof replacement program to enable the replacement of the older asbestos roofing which, on many homes, is in poor condition and is flaking. However, no mention has been made of replacing the external walls with a suitable cladding such as aluminium over the longer term—— Mr Dollin: What about some timber? Mr J. N. GOSS: No, it cannot be replaced with timber because that involves cutting down more trees. Aluminium cladding would provide good insulation. The Government will also have to consider the replacement of some of the internal walls with a suitable product. Legislative Assembly 4053 23 October 1990

Mr Burns: If you have to replace the roof, the outside walls and the internal walls, you're nearly better off knocking it down and building a couple of clusters. Mr J. N. GOSS: No. It can be done quite economically. I have checked on that. The Government is always saying that it is working closely with industry. I would like the Government to make a commitment that the disposal of the asbestos roofing material will be at an approved site such as Willawong and not dumped near a residential area and covered just with a few inches of soil, which is what one Government department did recently. Mr Beattie: The previous Government. Mr J. N. GOSS: No, I have been reliably informed that it was dumped recently and just covered over. Mr Elder: Allegedly or reliably? Mr J. N. GOSS: The other day the local residents rang me and asked me to come and have a look but, as yet, I have not had an opportunity to do so. It was stated today that Queensland has the lowest number of welfare houses of any Australian State. Honourable members must ask themselves why? Perhaps it is because the need for welfare housing has not been as pressing in Queensland as in the other States; perhaps the economy of this State has been better. A Government member interjected. Mr J. N. GOSS: Is the honourable member saying that Queensland's economy is just as good as that of Victoria or Western Australia? The people in this State usually have had jobs and been able to build their own homes. I believe it would be a disgrace to boast that Queensland had the highest number of welfare houses of any State in Australia. I think it is probably good to say that in the past there has not been an overwhelming demand for welfare housing. Under the HOME Loan scheme, the department's valuation of a houses usually agrees with the vendor's valuation. The independent and departmental valuers usually agree on the valuation. There can be two identical homes in the same area, even in the same street. Everybody can agree on a valuation of $95,000. Yet, when it comes to the HOME Share scheme, all of a sudden the valuation is $83,000. People are finding that it becomes very difficult under the HOME Share scheme to get houses, even with independent valuations. Mr Burns: We have done 500 in two months. Mr J. N. GOSS: I am relaying the complaints of people and what industry is saying. Mr Burns: I think they are pulling your leg. Mr J. N. GOSS: I have seen the documentation. The Government has a policy, or the department has taken the attitude that it is okay to pay on the valuation under the HOME Loan scheme but not under the HOME Share scheme. Mr Beattie: Getting up a sweat there, John? Mr J. N. GOSS: No. The honourable member is just making me cry with his stupidity. Already there are cracks in the scheme. Honourable members have heard how the Government is working closely with industry and that there has been some success with some projects. However, people are starting to experience problems with the scheme and the cracks are starting to open up. I want to see people in their own homes, but I believe that the HOME scheme has some serious pitfalls. Many people, who are really battling on, are going to suffer enormous disappointments, not in the short term but six to seven years down the track. That is when they will feel the pinch. Legislative Assembly 4054 23 October 1990

After listening to one Government member refer to homes with only one or two people living in them, I hope that that is not an indication that the elderly are now going to be forcibly removed from their homes and encouraged to go into unit complexes out in the suburbs. I believe that there is a case for encouraging the elderly to move into the townhouse-type developments and the small units and that they should be offered every incentive to do so but, in my book, to intimidate the elderly in an attempt to move them out of large homes where many of them have wonderful memories is not on. I point out to the honourable member for Brisbane Central that the State Government has to approve an official road closure. He may not know that roads are constructed on Crown land. Under the bushland study, the Brisbane City Council has put aside most of its own bushland, the important bushland—not the open grass country—but what about the bushland owned by the State Government? Honourable members have not heard one word about what the Government intends to do with the bushland that it owns in Brisbane. The Stafford electorate contains good bushland, and yet I have not heard one word that that land will be protected. If the Government was really concerned about the preservation of bushland it would subsidise local authorities. It would offer them a subsidy for any land that was purchased for environmental purposes. Mr Beattie: You are ripping off the taxpayers in Brisbane. Mr J. N. GOSS: If the honourable member for Brisbane Central believes that the council is ripping off the taxpayers, the Government can come in and assist so that the council does not have to apply a levy. The Government introduces legislation and, in most cases, it just hands it over to the local authority. It does not care about how that legislation is implemented or the cost of implementing it. Quite often, the Government hands that legislation over to the local authority and does not give the local authority any real power. The costs that local authorities incur in pursuing prosecutions is enormous, and yet the Government professes to be concerned about the environment. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr J. N. GOSS: I shall cite the Pine Rivers Shire. I received a petition from a number of residents who live in a Residential A area. The Local Government Department is going to rezone a block of 1 400 square metres—which is a fairly large block—in the middle of the residential area to Residential B to enable the erection of units. Mrs Woodgate: That is not right. Mr J. N. GOSS: Yes, it is. I have all the correspondence in my office. Mr Burns: We are not rezoning it to Residential B. That is bulldust. Mr Beattie: Table it. Mrs Woodgate: Table it. Mr J. N. GOSS: I will get it. Mr Quinn: John, they love you. Mr J. N. GOSS: Yes, they love me. This is a matter of great concern. I would like nothing more than to be able to go to the residents in the Pine Rivers Shire and say, "No, the Government is not going to do that." Honourable members opposite obviously know its location. The Pine Rivers Shire has opposed it. Everybody has been informed that it will proceed. It was brought up some years ago. The previous Government decided not to proceed with it. Just recently, it has been brought up again. Governments at all levels have a responsibility. The Federal Government has a responsibility. Time expired. Legislative Assembly 4055 23 October 1990

Mr ELDER (Manly) (4.24 p.m.): The approach adopted by the previous Government in relation to its public housing commitment was, if nothing else, enlightening. I think the contribution from the member for Aspley demonstrated clearly the thinking of members opposite on public housing issues. It is absolutely appalling. The Minister highlighted the fact that the previous Government's contribution left Queensland with the lowest proportion of public housing tenants, at 2.8 per cent, compared with the national average of 5.2 per cent, and with the lowest level of home-ownership in Australia, at 67.7 per cent, compared with a national average of 69.1 per cent. It left Queensland with a higher proportion of householders living in private rental accommodation, the tenure which provides the least affordable and least secure term of housing. There were also more caravan-dwellers in this State than in any other State. As the Queensland Housing Assistance Plan 1990/91 states— "Clearly, a smaller proportion of households have had the benefits of secure long term housing in either home ownership or public housing in Queensland than in any other State." In other words, second best was good enough for Queenslanders. That plan stated also that past policies of the previous administration denied many needy people access to public housing. Employable single people under 40 could not apply. Unfortunately, the information was generally available only in English, which did nothing for our immigrant population. The plan stated also that there was clearly an inadequate variety of housing types in that no homes with more than four bedrooms were provided. I must thank the Minister because he is addressing that issue. In my electorate alone, he recently purchased two five-bedroom homes in Birkdale to cater for larger families in need, something that was neglected previously. Something that should have concerned those in rural electorates was that no waiting lists were established in many rural areas. Waiting-times for public housing are appalling. Although they vary from area to area, in most cases they range from 1 to 3.5 years for pensioner units and, in some areas, such as Archerfield, they range from three months to three years, as is the case in my electorate. The Minister is addressing the problems. In the 1990-91 Budget, the Government has given a high priority to a comprehensive range of programs through its HOME Loan and HOME Shared initiatives. It is also expanding and improving public housing in Queensland through other programs. In addition to the provision of funds to enable the commencement of a further 2 800 rental dwellings, the Government has also moved to improve the quality of existing houses neglected for so long by the previous Government. Funds provided in 1990-91 for repairs and maintenance to existing premises have been increased to $30m, a 35 per cent increase on the expenditure of the previous year. Further, the Government has allocated $15m for upgrading of public housing, which is a massive 368 per cent increase on the previous year's expenditure. The Minister should be congratulated on that. In addition, plans are being made for future expansion of public housing through strategic land acquisitions. For example, in my electorate of Manly, a site has been acquired for future development which will provide housing for up to 120 households. That is a matter on which I have pressed the Minister for some time. I am pleased that he has taken that action. By doing that, the Government will be looking at integrated developments which will involve public and private housing. In future, public housing should be indistinguishable from private housing. I, too, look forward to the day when people will be able to say, "I can't tell it is a Housing Commission home. I am not sure if it is a Housing Commission home. It is a great area to live in." Previously, the whole of the Manly electorate had only 422 Housing Commission premises. At present in my electorate, 1 232 applications are waitlisted for public housing. Obviously, this situation requires urgent attention. I am pleased to say again that the Minister has given sympathetic consideration to my representations. A Government member: He is a good Minister. Mr ELDER: He is a good Minister—a good Minister indeed—as the member for Mount Isa illustrated. Legislative Assembly 4056 23 October 1990

Currently, 78 houses are under construction in my electorate, and in 1990-91 a further 45 will be built at a cost of $2.9m. As I said, I am pleased the Minister is addressing that matter. Public housing is of course a matter that is very dear to my heart. As I mentioned in my maiden speech, I grew up in a Housing Commission home in a Housing Commission area in Inala. I am very much aware of the stigma and prejudice that Housing Commission tenants often had to face from other local residents. It was a prejudice that was often fostered by ignorance and the belief that Housing Commission tenants were basically no- hopers who have no pride in either their home or their area and that their houses would eventually become run down. Nothing could be further from the truth. The majority of Housing Commission tenants are, like my own family, decent, ordinary working men and women who are unable to save a deposit for their home because, unfortunately, their income is just too low. The arrival of a letter from the Housing Commission was a source of rejoicing, because it meant at long last a person was able to look forward to a secure and settled future instead of depending on the whim of a private landlord for any sort of permanency of residence. Just as we value things that have been difficult to gain, Housing Commission tenants often lavish care and attention on their homes far in excess of that exhibited by people in private dwellings. What has not been recognised in the past is that it is not the fault of the tenants that major maintenance has been neglected and that houses have become run down. That fault lay with the previous landlord, which, of course, was the National Party Government. For years, that Government pursued policies of putting up rows and rows of concrete bunkers, all identical, with no architectural design or overall concept. There was no upgrading of facilities, and maintenance consisted basically of a paint job inside and out once every 10 years. This Government will redress that situation. There will be a greater diversity of housing forms and types to reflect changes in household structures. It will rationalise residential land development techniques to provide better integration of open space and natural features through the Government's support and promotion of the Green Street joint venture program, which was explained a little earlier by the member for Pine Rivers, and mentioned also by the member for Brisbane Central in his contribution. Housing Commission tenants will no longer be treated like inmates of a modern-day workhouse, with the sole purpose being to get them off the streets and segregate them from the mainstream of society. In future, public housing will be fully integrated into an area and houses will be built to the design and standard of that area. In introducing those much higher standards, the Government will do much to ensure that the prejudice against Housing Commission tenants becomes very much a thing of the past. It is impossible to provide overnight public housing or home ownership for all people who are in need. The Government has recognised the needs of people in the private rental sphere by the establishment of the Rental Bond Authority and the provision of bond guarantees and rent subsidies under the Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement. The Rental Bond Authority has done much to alleviate many of the problems that previously existed. As at 19 October this year, approximately 85 700 rental bonds worth $43.2m were lodged with the Rental Bond Authority by landlords and real estate agents. More than 12 000 bonds worth $6.3m have already been refunded. Seventy-five per cent of those bond refunds were processed and paid out within 48 hours of applications for refunds being received at the authority's headquarters. It is significant to note that less than 1 per cent of refund cases ended in dispute that required resolution by the Small Claims Tribunal. That is another success for the Minister. Tenants and landlords have recognised the enormous improvement that the establishment of the Rental Bond Authority has created in that previously difficult sphere. One group that previously had no access to housing assistance was young single people. The report by Brian Burdekin on the inquiry into youth homelessness titled Our Homeless Children highlighted the needs of young people and documented the chronic shortage of medium and long-term accommodation options for young people in our community. The Queensland Government is now seeking to redress that situation by providing Legislative Assembly 4057 23 October 1990 housing cooperative and community-managed housing and by giving bond assistance to young single people who are unemployed or on low incomes. Recently I was able to assist some young constituents in my electorate. Although those young people were able to pay the rent, they were unable to provide the $600 bond that was required by the landlord. With the assistance of the bond guarantee, they are now in their own home. Although the surroundings are not very luxurious, with much of the furniture consisting of odds and ends from garage sales, the point is that, with a little help, those people have been able to achieve dignity and independence. The Goss Government recognises that one of the most basic instincts in human nature is the need and desire of most people to have a place that they can call home. That instinct is no less refined in the lower income groups than it is in those more well-off elements of our society. In responding to that need, the Government has opened the door a little wider for all those people who were previously excluded. I have no doubt that, unlike his predecessors, this Minister intends to ensure that ultimately the door will be thrown wide open for all those who wish to enter. Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (4.34 p.m.): I assume that the Minister has spoken to people in the local government and housing spheres. If he had successful communication with them, that should achieve good results. The Minister demonstrates respect and regard for those people whom he calls battlers. As to housing—I believe that the Minister is trying to do some of the things that he advocated some years ago. I worry a little about the HOME scheme, especially the shared system. I remember radio comedians called Clapham and Dwyer. One of them was asked whether he owned his own home. He said that he thought he did, and said, "I think it is called a mortgage, or something like that." When questioned further, he said, "It is either a bird cage, a mortgage or something like that." He suggested that, after 20 years, he had not paid off any of it. Mr Burns interjected. Mr BOOTH: I have done a bit of it myself, but I did not enjoy it very much. I wonder about the HOME Shared scheme whereby tenants pay rental and then they pay interest on their borrowings. I believe that they also pay for the maintenance on their houses. Mr Burns: They pay rates and insurance. Mr BOOTH: Do they pay maintenance? Mr Burns: As to maintenance, we do the house up first. Mr BOOTH: What happens when it needs repainting? Mr Burns: Normal maintenance around the place—everybody does that. Mr BOOTH: I ask the Minister to remember that those people own only half of the house. I might be wrong. Mr Burns: They are as keen as mustard to get into it. It is their only chance ever of getting a share and not being in the rental trap for the rest of their lives. HOME will pale into insignificance compared with this. It is just so important to give those people that chance. I am not arguing against it. Mr BOOTH: I am not suggesting that they should not get that opportunity. However, if there are too many collapses in the scheme, it might not be as good as we are led to believe. I am a bit worried about it. Mr Beattie: Give it a go. Mr BOOTH: I am prepared to give it a go. If the Government has any spare money, I point out that Warwick has plenty of room in which to build houses. I have never knocked back housing funding. Some members of this Assembly might have done Legislative Assembly 4058 23 October 1990 so, but it was not me. The Warwick electorate is desperately short of rental housing. Anything that the Government can do in that regard would be appreciated. I am concerned about whether the people who participate in the shared scheme will be any better off than they would be in a rental situation. Perhaps the Minister has convinced me that they will be. Mr Burns: We will review it every three years. We will have a look at it. In the end they will own a share of their home. Every three years we will review their repayments. If they are too difficult for them, we can pay them out and they can go back to renting. You will find that they will hang in there. The evidence shows that in other States where they have started it, they hang in. Mr BOOTH: I accept the Minister's assurance and hope that the scheme will be successful. I turn now to grants and the timing of when shire councils receive them. Grants should be allocated to shire councils in sufficient time to allow them to formulate intelligent budgets. Sometimes I get the impression that councils regard grants as gifts and do not worry much about them. Mr Burns: Tell that radical lot they will reduce them. Mr BOOTH: The first time that they reduce them, they are going to be in trouble. Even so, I think that they should know much earlier—certainly two months earlier. That would be an advantage and do a lot of good. I refer to the internal and external boundaries of local government, which will not be as easy to adjust as the Minister thinks. I will point out some of the curly points. For a start, it would be a waste of time to adjust the internal boundaries before the external boundaries are determined. The only reason for doing that is that the chairman of EARC has it in his head that one vote, one value is the only matter that counts. For good reason, a number of the shires do not have one vote, one value. I live in the Shire of Glengallan, which has four divisions. The distribution of population does not give one vote, one value. However, there was good reason for that. If the shire was not divided in that way, many people in it would have paid their rates and possibly never received a fair share of the cake—that is probably the best way of putting it—for such things as road improvements. People who live in shires are not all bad; I do not think many of them had much to do with the drawing up of the boundaries. Frankly, the people are not worried about the voting system. Some members of Parliament might have been worried about one vote, one value, but I do not think that much thought was given to it in local government. I still do not think much thought has been given to it yet. If the Government changes the internal boundaries before it changes the external boundaries, it will have to change them all over again. Other than that, I have no worries about the internal boundary system. The Government will strike some problems with the external boundaries. I cite as an example my local authority areas of Glengallan, Rosenthal and Warwick. Many of the councils will be 9-person councils; some may be 11-person councils. If the system is to be one vote, one value, the council will consist of one person from Rosenthal, two from Glengallan and six from the City of Warwick. It does not take a mathematical genius to realise where the money will be spent. It will be collected out in the rural areas, but it will be very difficult for those people to get any of that money spent in their areas. Mr Livingstone: You don't think they will pork-barrel, do you? Mr BOOTH: I do not think that the National Party pork-barrelled much, either. I take the interjection because I love it. There was an amusing situation in my electorate. It was supposed to have been pork-barrelled, but every time the Minister for Administrative Services announces that anything will be done there, he says, "Of course, this is a dreadful mess. The National Party Government should have fixed up the police Legislative Assembly 4059 23 October 1990 station and various other things." The National Party Government had decided to fix those things, but I do not think that it did much pork-barrelling. When the shires are lined up and when nearly all of the representatives are from one small spot, they would be mugs to allow the money to go back to where it was collected. One contribution that the Minister could make to the debate would be to work out a mechanism that makes the shires to some extent spend the money where it is collected. If the Minister does not do that, he will have a lot of trouble. Mr Burns: That was the old financial divisions, but it looks as though that has been thrown out. Mr BOOTH: Most financial divisions have been done away with. Mr Littleproud: Isn't it 30 per cent population, 30 per cent rate collection and 30 per cent—— Mr BOOTH: Valuations. I have been reading that document. Mr Burns: That's the New South Wales proposal. Mr BOOTH: If the valuations are used, it might change the business a bit. No matter what happens, cities, and even small towns, will have the whip hand. Mr Ardill: They will also have the rate base, too. They will be collecting more funds in that area. Mr BOOTH: No, they will not. The honourable member has jogged my memory. If the rate in the dollar is left the same as it is now in the shires of Glengallan, Rosenthal and Warwick, the ratepayers of Glengallan Shire would pay twice as much. If a person received a rates notice last year for $1,000, that person would have to pay $2,000 in the next year. On top of that, those people will have no representation to ensure that money is spent in their shire. One of the basic tenets of British justice and the Labor Party is no taxation without representation. Those people will be taxed, and taxed heavily, but will have very little representation. The Government will get into a lot of trouble over it. Government members should not kid themselves that they will get away with it. Mr Ardill: They are already overtaxed. Mr BOOTH: People are taxed. I do not think that anybody minds paying their tax. I have never got out of paying too much tax. I have had to pay it and I do not mind if I receive services in return. I certainly do not mind paying rates. I have received justice from the present shire council where I live. I live on a narrow bitumen road, which would not look very good in the city, but it is all that is required in the country. No-one whinges about it. As long as it stays like that, we will be quite happy. I know that the Government thinks that it will save money by having the shire councils reorganised. I pay some tribute to the Minister in that regard. He likes to help the battler. He never seems to have the same attitude towards the farming community, but members of the Opposition are working on him; he might think that way yet. At least, he is communicating and we hope that we will get something through to him. However, if the money is collected and then not spent in the region in which it has been collected, that is not something that the ALP will be proud of. I would like to see some regard given to how the funds will be distributed. It will not be as easy as we think. It is quite okay for EARC to make statements and for the chairman to say that the only thing he is interested in is the concept of one vote, one value, but it goes a lot deeper than that. If people paid a fair amount of rates and pulled their weight in the community, it would be dreadful if under the new system they were left with gravel roads, or something like that. That could easily happen. Some people think that there is no limit to the size of the cake. They want all sorts of new facilities in their shire. I Legislative Assembly 4060 23 October 1990 guess that that is good. We like to have all the sporting amenities that we can get. However, I do not think council roads and bridges should be allowed to deteriorate. The people who live in my shire are fortunate because the chairman is a little above average in what he can and does achieve. He is an excellent chairman. At the very least there should be some mechanism in place to ensure that there is some protection for the people who live in a shire and pay their rates. These people carry their full load; surely they should not be left without amenities. It may not happen this way; I could be wrong. Today we live in a slightly different era to that which existed 30 or 40 years ago. Queensland has a vastly improved education system and it is possible that the people who take responsibility in these amalgamated shires will act better than we think. I hope that I am wrong in some of the arguments I have put forward. Mr Beattie: You will be. Mr BOOTH: Some years ago a man by the name of Vince Birmingham lived on the downs. He was quite a philosopher and a famous footballer. He used to say, "I think I'm right, but I hope I'm wrong." This afternoon I am in the same position. I hope that the amalgamated shires will work well, but I have some difficulty in reaching a decision. The Minister mentioned that he is looking at new, improved mechanisms for the control of local government. No-one can quarrel with such an improvement. However, it must be realised that shire councils have done a wonderful job. After I returned from the war, if I wanted to travel to Warwick on a wet day the only way I could get there was on horseback. The roads were too bad. At that time, if people were told that 20 years later—or perhaps in a shorter period of time— that nearly every one of them would be able to visit the city no matter how much rain there had been, they would not have believed it. That might not apply in extreme flood conditions, but a great deal has been achieved by local authorities. I do not know which member mentioned pork-barrelling, but there will not be quite so much room for that in these large councils. That existed in the early days. I can admit to the fact that the road I lived on would never have been brought up to a B-grade status gravel road as quickly as it was if it were not for the efforts of one man who put up for the council. At the time he was told that he had no hope of getting on the council, but after someone left the council he was appointed. Even though he may not have been sought after by the electors, he moved quickly; within six weeks gravel trucks were travelling on that road. Mr Littleproud: Did you vote for him? Mr BOOTH: I sure did. He was quite a successful councillor, but at the time the people did not want him. In conclusion, the people who work for local government should not be ridiculed. In country areas these people receive very little for their efforts. They are very community-minded people; otherwise, they would not bother with it. However, those people do it and do it well. They give of their best and if something goes wrong—for example, if a bridge is swept away, or a road blocked up—they can be approached quickly. Time expired. Mr DOLLIN (Maryborough) (4.50 p.m.): I have pleasure in speaking to the Housing Estimates. I congratulate the Labor Government and, in particular, the Minister for Housing and Local Government, Tom Burns, for putting his heart and soul into public housing in Queensland. Due to the efforts of the Minister, the battlers and low income earners of this State will have the opportunity to own their own homes—a place where they can feel safe and cannot be given a few days notice to quit, which quite often happens. The development of the Expo site was a typical example of this. People were tipped out of their homes without any concern at all. These people will have a place they can call their own. I am proud to be a part of a Government that has a heart and soul and that is concerned about the battlers of this State, a Government that is prepared to put time Legislative Assembly 4061 23 October 1990 and money into the implementation of housing schemes that will allow people to see a light at the end of the tunnel. This Government will not write them off as wounded and unable to be helped, as was done by the previous Government. If given half a chance, these people, who have battled all of their lives, have the ability, grit and determination to achieve. Thanks to Tom Burns they now have this chance. These key initiatives will continue to give the battlers of this State a chance to get on top of the rental treadmill, a chance they have never been given before. They were always looked upon by the previous Government as not being worthy of the opportunity. This afternoon the member for Aspley stated that he was almost insulted that workers live in a block of luxury flats. It goes against the grain; it gets up Opposition members' noses that workers have value. Members of the Opposition forget many times that they ride on the workers' backs because, without the workers, Queensland does not have much industry. These initiatives will give the battlers the chance to own their own home, a chance they have been deprived of for far too long. It is not only every Queensland family's dream to own their own home, but also it is their right. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr DOLLIN: I will get the honourable member up to be a marker for me; he can put his finger on my place. Home-ownership brings with it pride and confidence that welds a family together. The majority of honourable members sitting on the Opposition benches are of the opinion that the previous Government did not do enough about public housing. If they are honest they would have to admit that. After I was elected in Maryborough, I rang up the Housing Commission because people were knocking on my door all the time saying that they had been kicked out and had nowhere to go. I told the Housing Commission that I had people who were urgently in need of housing. The Housing Commission officials asked me how urgent it was. I told them that these people had nowhere to go, but the officials at the Housing Commission said that after these people had lived in a caravan or a tent for a month, I could ring them back. After 32 years of Government, that was the position in which the former National Party left public housing in Queensland, yet Opposition members are now saying that this Government is not doing very well. Mr Stephan: What are you saying to those who have to wait for 12 weeks? Mr DOLLIN: They stopped interviewing members of the National Party because, firstly, they could not find their offices and, secondly, if they did find the offices, there was no-one there to talk to them. That was one way of dealing with the inquiries; the other way was by not registering the complaints when people did ring up. An Opposition member interjected. Mr DOLLIN: Yes, but they did not have anybody there, either. I also believe that the majority of members of the National Party believe that this Government is doing very well. I wish to relate some of the major initiatives taken by the Goss Government in the area of public housing. Provision for lending in 1990-91 is $500m, which is as much as the amount invested by the former National Party Government in its last five years in office. In spite of that, members of the Opposition have the audacity to say that the Labor Government is not doing a good job. Mr Stephan: What are you doing at Bauple school? Mr DOLLIN: At the moment, the debate relates to housing. All that needs to be done is that the schoolteacher should give back his office so that it can be used as a library, and everything will be all right. The Government has also allocated $210m for public rental housing in 1990-91 compared to the average annual expenditure of $134.7m over the last five years. Members Legislative Assembly 4062 23 October 1990 of the former National Party Government ought to hang their heads in shame. In addition, this Labor Government will oversee the completion of 2 800 pensioner units and the commencement of construction of 2 800 additional dwelling units. The department will also undertake the conversion of 1 500 pensioner bedsit units to provide separate bedroom accommodation. The Government will also provide a 20 per cent increase in single-bedroom accommodation—bringing the total to 1 100 units—in an attempt to cater for the needs of older pensioners and low income single people. Funds allocated for the upgrading of existing public housing will amount to $15m, representing a more than fourfold increase. In the past, public housing has been a disgrace and people would even avoid driving past it. The Government has established a new Department of Housing and Local Government which is responsible for coordinating housing provisions, land development, land-use planning and building regulations. The key directions that the Government has established and the initiatives that have been launched for 1990-91 include innovative home-lending arrangements to increase the volume of lending and improve access to home loans by bridging the deposit gap, particularly for first-home buyers—more of whom will register this year than have registered during the past five years—and the provision of improved designs and locations for public and community rental housing. This additional housing will be targeted to meet the needs of people who are unable to afford private housing and those who have special needs that are not catered for in the private market. The Government's policy is also to upgrade older public housing to bring it into line with modern standards. Moreover, the department will cooperate with the housing industry, local authorities and financial institutions to develop new strategies that will make housing more affordable. These will be aimed at more cost- effective building standards, the streamlining of land development, promotion of new financial planning and housing design, and the introduction of urban renewal and urban consolidation measures. By coordinating residential development and social services, the Government will give effect to its aim of building well-planned communities with a higher quality of home environment in safer neighbourhoods. Better coordination among various forms of Government housing assistance will help to overcome bottlenecks in emergency housing programs and to streamline the transition of people between programs as their needs change. In consultation with Aboriginal and Islander people, the department will also overhaul arrangements for housing assistance to provide housing to meet their needs. This is what I describe as putting the heart and soul into public housing because it gives the battlers of this State a fair go. After all, a shelter over one's head is among the most fundamental needs that a human being has. Without the fulfilment of this top priority, people are without an anchor, without a place to come home to and without a place to raise a family. It is also important for people to have a home that has nice surroundings and is close to facilities such as schools, shops, hospitals and public transport. A home should not be miles away from everything and it should not be exactly the same as every other house in the street. In some of the housing estates that I have visited, a person who had two beers before going home would be likely to drive around for a month before he found his house. People need to have a home in an area that is average within the community, and not a home that makes them feel like second-rate citizens. In the past, people have been treated as though they were second-rate citizens, and that has caused many problems. There are many members of this Parliament who still consider public housing tenants as second-rate citizens. Because of the implementation of these new housing schemes, many people who live in my electorate are now able to be obtain housing. Very shortly, many more will be able to be provided with accommodation. Previously, most of them believed that they would never have the opportunity of owning a house. When they eventually achieve their goal, their pride and joy is really something to see. In common with other people, they take a great deal of pride in having a home that is their anchor and a place in which to bring up their children. I am very proud to be associated with this Government. I am grateful for the efforts made in Maryborough by the Minister. When the programs started, 340 people had their names on the waiting list. Approximately half that number Legislative Assembly 4063 23 October 1990 has been housed but, because people now realise that there is some value in making applications for public housing, the list is still long. The problem is that because the Government has improved the service, more people want to avail themselves of it. As I said at the outset, these programs reflect the attitude of a Government that has a heart and a soul. I thank the Minister for Housing for going a long way towards putting a heart and soul into the provision of public housing. Ms ROBSON (Springwood) (5.00 p.m.): I wish to refer to the establishment of the Rental Bond Authority, which is a long-awaited innovation. The authority is doing an excellent job for both tenants and landlords in Queensland, but more particularly for tenants. Over the last 15 or 20 years, the history of rental and tenancy agreements in Queensland has not been a very pleasant one. Long battles have been fought to try to establish a level playing field for tenants so that they were given an equal shake and were not disadvantaged by untenable tenancy arrangements and exploitation by some, but not all, landlords. I was pleased to be involved in the installation of the Rental Bond Authority. For many years, community groups fought for the establishment of such an authority; it was long overdue. For many years in other States similar bodies have operated successfully, but Queensland once again held off until just prior to last year's State election. Contrary to predictions made by the former Government, the authority has received tremendous support from the community and the rental industry. As at 19 October this year, a total of 85 720 rental bonds valued at $43.2m were lodged with the authority by landlords and real estate agents. By the same date, more than 12 000 bonds worth $6.3m were refunded. Less than 1 per cent of refund cases ended in dispute requiring resolution by the Small Claims Tribunal. That is an impressive record for such a new authority. Of the bonds refunded, 75 per cent were processed and paid automatically within 48 hours of the application for refund being received at the authority's head office in Herschel Street, Brisbane. That is again an impressive performance. The authority employs Australia Post as the agent for the distribution of forms and brochures, lodgment of bonds and processing via facsimile machine of automatic refunds. The RBA effectively has 218 agents in official Australia Post offices throughout the State—the only organisation of its kind in the world to use an agency network in that way. Seventy-five per cent of automatic bond refunds are made through the APO fax network, which makes it possible to receive a cash refund or money order at a post office in less than an hour and, in some cases, less than half an hour. One-third of the lodgments are received through Australia Post offices. The Rental Bond Authority encourages mediation and negotiation between the parties to tenancy agreements over general rental matters, as well as the bond, and is recommending that people contact the community mediation program for further help when necessary. That is an excellent way of linking the various social justice and community facilities that we are gradually building up throughout the State and helping them to interact with each other. As at 19 October this year, the authority had 50 staff throughout Queensland, including 33 full-time employees. The authority receives approximately 400 calls a day from tenants, landlords and agents for advice on rental bond and general tenancy matters. The authority is gathering valuable information on the Queensland rental industry which will help in planning future housing needs and providing the best possible service to the authority's clients. The authority is researching ways to best use the interest earned on rental bonds, including possible funding and administration of a rental advisory service for tenants and landlords and the provision of housing. Because an enormous amount of interest revenue is being generated through the authority, those areas are important. Careful consideration is being given to how that money will be used. After years of waiting, tenants in Queensland now have a watchdog organisation protecting their rights and ensuring that the interest revenue generated from their bonds is returned to the community from which it came, not into the pockets of landlords for their personal use. In the years that I worked in the rental tenancy area, one of the problems that I encountered was that, very often, tenants found that at the end of their tenancy the bond was not available to them. The landlord would Legislative Assembly 4064 23 October 1990 not place the bond in a secure place and would use techniques and methods to attempt to convince the tenants that they were not entitled to the bond refund. That was not an unusual practice, but it was a most unsavoury practice that landlords engaged in. That was one of the principle reasons why a rental bond authority was set up in other States, and it is one of the principle reasons why it was set up in this State. I am pleased that the authority has succeeded and that interest generated is being returned not directly to tenants but by way of proposed additional housing or by way of programs which will benefit them. The second matter I wish to comment on is the review of the Animals Protection Act which is currently under way. Responsibility for the Animals Protection Act has recently been transferred from the Minister for Police and Emergency Services to the Minister for Housing and Local Government. That Act, written in 1925, is in desperate need of revision. A draft animal welfare Act has been prepared by the police legal section and has been ready for a number of years, but no action has been taken on it. No regulations have ever been made under the 1925 Act, and there were no regulations covering experimental animals, a most important area. A 14-member committee has been established by the Minister to review the Act. The committee is voluntary and will be disbanded when the Act is passed. The terms of reference of the committee are— (1) to examine the best way of incorporating the Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes into current legislation; (2) to review the Act using all sources of available information to develop a Green Paper for public comment; (3) to review public submissions and incorporate any necessary changes into the final draft; and (4) to submit an animal welfare Bill for parliamentary drafting. The committee held its first meeting on 31 July and has held a subsequent meeting. The committee got off to a good start and there was a general acceptance of the terms of reference. The committee has been well balanced by the Minister. The selection of members of the committee was carried out very carefully. As many interests as possible were represented on the committee. However, the CSIRO pointed out that there was no representation of animal experimenters on the committee. Consequently, the CSIRO has been asked to nominate, and has nominated, a person suitable for the committee. The formulation of the committee is long overdue. It contains members from all sections of interest and will present a balanced viewpoint to the Minister in terms of recommendations for legislation under its terms of reference. Some of the shameful practices which are carried on and tolerated in our society relative to animals are contemptible. Practices such as some animal experimentation and cruelty in the name of scientific advancement are nothing short of barbaric. In a society such as ours, we should have a more developed awareness of the sensitivity of our community to the treatment of animals. Although everyone accepts that some level of experimentation on animals—for instance in medical science—may be necessary or desirable, nothing can justify some of the sick and perverted experiments that are carried out on helpless animals just to see how their bodies will react. Who in their right mind could condone experiments in which chemicals are dropped into the eyes of rabbits or mice, often blinding them, to test to see whether that chemical will have an adverse effect on human skin. The cosmetics industry has a lot to answer for. An examination of the transportation of animals by rail and road will be a priority issue. The Minister has a longstanding record of activity in and commitment to this area of animal welfare, and I am confident that some changes can be made. I am sure that, as they have travelled around the State, all honourable members have observed the cruel practices of cramming sheep and cattle onto rail and road transport and moving them about the State. There is a need to examine very carefully the methods of transportation of animals and the justification for those methods. I cannot see any justification for cruelty at that level. If it means redesigning transportation methods, that should have been done, and it should have been done a long time ago. Legislative Assembly 4065 23 October 1990

I welcome the formation of this committee. The members of the committee are very familiar with the problems. These people are sensitive individuals. As I have said, they are from all sectors of the community, and they are familiar with the particular practices that are currently used and the sorts of effects that they have upon animals. As I have said, the Minister was very active in an organisation that was formed some years ago. He worked with the animal welfare movement in trying to get some form of change and even an awareness of these practices and their effects, not only on the animals themselves but also on the community. When we do things that are cruel to animals, we are actually setting examples for our young people. They see these practices as the acceptable norm. I cite the example of young people dragging animals beside or behind cars along freeways. There should be some penalty in law whereby the person should be adequately punished for committing those sorts of offences, but that has not been the case in Queensland. Once again, it looks as though animals are categorised as not being really all that important and that the way they are treated is also not important. But the issue is a lot deeper than that. The issue relates to how people relate to animals and how people treat animals, whether they be domestic animals, animals for consumption or whatever purpose. Animals used for experimentation are a good example. Finally, I congratulate the Minister on the recent Pet Week competition, which he organised. Several schools in my electorate competed. It was a pleasure for me to visit the young people at those schools and talk to them about animal welfare and the sorts of issues that I have spoken about today. It is very interesting to ask young people how they feel about what animals contribute to their community life and about a diversity of practices which, as I alluded to before, they have taken as being the normal way to treat animals. When it is suggested to them that animals can actually contribute to the development of a community in terms of a learning experience, some of them are quite amazed. I congratulate the Minister on the establishment of this excellent committee. I know that he is very sincere in his intentions. I look forward to working with him on that committee and producing results. I further congratulate the Minister on his excellent presentation of the Housing and Local Government Estimates. Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government) (5.12 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Estimates of the Department of Housing and Local Government. I appreciated the very kind remarks that many members made about the staff of the department. The department has very good staff. I give credit to the previous Government for the people who have come through the Local Government Department. Some brilliant young men and women work for the Local Government Department, and they are of tremendous value to the Government. Some criticism was made of the fact that the staff of the department is growing. However, I point out that the workload is also growing. One has to take into account that a review of the Local Government Department has been carried out, that new planning and environment legislation has been introduced and that EARC has recommended major changes to all sorts of areas of local government. That is not to mention Harbourtown, swimming pool fencing, regulations regarding flammable and combustible substances, dangerous substances legislation and various rules and regulations. Legislation has to be prepared to deal with all these matters. The pressure on the staff is just unreal. There are 134 councils in Queensland, and every day of the week they are making decisions. When they make a decision, they help some people and disadvantage others. As a result of the way they see this operation of government, those who are disadvantaged—whoever they happen to be—think that they should write to the department and ask the Minister to intervene. The Minister's staff have to carry that extra load. Once again I thank honourable members for their kind words about the department. In response to the one remark about the hiring of interstate officers, I state that I have Legislative Assembly 4066 23 October 1990 raided the Housing Departments and Local Government Departments of Australia to hire the best staff. I make no bones about it. We need the best people. We must pay good wages and get the people who can do the job. That is what it is all about. That is the way in which the department will be a success and do its job properly. Anyone who runs a business will tell you that it is crazy to pay an ordinary wage and get an ordinary bloke when you can hire the best people for the job, the people who have the necessary ability. The Government is doing that. It is putting together a department of highly skilled individuals. It is going to spend some money on training them, and it is going to give them some pride in their work and back them up when they have to make decisions. Mr Stephan: It is strange, though, that some you didn't put on happened to be members or supporters of the National Party. Mr BURNS: I do not think anyone missed out because they were a member of any political party. If that was the case, the honourable member might have drawn my attention to it. There was a merit process. A committee was formed. I have been a member of the committee for many other Ministers' appointments. Departmental people are involved. Every staff member has had to go through the merit process and be selected on merit. It is a great pity, because a couple of good people in my department could not make the grade. Even though they were good, honest people, it did not make any difference; we have to hire the people with the most ability. There cannot be cronyism at that level of the public service. The major points today related to the HOME scheme. I do not suppose half of those comments would have been made if that fellow had not written that article in last Sunday's paper. I make no bones about it. I do not say that the HOME scheme is the bee's knees and that it is the only answer to a problem. What I say is this: it has been operating for four or five years in New South Wales. This year the Liberal administration in New South Wales increased the amount of money spent on that scheme to $1,500m. Greiner wrote to me saying, "You will be surprised at the way you can help people." So, yes, there is that in itself. I will refer to Whittaker's criticisms and a couple of the other criticisms. Whenever anyone criticises something the department is doing, I do not run away from that criticism; I ask for an explanation. I ask for someone to give me an answer. I look for those answers. When I introduced the State Housing Act Amendment Bill into the House, I told honourable members that the Government had two banking associations doing a critique of the system. The scheme has been established in such a way that it operates through a trust run by the Public Trustee. By placing sums of money into that trust, I will ensure that it will not go broke or cause this Government or this State any embarrassment as far as the level of money is concerned. I will continue to do that and keep my eye on the scheme to ensure that it operates properly. As soon as Whittaker's article appeared in the press, I asked, "What is the score?" As I have only six minutes left, I will read a bit faster. Over the past five years, under the interest subsidy scheme—these are the facts that Whittaker did not mention—an average of 4 239 people were assisted each year. Under the new scheme, 7 000 persons will receive help. The maximum loan that could be obtained under the old scheme was $65,000. Honourable members should go out and have a look at the market value of properties in the town. They will discover that with a 10 per cent deposit and a $65,000 loan, it is not possible to buy a home today. The Government's scheme will allow the maximum loan to increase to $100,000. The level of maximum incomes has also been increased. The old scheme required a 10 per cent deposit. The Government is allowing a deposit of $2,000. People are queuing to apply for this scheme because of what Whittaker said. He said, "Go and save up your money and when you have 5 per cent or 10 per cent, go and borrow off the building society." I agree that they should do that. If home-buyers can save the 5 per cent or 10 per cent deposit, they should go and borrow from the building societies. Legislative Assembly 4067 23 October 1990

I do not want to compete with the building societies. I am trying to help those people who cannot save the 5 per cent or 10 per cent and give them a start. The Government is trying to break down the idea that in this community a large number of people have to spend the rest of their lives renting and that they will never be able to leave their kids anything when they die except a landlord's bill or lease. Somewhere along the line there has to be something that the Government can do. Under the old interest subsidy scheme, the practice of putting $25,000 into the hands of a limited number of people—that is virtually what the previous Government was doing—was wrong. Those people did very well, and I congratulate them, but there were many other people in the community who were not helped at all. I understand that 40 per cent of the loans were going to second home buyers, not to new home starters—not to young kids with families, but to the second home buyers who were smart enough to use the system, the bank's money and the subsidy to their advantage. Good luck to them if they did, but this Government should not continue that scheme. The new loan structure will mean that the loan will be repaid in 22 years. The old scheme could not be expanded. This year, I put $120m into the old scheme to see whether I could get more loans for more people. From the $360m that the previous Government had allocated in its Budget, the Government built the figure up to $480m. However, because the Government could not make it do the things it wanted to do, it is going to try this scheme. It will keep an eye on it and make it work. It is nonsense to compare the debt structure under this scheme with that of the lenders in Victoria. All the loans under this scheme are backed by residential properties, whereas a high percentage of loans in Victoria were backed by commercial properties. Mr Stephan: What about the long waiting list? Mr BURNS: On the one hand, members opposite tell me not to lend to them and send them broke; on the other hand, Bill Gunn tells me not to allow them to have any more loans at 3 per cent. There is a waiting list because so many people see it as such a valuable scheme. The Government does not have the money. If all the people who contacted my office were to be lent all the money they want, the Government just would not have the money to do it. Although $500m has been allocated to that scheme, people will have to wait. Honourable members will have to say to them, "Don't go and buy a home. If you have a 5 per cent deposit, get out there where Whittaker told you and borrow from the building society." If they do not have the deposit, they should remember that the little bloke who obtained the first housing loan from the Government said, "Be prepared to hang in there. It is worth it when you get there." I remind honourable members that his kids said, "We have had nine shifts in nine years and this is the first time we are going to keep going to the same school." That is what this HOME scheme is all about. It is about giving a bloke a chance to set his kids up and get a little bit of a start by owning his own home. If he has to wait, it is because there is not enough money. I do not have it curled up under my arm. I have an aim to try to help them, and that is the intent of the whole scheme. Noel Whittaker did not even contact anybody from the HOME scheme. He did not do any research; he just gave it a bland bucket. I do not want to give him a bucket. If that is the way he operates, that is up to him. The credit foncier loan schemes that are around the place do not help those people at all. "Low start" means that for about the first 8 to 10 years the debt will increase. That is how "low start" works all over Australia. People want an interest rate that is guaranteed; they do not want their interest-rate to increase. In the last few years, everybody was scared as the housing interest rate rose from 14 per cent to 15 per cent, then 16 per cent and to 17 per cent. Mr Stephan: Who did that? Mr BURNS: I do not know who did it. I am not going to get into the argument about who did it. The banks did it. Earlier, the honourable member was attacking the banks. Legislative Assembly 4068 23 October 1990

Mr Stephan interjected. Mr BURNS: The honourable member will play his politics. He is never concerned about people. He could not care less about them. All he ever does is play a bit of smarmy politics. He ought to start to have a bit of heart. This scheme was built on heart, built on people and built on a concern for people themselves. The debt will be covered by the growth in the value of the person's homes. Under this scheme, they have an opportunity. I indicate to honourable members opposite that I will keep reviewing the scheme. I will keep an eye on it and make it work. If people such as Whittaker have some criticism of the scheme, they should sit down with the departmental officers and work it out rather than just knock the scheme for the sake of knocking it. That is what they should do instead of just saying to the people that they should get out and save a deposit of 5 per cent or 10 per cent when they know bloody well that they cannot do it. There is no other way of describing it. I thank those honourable members who have supported the Estimates. Again, I thank staff for their hard work and the loyalty that they have shown to me during the time that I have been in the Ministry. At 5.23 p.m., The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! Under the provisions of the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 3 October, I shall now put the questions for the Vote under consideration and the balance remaining unvoted for Department of Housing and Local Government. The questions for the following Votes were put, and agreed to— $12,058,000—General Public Services, Department of Housing and Local Government (Consolidated Revenue). $120,399,000—General Public Services, Department of Housing and Local Government (Trust and Special Funds). $56,023,000—Social Welfare and Housing, Department of Housing and Local Government (Consolidated Revenue). $507,338,000—Social Welfare and Housing, Department of Housing and Local Government (Trust and Special Funds). Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations Hon. N. G. WARBURTON (Sandgate—Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) ( 5.24 p.m.): I move— "That $21,728,000 be granted for Law, Order and Public Safety, Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations (Consolidated Revenue)." The activities of the Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations have an important part to play in the development of the Queensland economy. The department's principal activities are provision of employment-oriented education programs, maintenance of workplace safety, provision of an equitable workers' compensation system for and the fostering of a conducive industrial relations climate. Specific policy initiatives which I have implemented since December 1989 will ensure the department remains responsive to the diverse challenges confronting Queensland. A major goal of the department's Industrial Division is to promote industrial harmony. The broad objectives aimed at achieving this goal include administering legislation which acknowledges and protects the rights of all parties; developing community awareness through education and advisory services on industrial issues; providing effective representation in industrial tribunals and other forums; and investigating, researching, analysing and enhancing industrial relations policies. Legislative Assembly 4069 23 October 1990

The centrepiece of this Government's industrial relations policy is of course the new Industrial Relations Act introduced into Parliament in May 1990 and proclaimed on 23 June 1990. This legislation is based generally on the report of the committee of inquiry into the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act which was conducted under the chairmanship of Mr Ian Hanger, QC. That report, which was commissioned by the previous Government, received widespread acceptance from employer organisations and unions. Given that it provided a framework for a new era of cooperation and consultation rather than confrontation in industrial relations, it is little wonder that those opposite effectively shelved its recommendations. It fell to a Labor Government to complete the task. Accordingly, the new Industrial Relations Act gives the Industrial Commission enhanced discretion, power and authority to deal with matters in a flexible manner having regard to equity, the economic impact of its decisions and the public interest. To enable the commission to meet the challenges of a vastly increased and more complex workload since the legislation was last reviewed, scope was provided for the appointment of additional commissioners and a Chief Commissioner to manage the workload of the commission. An important feature of the new legislation is provision for the establishment of a tripartite industrial relations consultative committee to advise the Minister on industrial relations matters generally and the legislation specifically. The work of this committee, in conjunction with the research activities of the department, will allow for ongoing review of the effectiveness of the Act, economic and technological developments, and moves towards closer Federal/State cooperation in industrial relations. I expect to name the members of the consultative committee in the very near future. A further initiative undertaken by this Government since coming to office is the establishment of a tripartite working party to advise on the implementation of a scheme for portability of long-service leave in the building industry in Queensland in line with all other States and the Australian Capital Territory. The need for such special arrangements stems from the fact that the building industry is project-based and, as such, employment with one employer is not usual. Employees in the industry are, therefore, generally denied the opportunity of earning a benefit more easily available to workers in other industries. The working party will report to me on appropriate arrangements for Queensland in the near future. One of the department's significant functions is the coordination of State responsibilities for International Labour Organisation matters. This involves liaison with other Government agencies in the provision of information to the Commonwealth Department of Industrial Relations, as well as the evaluation of international covenants. Already this year the Queensland Government has provided formal agreement to the ratification of two ILO Conventions: No. 156, concerning workers with family responsibilities; and No. 159, concerning vocational rehabilitation and employment for disabled persons. Systematic implementation of ILO conventions and recommendations will continue in the current financial year. Of particular note in this regard is ILO Convention No. 156, which was ratified by the Commonwealth Government shortly after Queensland's agreement. The progressive implementation of the provisions of this convention will facilitate the promotion of equality of opportunity for men and women workers and will complement other measures taken to improve the position of women in the work force. One of the department's principal responsibilities lies in the area of labour inspection. This activity has been significantly upgraded under this Government in line with its recognition of the fact that an efficient and impartial inspection service is vital to the standing of the industrial relations system in the community. Accordingly, a special allocation of $462,000 has been provided for 1990-91 to enhance the Industrial Division's general inspection of employers' wages records program by the employment of 17 extra people. Recent initiatives undertaken within the division include a general inspection program to ensure awards are observed; a similar inspection program for matters relating to pastoral workers' accommodation; continued conduct of industrial appreciation courses for personnel in the private sector; trading hours inspection to ensure compliance with the Trading Hours Act 1990; production of brochures on entitlements for employees under the legislation and awards; and inclusion of award superannuation payments in Legislative Assembly 4070 23 October 1990 the range of inspection activities. Enforcement of awards is only one aspect of the inspection component of industrial relations. Increasingly, it is recognised that a major need exists in regard to information on working conditions and wages to be made available to both employees and employers. The advisory and information services have been enhanced to meet this need. In particular, a Conditions Information Branch has been established within the Industrial Division to develop and provide a program of comprehensive industrial information services. The department has responsibility for the functions of representation and advocacy in matters affecting Government employment. Particular activities currently under way include the implementation of award restructuring in accord with the structural efficiency principle of the Industrial Relations Commission of Queensland. Award restructuring is a key component of the general reform of the Queensland public service currently being undertaken in line with the Government's policy commitments to provide— improved service to the public; more efficient administration; more effective use of resources; and an enhanced ability to provide new services and expand existing ones. Closely associated with the coordination and implementation of structural efficiency is the development in conjunction with the Public Sector Management Commission of a new remuneration system for the public sector. The system is designed to ensure that the remuneration of employees is standardised and will thereby improve the potential for greater mobility of staff within the public sector. My department is currently implementing a fully integrated human resource management system that will have application across the public service. The system, which will replace the three existing systems in operation, namely, the manpower, public service payroll and leave management systems, has the potential to effect significant improvement in the overall operational effectiveness of each department. It will enable each department to include all employees in the one system rather than separate systems, as has been the practice in the past. The overall cost of implementing the system will be approximately $4.6m, of which $2.6m has been allocated for this financial year. During the past financial year, my department assumed responsibility for base grade and special recruitment to the public service and redeployment within it. The objectives of those functions are to— recruit, test and place applicants for base grade clerical/administrative positions within the Queensland public service; provide quality training and work experience for persons entering employment in the public service through the role of managing agent for the Australian Traineeship Scheme; establish a range of recruitment, training and career initiatives that will increase access by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to permanent employment; and coordinate the management of staff deemed surplus to the requirements of departments through redeployment and redundancy arrangements. This financial year, the scope of the Australian Traineeship Scheme, which currently provides for traineeships in the keyboard area of the public service, will be extended to cater for traineeships in the clerical, basic laboratory practice, software and warehouse activities within the Queensland public service. Those new traineeships will be introduced from 1 January 1991. I turn now to the activities of the Division of Accident Prevention, which is charged with the maintenance of safe working conditions for Queensland employees. Each year in Queensland, around 80 000 employees sustain work-related accidents and diseases that disable them for varying periods of time and with varying degrees of severity. Some are permanently disabled. Unfortunately, a number die as a result of workplace accidents Legislative Assembly 4071 23 October 1990 and diseases. Self-employed persons such as small business operators and farmers are not included in these figures, which are based solely on workers' compensation claims. The economic losses sustained by the State's industry and the community as a whole are also substantial. They extend far beyond the $260m paid out in workers' compensation costs. The role of the Division of Accident Prevention is primarily to work with workplace parties through the tripartite consultative and advisory council and the industry committees that this Government has established under the Workplace Health and Safety Act. The primary aim of the division is to ensure that appropriate health and safety standards are established for all industry sectors and that those standards are widely disseminated to all workplaces. Division of Accident Prevention officers located in centres throughout the State work with local employers and employees to ensure the widest possible dissemination of knowledge about accident prevention practices. Those officers are also empowered to enforce health and safety standards where occupational or public health and safety is put at risk by irresponsible operators. Fortunately, such operators are a small minority and their numbers are shrinking as responsible employers and unions work with the division to establish and support improved health and safety standards and as courts impose higher penalties for breaches of health and safety standards that result in avoidable injuries. The division also conducts examinations for the issue of certificates of competency for hazardous occupations. That function helps ensure the safety of plant-operators themselves and other nearby persons. Safety instruction for new employees has been addressed by the development of induction training materials to assist in the provision of basic preventive training in the high-risk manufacturing and construction industries. Other industries in which similar needs are identified by the relevant industry committees will also be supported in that way. To address the high injury rate among young workers, in conjunction with the Education Department the division has produced school-based materials that will soon be available to help alert young people entering the work force or engaging in work experience programs to the importance of a safety conscious attitude. Requirements under the Workplace Health and Safety Act for training of workplace health and safety officers and representatives are also being afforded high priority. Approved external providers have begun conducting workplace health and safety officer courses to syllabuses developed by the Division of Accident Prevention and industry committees in the manufacturing and construction sectors. Arrangements are presently in hand to provide similar services to other industry sectors. Universities and other higher educational bodies have also responded to industry and community requirements for the training of health and safety professionals. The Division of Accident Prevention and the Workplace Health and Safety Council have supported the development of appropriate courses at various institutions, including Australia's first Bachelor of Applied Science (Occupational Health and Safety) degree, which will be introduced next year by the Queensland University of Technology. Funding for that course has been provided by the Workers Compensation Board, which continues to charge the lowest premiums as a percentage of total wages costs per employee of any Australian State while providing injured workers with comparable benefits. The average net premium rate in Queensland for the financial year 1988-89 was 1.4 per cent of total wages costs per employee compared with a range of 2.0 to 3.5 per cent in other Australian States. The recent triennial rate review, which set premium rates from 1 July 1990, will result in a further decrease of 4 per cent in estimated total premium income. Premiums will be reduced in 253 of the 371 industry categories. An important incentive to employers is the merit bonus system, which has been in place since 1962. That bonus is a tangible reward for employers who have achieved a satisfactory claims-to-premium- performance ratio and is indeed a worthwhile incentive for loss-prevention. For the 1988-89 assessing year, a record amount of $90m was Legislative Assembly 4072 23 October 1990 returned to eligible employers. For the first time ever, merit bonus was also granted to voluntary insurance contracts. Recently, the board undertook a review of the Act, and its findings are contained in a Green Paper that I released for public discussion last month. The paper proposed a range of initiatives including— provision of increased and additional benefits for injured workers, including weekly, lump-sum, and fatal-injury benefits; enhancement of the mechanisms for the resolution of disputes by claimants; information available to injured workers; extension of medical benefits to include treatment by psychologists, podiatrists and speech therapists; incorporation of mining diseases into the ordinary provisions of the Act; and use of simple, gender-neutral language in the Act. Rehabilitation is an essential component of claims management in the Queensland workers' compensation system. The aim of rehabilitation is to assist the injured worker to return to the work force as soon as it is appropriate following injury. Accordingly, the board has introduced a new claims-management strategy designed to ensure that workers are referred for rehabilitation, where appropriate, as soon as possible after injury. The Statewide introduction of the personal injury management teams involves the formation of select teams comprising a claims officer, medical officer and rehabilitation counsellor. The team works in close co-operation with the treating medical practitioner and the injured worker to plan an individual rehabilitation program tailored specifically for the injured worker. That team activity is being introduced progressively throughout the board's district offices, with a scheduled completion date of 31 December 1990. During 1991, the Brisbane metropolitan area will be brought into the process. Preliminary results from the client rehabilitation program show that workers with injuries that normally involve prolonged incapacitation are returning to work earlier. The South Brisbane rehabilitation centre continues to provide professional services to injured workers in the form of work assessments, work- conditioning programs and work-assessment schemes. The centre also offers weekly back and soft tissue education classes to injured workers who are referred from both external medical specialists and internal sources. In 1989-90, 1 139 injured workers were referred to the centre. The majority of clients undertook the complete centre program, and, of those, 73 per cent returned to work or were discharged fit to return to work. I turn now to the Bureau of Vocational and Further Education and Training, which received an increase in its recurrent funding of $12.5m for this financial year. In the coming year, the bureau will become a commission, thereby enabling the vocational education and training system to work more closely with industry and the community and be more responsive to changing needs. The format of the commission will allow for direct community input into the development and implementation of operational policy, thereby increasing accountability of vocational education and training services. A Green Paper outlining the structure and functions of the proposed commission has been issued for comment, and responses are due by 31 December. The Division of Vocational Education and Training serves as the watchdog of the apprenticeship and traineeship systems in Queensland, administering, monitoring and supporting initial skills-development training, both on and off the job, as well as advanced skills-development programs. Operation of the apprenticeship and traineeship systems involves the processing of administrative matters, the scheduling of attendance at off-the-job training and the allocation of apprentices and trainees to that training, the monitoring of on-the-job training given by employers to apprentices and trainees and the operation of support services, such as counselling, accommodation assistance and support for apprentices and trainees with special needs. Queensland's apprentice and trainee numbers continue to grow substantially. As at 1 July 1990, there were 23 000 apprentices indentured in this State and 3 700 trainees, compared with 21 456 apprentices Legislative Assembly 4073 23 October 1990 and 2 802 trainees at 1 July 1989. That growth is expected to continue to increase during 1990-91. Last year, $2.5m was provided for the functions just detailed. Increased numbers in training demand additional resources in order to maintain the level of services to apprentices, trainees and their employers. To that end, $3.119m has been provided. That funding will cover additional allocations for accommodation and travel subsidies for apprentices and trainees who are required to live away from home in order to undertake off-the-job training. On 1 January 1991, accommodation subsidies to apprentices and trainees will be indexed. Additional resources to engage a further five field officers for the administration and monitoring of apprenticeships and traineeships has also been provided. In addition, a number of quality training initiatives—such as competency-based training pilots—will be supported in the forthcoming year. Group training schemes—which provide small and specialised businesses with the opportunity to take part in training apprentices or trainees for short periods—continue to grow in Queensland. In 1989-90, 2 700 apprentices or trainees were involved in group training schemes. In 1990-91, that number had increased to 3 500, and it is expected that 4 000 apprentices and trainees will be in group training schemes in 1991-92. Group training schemes are funded under a joint policy agreement between the Commonwealth and State Governments. By enabling small or specialised businesses to be involved in the training process, the scheme not only promotes quality training but also provides employment and training opportunities for disadvantaged groups. In support of the additional apprentices and trainees in training, the Queensland Government's funding for group training schemes has been increased from $1.56m in 1989-90 to $2.14m in 1990-91, an increase of $582,000. The success of bureau activities rests heavily with its close relations with key industry and community groups. Such ties ensure direct input into courses and related services offered by the bureau. Industry training councils are to become more directly involved in the bureau's planning processes. This will be achieved by way of a reorganisation of curriculum development activities, seeing the creation of 12 industry-based cells, focusing on the needs of specific industries. These cells will provide the linkages between industry, curriculum design and curriculum delivery. The sum of $850,000 has been provided to support these cells. A further $350,000 will support computer-managed learning initiatives. New modular training programs are to be introduced for people employed under metals industry awards as part of the multiskilling provisions now contained in those awards. People will be assessed in competency-based terms and educational achievements will be directly related to industrial awards. The introduction of competency- based training will impact on all TAFE, senior and rural colleges as new courses are developed and further industrial agreements are reached. During the coming year, at least 60 modules for the metals industries will be implemented. A number of new college facilities will be opened this year. The Southern Downs College of TAFE will gain a new $2.3m campus at Applethorpe to provide specialist courses for the fruit and wine industries. The campus has the capacity to accommodate about 125 students. In Cairns a $5.7m building, which is almost completed, at the main city campus will accommodate about 1 200 students undertaking business, general studies and applied science courses. A new college costing $7.4m will be opened at Gympie to service that provincial city. About 700 students are expected to enrol in the first year in a variety of courses, including business studies and computing. The college will also offer basic skills courses which give access to more advanced courses. Stage 2 of the Logan College of TAFE will be constructed at a cost of $400,000. This will cater for 900 students, mainly in trade courses including refrigeration and air- conditioning. A $6.2m business and general studies building will provide over 400 student places in tourism, hospitality and business studies at the Sunshine Coast. In Toowoomba, $14.9m has been outlaid for a major building on a new site, providing over 400 places in a range of studies including art, tourism, hospitality, business, computing and trade courses. Legislative Assembly 4074 23 October 1990

A $7.1m refurbishment of the city campus of the Townsville college will provide over 700 student places in business and computing courses. These new facilities will require an extra 28 TAFE teachers to be employed. In total, $1.7m has been provided to allow commencement of services at these facilities. The bureau has established a Vocational Education and Training Technologies Centre to encourage the use of technology in the delivery and management of learning within industry and the TAFE college system. The VEATT Centre will provide leadership to industry and the TAFE system through the diffusion of new techniques which provide flexible and quality training at costs which give a commercial return on a company's investment in training. The Queensland Government's thrust in this area is complementary to national initiatives in vocational education and training. The bureau will continue to cooperate with national and interstate authorities in the development of national standards, and the design and development of training materials to achieve those standards. The sum of $470,600 has been provided to support the centre in 1990-91. The demand for vocational education training is on the increase. To minimise the financial load on taxpayers, the bureau is encouraged to enter into joint ventures with business. These joint ventures bring about direct benefits to clients who may access the latest in technology, as well as staff trained to use that technology. At the same time, joint ventures enable bureau staff to work closely with industry. Over 260 students from overseas have been attracted to Queensland TAFE courses in the past financial year. Their presence under the bureau's overseas student program raised in excess of $2.2m. About 60 per cent of this revenue—$1.32m—was allocated to colleges to provide additional places for Queensland students. In semester 1 of 1990, more than 800 additional local places were created as a direct result of overseas student tuition fees. Overseas student enrolments in 1990-91 are expected to increase to 300, generating about $2.5m in revenue, of which about $1.5m will be allocated to colleges of TAFE. Consistent with the Government's new access and equity directions and the forthcoming anti- discrimination legislation, the bureau is developing a policy on disability to include policy and procedures for both students and staff with disabilities. Other initiatives include development of a database for disability to assist in the bureau's strategic planning of future demands and resource allocation, and the development of flexible, modularised transition programs for people with disabilities leaving schools or sheltered workshops to increase their opportunities for vocational education and training in TAFE colleges. The bureau's Tradeswomen on the Move campaign, promoting the participation of women in industry, is continuing. The bureau recognises that this is an economic imperative and part of Queensland's contribution to an efficient and effective industry base. Two child-care facilities will be established at TAFE campuses in 1990-91, with a view to developing three more in the future. This move is in line with the State Government's commitment to increasing the provision of child-care in Queensland. A child-care policy and operating guidelines have been formulated and the position of executive officer established. The Government indicated support for International Literacy Year 1990 with a commitment of $1m. An amount of $770,000 has been provided in 1990-91 to complete this commitment. Training and consulting services provided by TAFE colleges to industry on a user-pays basis are promoted and coordinated by the commercial activities branch. In the last financial year, colleges provided an extra $8.5m of training and consulting services to the community, paid for directly by the users. In this financial year, it is expected that the level of training will increase to $14m. The marketing and promotional services unit is charged with the dissemination of information about bureau initiatives, and with the organisation of major promotional events. Careers markets held in conjunction with the State Education Department will continue to help young Queenslanders make informed choices about their career options. These markets, which are expected to attract 50 000 school- leavers and their parents in Legislative Assembly 4075 23 October 1990

1991, will be held both in Brisbane and in the regional centres of the State, from Cairns in the north, to Mount Isa in the west, and south to the border. Through the annual training awards, the bureau will encourage employers to improve training standards, encourage and assist employees to undertake training and to develop and implement up-to- date training, retraining and further training schemes. Two Employer of the Year awards—one specifically for small business—will be presented to employers who have made exceptional contributions in an area of training. Further training awards will also be given in a number of industry categories. Young people who excel will be rewarded through the Apprentice of the Year and Trainee of the Year awards. In conclusion, I state that $1.5m has been provided to enhance college libraries as part of a longer- term strategy to ensure that modern resource materials are available to students. An additional $212,000 has been provided as part of the Commonwealth/State Aboriginal Education Program. The Commonwealth Government's commitment in Year 1 is $2.5m. I look forward to the years ahead when the beneficial effects of the Government's initiatives and reforms become more evident. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I desire to inform honourable members that on the Vote proposed, I will allow a full discussion on all the Minister's departmental Estimates, Consolidated Revenue, Trust and Special Funds. For the information of honourable members, I point out that the administrative acts of the department are open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. Sitting suspended from 5.57 to 7.30 p.m. Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn) (7.30 p.m.): I have described the Goss Government's first Budget as lacklustre, and certainly the Estimates being considered within the portfolio of Employment, Training and Industrial Relations do nothing to enhance that assessment. There is nothing to stimulate business activity; to the contrary, we are looking at disincentives within this department. There is nothing to give hope or encouragement to young people, those who should be given incentive and opportunity, to get away from the dole handout syndrome so symptomatic of Labor philosophy. As with other elements of the Budget, the Estimates for the Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations have been developed on the very sound foundations laid by the Government's predecessor, the National Party Government. However, unlike its predecessor, this Goss Government has failed to build further, to really grasp the nettle at a time of economic downturn and lost job opportunity. It has failed to demonstrate the leadership which should be given by government to overcome the economic ills brought upon this nation by Labor in Canberra. The very sound economic position which the Goss Government inherited and the very sound structural basis which the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations inherited together should have afforded an opportunity for planned expansion to be achieved within this department, particularly in the area of technical and further education. However, history will record that the Goss/Warburton team has let down those Queenslanders who had a right to expect steady progress in all three areas—employment, training and industrial relations. Together, Goss and Warburton have let down not only those who are training for employment, those who are training in employment and those who have both desire and need to remain in employment, but they have also let down very badly those who seek to expand employment opportunities through their business enterprises, small or large. As is clearly demonstrated by the most recent statistics, under Labor, unemployment in Queensland has increased. Department of Social Security figures show that, during the period since Labor came to office in this State, an extra 16 000 Queenslanders have joined the dole queue. I ask: what role is the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations taking in his Goss Labor Government's attack on employment in Legislative Assembly 4076 23 October 1990 decentralised rural communities? Let us look at the position with the Police Service, where the Government made a Budget pledge to increase police numbers by 400 Statewide during this financial year. Now speculation is rife within my own electorate that the central region will lose more than 60 police in a move to deploy more uniformed police to Brisbane and to tourist areas. What has the Minister been saying within the Government on the effects that this will have on the areas and communities from which those police officers are withdrawn? What is he doing to curb the excesses of his colleague the Minister for Transport, who set about systematically to destroy our decentralised rail services, truly services to which the rural community has a just entitlement, an entitlement just as valid as the subsidisation of the urban work force's rail transport? Interestingly, that Minister, David Hamill, claimed that there would be no job losses within the Queensland Government Railways. However, last week, his Treasurer quite clearly admitted that there would be job losses, although he magnanimously claimed that the Government would not be heartless—cold comfort to a dedicated work force and their families! It would seem that the loss of jobs and job opportunity for railway workers is effectively a trade-off for proposed freight reductions to the mining companies, and that at a time when the mining industry is again starting to do very well. The development of technical and further education facilities throughout Queensland, particularly over the latter couple of years of our Government, was a reality of which the National Party had every reason to be proud. Hand in hand with that development, and an essential element to its success, was the degree of autonomy being given to the directors of TAFE colleges and to the responsible local boards for those colleges. It would seem that under a Warburton administration those incentives to greater efficiency and productivity from our colleges may well be undone. I urge the Minister to resist any direction from his leader or colleagues to follow the negative policy implementations which are effectively distancing local communities from an involvement in decision-making processes at a local level in matters relating to fire brigade and hospital services. We have heard suggestions that fire brigade and hospitals boards were merely fronts for cronyism. Of course, cronyism such as we have not known in Queensland for more than 30 years is certainly flourishing again under Goss/Warburton Labor. But there can be no foundation to any claim that those boards were other than in the very best interests of the areas which they served. At the risk of being accused of parochialism, I record my dismay at financial allocations to the Bundaberg TAFE college which have denied the development of the facilities planned for Mundubbera within my electorate. That approved and planned development has the support of the local authority and the community generally and, for a very minimum financial outlay, offers an incredibly high potential return for the productive sector within our economy—primary industry. In the area of TAFE throughout the State, the community had reasonable expectations that new initiatives would be launched. However, new funding has not been made available other than, in the main, for some pork-barrelling exercises. Consider the building program: $2m for business and general studies in Maryborough, with a further $7.7m to follow; $3m for tourism and hospitality at Airlie Beach, with a further $1.1m to follow; $2.12m for a new college at Bowen, with a further $2.8m to follow; $6.5m for a new college at Caboolture, with $5.4m to follow; almost $1m allocated to the new college Stage 1B at Logan; and $1.9m for high technology in South Brisbane, with a further $9.1m to follow. This Minister has been able to find financial resources for those centres, all of which are located in Labor-held electorates, but he has deferred plans for centres in Opposition country such as that at Ingham. There was a valid expectation that the development of TAFE facilities at Ingham would have included student residential accommodation, and my colleague the member for Hinchinbrook, whose detailed understanding of those needs should be heeded by the Minister, will further pursue the lack of funding in that area. I retain the strong interest which I developed as Minister for Primary Industries in the future welfare and expansion of this State's fisheries and commend to the Minister the recommendation of the major working party which we set up when in Government Legislative Assembly 4077 23 October 1990 to make Bundaberg the key centre for a fishing and marine campus. Funding for that project should have been allocated in the current Estimates. At the very least, resources should be found to get it under way so that it may go full steam ahead in the next financial year. The recommendation of the working party should receive special consideration, as it affords Queensland a leadership opportunity in this industry. I trust that the Minister will take note of those comments. They are put forward in a non-political atmosphere and with a genuine concern to see developed what is a natural resource, to help in the development of the expertise in which Queensland should be leading Australia. That working party made a recommendation, which I sincerely commend to the Minister. At the moment the Premier and the Minister are both living in the glory of developments now coming to fruition but with which neither had any involvement whatsoever at the planning stage. Perhaps this Government's major involvement is provision of a suitably inscribed plaque for official openings where capital expenditure is involved. In the area of creating employment opportunities and in the area of technical and further education for tradespeople, judge not this Goss/Warburton Labor Government today, for it will be in the months ahead that Queenslanders, young and old, will reap the negative results from the implementation of Labor's policies and philosophy in the area of employment, training and industrial relations. I have mentioned briefly cronyism. Under Goss and Warburton, cronyism has returned to the levels of the 1950s. It is seen from the Premier's multitude of advisers who, at the top level, are in reality the decision-makers for him, through to ministerial levels where the same edicts appear to apply. But, most dangerously, detrimentally and quite unacceptably, we have seen this particular Minister demonstrate his views on cronyism within the industrial judiciary. Perhaps the most glaring example would be the appointment of former Trades and Labour Council Secretary, Ray Dempsey, to the bench of the Industrial Commission. The Estimates that honourable members are debating do not reveal how much Commissioner Dempsey is receiving from the public purse but his payola certainly reflects on the members of this Parliament, whose salaries are meagre by comparison. The amount of $3 m is the estimated expenditure for conciliation and arbitration. That is an increase of almost $700,000 on actual expenditure in the previous financial year. However, this Labor Government has estimated an expenditure of less than $8.4m for employment initiatives compared with an allocation by the previous National Party Government of $13.4m for employment initiatives. Surely that puts into perspective the truth about this Goss/Warburton Government's philosophy. I will return to the appointment of Mr Dempsey and the inclusion of his salary in the Estimates under debate. I will recount some of the utterances of Mr Dempsey before he became a very large wheel in the cogs of our industrial relations arbitrating and law-processing machinery. Dempsey is well known for his support for the militant Builders Labourers Federation, flying in the face of his own Prime Minister, Hawke, who supports its deregistration. His militancy during the infamous Queensland power strike is also well known, and it was he who said that the Trades and Labour Council could not give long-term guarantees that the power switches would not be pulled. As secretary of the Electrical Trades Union, the same Ray Dempsey was the brains behind that disastrous electricity strike. It was also Dempsey who said that moves to make unions more financially accountable were overkill. It is not surprising then that the colleague he followed into the position as State Secretary of the ETU, the present Minister for Industrial Relations, should reduce accountability standards in the industrial relations legislation over which he now presides. Mind you, this is the same Ray Dempsey who was warned off the coal fields in central Queensland by members of mining unions. I remind honourable members that just a few short months ago this Government and this Minister took away the rights of employees to negotiate voluntary agreements with their employers in order to achieve job satisfaction and increased productivity. Remember what Trades and Labour Council secretary, Ray Dempsey, had to say about Legislative Assembly 4078 23 October 1990

VEAs and, in particular, about Mini Movers, which was successful in its bid to achieve for its employees recognition of those voluntary employment agreements. On 24 February 1988, when referring to the principal of Mini Movers Pty Limited, the small business that was prepared to take on the strength of the Transport Workers Union over voluntary employment agreements, Ray Dempsey, Nev Warburton's old mate and crony, was reported as asking— "Who is this rat who sought to rip off his employee and what is he ashamed of? I want to see him come out of the closet and debate his actions publicly with me." Mr Beattie interjected. Mr HARPER: The member for Brisbane Central seems to want to hear that again. I repeat that this man stated— "Who is this rat who sought to rip off his employee and what is he ashamed of? I want to see him come out of the closet and debate his actions publicly with me." That time has come, except that the debate will be before him—or will it be with him? That Ray Dempsey is now Commissioner Ray Dempsey, the person who is charged with the responsibility to impartially and objectively hear and make a decision in regard to the enterprise agreement that has now been lodged by the Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draftsmen of Australia, Queensland, on behalf of the Mini Movers enterprise employees and principals. Do I need to make further comment? Government members interjected. Mr HARPER: The reaction from the Government benches indicates their conscience. There is the cronyism, the disregard for that supreme element of natural justice. Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr HARPER: I suggest that the member for Brisbane Central turns to his colleague behind him and asks him if it is not a fact that there has been disregard for that supreme element of natural justice. Only persons who have won respect for their ability to act impartially, who have demonstrated impartiality and who have demonstrated a sound knowledge and acceptance of the law in the area of their practice should be appointed to even quasi-judicial positions. How does the appointment of Commissioner Dempsey fill any one of those criteria? How will he deal with a legally valid application on behalf of transport workers by the Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draftsmen of Australia when, in 1988, he urged all workers to remain under award coverage under their own unions? The application to the Commission for approval of this enterprise agreement has the support of all three parties—the employer, the employees and an industrial organisation of employees representing those employees. It is claimed that everyone at Mini Movers has enjoyed the successive flexibility introduced by the previous National Party Government and they want to use the new flexibility offered in the Warburton legislation rather than have the company break up into a group of subcontractors. In short, this enterprise agreement meets the requirements of the Industrial Relations Act and so could reasonably be expected to receive automatic registration by the commission. It would seem that that may not be the case, so members must judge for themselves whether Commissioner Dempsey's position is compromised by his earlier statements, including, in June 1988, on the Henshaw program such gems about Mini Movers as— "Why should they take advantage of the labour in the manner that they are and why should they be given an opportunity to have an edge on their competitors?" Legislative Assembly 4079 23 October 1990

This man wanted to know why a company should be given an opportunity to have an edge on its competitors. Again quoting from that same program, he further stated— "This particular issue is an erosion of standards for those poor devils who happen to work for Mini Movers." Those poor devils voluntarily went to the commission. And further quoting— "I don't think we're discriminating against that particular employer. I think what he is doing is he is discriminating against his work force and he is discriminating against his competitors." No doubt as the Minister for "Revenge" gets on with goals he has set out to achieve for himself and his old mates, Queensland and Queenslanders will suffer. Increased productivity and improved working conditions under mutually acceptable agreements between employees and employer will take second place in this Government's thinking. I wish to look at a few more of those goals, remembering always that this Committee is debating funding that is proposed to be made available for their achievement. The Cooke inquiry, set up by the previous National Party Government to establish the degree of corruption within Queensland's trade union movement, comes readily to mind. It is to this Minister's credit that he has been reported as saying that he wants that inquiry to continue, but it is very obvious that those sentiments are not shared by all of his ministerial colleagues, despite the rhetoric of the Premier earlier today. It will be interesting to see who wins in the final analysis—Warburton's open inquiry or Goss Labor's close the cupboard door. Members should not be misled by talk of high legal costs. The Cooke inquiry is already hamstrung by do-it-on-the-cheap attitudes. It surprises me that the trade union movement itself has not set up an inquiry to track down what has happened to those assets which former AWU branch secretary, the late Joe Bukowski, so painstakingly put together. Where have those funds gone? Why is there so much secrecy surrounding the funds of this financial arm of the Australian Labor Party in Queensland? I noticed a report today that another of this Minister's nominees to the Industrial Commission, again a former union executive member, Ms Deirdre Swan, will be called to give evidence at the Cooke inquiry in connection with investigations into payments to AWU officials. Perhaps housing benefits to AWU officials may also warrant investigation. Then there was the Warburton promise to get rid of that embarrassing political objects fund clause in the legislation introduced by the previous conservative Government. Why should the Minister's union mates have to ask their membership before they make donations to the Australian Labor Party for political purposes? Why should those members who do not support Labor have a right to say that their money is not to be given to Labor? Sure, Nev Warburton fixed that in a hurry. In just as big a hurry, Wayne Goss got together with McLean to convince the executive of the Federated Clerks Union that they should break their written and verbal undertakings to their membership and simply affiliate with the Australian Labor Party and, surprise surprise, give a hefty $20,000 or $30,000 donation up front—Goss/Warburton payola at its best. Accountability! Only in Opposition does Goss Labor cry "accountability". The Warburton industrial relations legislation clearly denudes the previous legislation of important accountability clauses and it opens the door to secondary boycott and the opportunity for unions, such as the Liquor Trades Union, to again go about its business in jackboots. Turning to the lead which Government should give to industry and for which financial resources should be provided, it appears to me that employers, particularly in those areas that give personal service to customers, in many cases are not accepting a responsibility to provide service and employment. It is an area in which I believe the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations could well play an active role by encouraging a changed attitude on the part of those employers who are really not playing the game and by encouraging consumers to complain at the lack of service often afforded to them. Legislative Assembly 4080 23 October 1990

This State simply must break out of the dole cult into which many of its younger people have been encouraged to slide, and I believe that many of the retailing companies have an obligation to assist. I am thinking of stores such as Myers and of institutions such as some banks and Australia Post. Any day of the week, all honourable members can see customers lining up in queues to transact their business, to buy goods, to make financial transactions or to transact postal business. The queue mentality should be foreign to Australians. They should be saying to the principals of those organisations, "If you want our business, then provide the service to which we are entitled. Employ enough staff to provide that service; forgo some of your profits in the interests of your customers." There are those in business who do just that, particularly in the tourism industry, with people from overseas expecting and demanding service. I refer in particular to the Japanese, both in Japan and here in Australia where they exercise management. They understand the value of service and I believe they understand the importance to young people of the dignity which goes with earning a living. On the other hand, in Australia we find larger retailers reducing their staff, reducing their level of service and at the same time detracting from the dignity and satisfaction which goes with working for an income. A typical example would be the announcement in September by K mart that it would retrench an average of two staff members from each store—40 in Queensland. Governments have a responsibility to redress those attitudes, to encourage a change in attitude and to provide incentives to employers to employ more staff, not fewer. There is no gain to this nation in having more and more people moved into the dole queues. Unfortunately, this Government—this Minister—has demonstrated a willingness to promote disincentives at the behest of trade union officials who fear for their jobs if their members achieve too much autonomy in employment. Now we learn that the centralist Commonwealth Government, which comprises the Minister's colleagues in Canberra, is to attempt one further giant stride down that path by pushing for full integration of State and Federal industrial relations tribunals, a move which I trust may be resisted by even the Goss Government. As I say, I trust that it may be resisted. Unfortunately, I am afraid that I have not much optimism there. In speaking to the motion presently before the Committee, the Minister continued to claim that his Industrial Relations Act is based on the report of the Hanger committee. That, of course, is not consistent with fact. It is important to recall that that report contained recommendations which the Minister disregarded, notably that relating to the political objects fund. I was interested to hear the Minister inform the Committee that funding has been made available for the appointment of 17 new industrial inspectors. I have taken that matter up previously with the Minister. I accept his integrity as a person. I think it is beyond reproach. I have no question about that. I believe the Minister when he says that the intention is not to impose harsh conditions on employers. I trust that the 17 new industrial inspectors will follow the Minister's own philosophy in that regard. As I said, I believe that the Minister personally is a man of integrity. I trust that those new inspectors will be given the message that the Minister has given to me and to other members of the Parliament that they are not expected to wear jack boots, that they are expected to take a responsible role. Only in that way will conditions for both employers and employees achieve the productivity which is so essential to the further development of this State. In speaking to the motion, the Minister referred to greater mobility within the public sector. We have seen that mobility. I personally have no difficulty with greater mobility within the public sector. However, I have a great deal of difficulty with continuing political assassinations. Quite frankly, political platitudes really do not cut much ice with loyal, professional, former members of the public sector. I suggest that this Government has a responsibility to both itself and those people who have served this State very well in the past to remember that fact. The Minister made a number of observations in regard to proposals, to plans, which he has for the future. I must admit that, during this debate, I have been critical of some Legislative Assembly 4081 23 October 1990 areas that deserve criticism. But there are also areas that deserve commendation. I commend the moves to develop safety-conscious attitudes to which the Minister referred. It is an unfortunate fact that all of us become complacent in some areas of safety and often with sad consequences. I commend also the continued good management of our workers' compensation scheme. We on this side of the Committee have fears that this Government will go down the road of Victoria. We will certainly be monitoring the position because those employees, those who have responsibility for managing our workers' compensation fund have over the years given very effective service to the work force in this State. We will be watching to see that that is not eroded, that our workers and our employers continue to have the benefits which these people have put together over the years. I commend also the dedication and efficiency of many departmental staff members, particularly in the area of technical and further education. In Opposition, we will monitor with interest the development of the proposed vocational education and training commission. If the change brings about the enhancement to training envisaged by the Minister, then we will be supportive. But, of course, time alone will tell. I hope the Minister's optimism is well founded. If it is, he will certainly have my support and I am sure the support of those on this side of the Committee. In regard to commercial activities mentioned by the Minister—I simply say that we must not allow those commercial activities to develop into socialistic ventures. Vocational education and the like is really a service department, something to be given by Government to the community. It is not a commercial business. It must not be allowed to develop into a Government profit-making enterprise. Mr LIVINGSTONE (Ipswich West) (8 p.m.): There will certainly be no union-bashing for the next 15 minutes. Most honourable members would already be aware that this is a very good Budget for employment, vocational education, training and industrial relations. I intend to bring to the attention of the Committee the issue of industrial relations. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in the 12 months to May 1990, the total number of working days lost in Queensland because of industrial disputes was 99 100. However, in the 12 months to May last year, under the confrontationist approach of the National Party, 244 500 days were lost because of industrial disputes. Thanks largely to the election in December last year of the non-confrontationist Labor Government, the number of days lost through industrial disputes was a massive 145 400 less than the 244 500 days lost under the National Party. Members of the National Party should hang their heads in shame. The minute that the Labor Party was elected to office in this State it set about doing what the Nationals had failed to do for many years. Firstly, it created the Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations. That was created by the amalgamation of the former Department of Employment, Vocational Education and Training, the Department of Industrial Affairs and some units from the former Office of Public Service Personnel Management. The employment, vocational and further education and training functions were integrated for transitional purposes only. Action is now being taken to establish a commission to deal with that aspect. That means a better, more efficient Government service. As it exists today, the department is largely all about people and work. The National Party Government never really came to grips with that. Many people happily made their fortunes from the sweat of workers, but they were never really prepared to do anything for workers. Labor is now looking after the average working man and woman. The department, which comes under the control of the Honourable Minister, is now concerned with the needs of the average working man and woman and those seeking to become average working men and women. One of the ways in which the Government does that is through the creation of a well-trained, multiskilled, innovative and productive work force. Elements of what is known as the New Right in Australia often preach that a well-trained, multiskilled, innovative and productive work force is what Australia needs if we are to expand and strengthen our economic base as we head towards the year Legislative Assembly 4082 23 October 1990

2000. While people on the Right just talk, the Goss Labor Government is actually involved in doing it. Promotion and support of employment opportunities is another important role of the department. The Premier and his Ministers are promoting Queensland as the No. 1 place in which to do business. That will ensure massive growth in south-east Queensland during the next 10 years. That growth will bring further economic prosperity to the wider community and create job opportunities for the members of Queensland families. This Budget also provides allocations for the promotion of health and safety issues in workplaces throughout Queensland. In 1990, workers have a right to be protected in their workplaces by Government legislation. As all honourable members would be aware, there are some unscrupulous business-operators in this State who do not give a damn about workers' safety. As part of the Government's moves to protect workers, a review of the Workplace Health and Safety Act has commenced. The provision of an efficient and cost-effective workers' compensation scheme is a priority of the Goss Labor Government. With that in mind, the Government is undertaking an extensive review and rewriting of the Workers Compensation Act. That is no small task when one considers that more than 540 people work in the division. During the past financial year, payments associated with workers' compensation, including weekly benefits, lump sums and medical, hospital, travel, legal and rehabilitation expenses, totalled more than $200m. That sum represents an increase of 18 per cent over the previous financial year's figure of $169m. Those figures reveal a very real need to spend millions of dollars on the promotion of safety in the workplace to avoid the even greater cost of work-related injuries. The department provides an advisory service in relation to employment conditions as they affect employees and employers. The department also ensures that employees receive their just entitlements under the awards of the Industrial Relations Commission. That is very much needed, because many of the National Party's mates in the bush clearly do not believe that they should be paying award wages. That is not a political beat-up. The department's figures for the past financial year show that 8 863 wage complaints were received. A staggering 6 414 of those complaints came from country areas and only 2 449 from metropolitan areas where the great bulk of the State's population works. Those figures highlight what occurs in Queensland and why we need a Government department to keep a close eye on the red-neck employers in the bush. We cannot rely on the National Party or Liberal Party representatives in those areas to do anything for the workers who are being ripped off. They will not do anything, because most National Party representatives agree that workers can be ripped off. The National Party not only turned a blind eye to corruption but also supported ripping off workers and their families. Members of the Opposition are squirming in their seats. The fact is that the figures prove what has been happening. I am pleased that this Budget delivers on the very important issue of vocational education and training. Queensland has some 31 TAFE and senior colleges, which are the largest post-secondary providers of education in this State. Each year, those institutions offer some 1 000 courses to more than 200 000 students. Not only is job-related training undertaken in those establishments; also, education that helps to improve people's recreation time is provided. More and more people are learning dressmaking and how to lay bricks. You name it, and TAFE provides the courses. One of the reasons why TAFE colleges are now held in such high regard in the wider community is that they have opened themselves up to the community. In recognition of the TAFE sector's importance to economic and social development, TAFE funding has been increased by 13.7 per cent this financial year to $326.5m. In 1990-91, the total allocation for TAFE capital works is $41.3m. Major projects to be started during the year include new TAFE colleges at Bowen, Caboolture and Maryborough, which I am sure will be welcomed by the members in those areas. Other capital works projects include tourism and hospitality facilities at Airlie Beach and a new TAFE facility at Cleveland. A child care centre will be built at the Logan TAFE college. Legislative Assembly 4083 23 October 1990

Almost $37m has been included in the Budget to fund courses and support services for women, migrants, the disabled and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Apprenticeship and traineeship training has not been neglected in the first Labor Government Budget in 34 years. As at 1 July this year, and approximately 3 700 trainees almost 25 000 apprentices were indentured in Queensland. But thanks to the policies of the Goss Labor Government, we are expecting to have another 2 000 apprentices and 1 300 extra traineeships by 1 July next year. The Queensland Government operates group training schemes to provide small and specialised businesses with the opportunity to take part in the training of apprentices or trainees for short periods of time. That enables small business to be involved in the training process. The schemes not only promote quality training but also provide short-term jobs and training for disadvantaged groups. In 1989-90, 2 700 apprentices or trainees were involved in group training schemes. In 1990-91, that number is expected to jump to 3 500. To support the additional apprentices and trainees, the Labor Government's funding for group training schemes will be increased from approximately $1.5m to $2.1m—an increase of $600,000. Those are just a few of the things in which a more efficient and effective Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations is currently involved. Overall, the thrust of the Goss Labor Government's policies for that department will help to ensure that Queensland does more than its fair share to help build a stronger national economy through a better educated and better trained work force. The Government will do that the fair and just way by ensuring that people are paid award wages. The Government will ensure that health and safety in the workplace is a priority for all employers and employees. The cost of workers' compensation payments to the Government, private enterprise and the community in general is far too high. It is far cheaper to provide health and safety in the workplace than it is to continue paying the increased bill for workers' compensation. Another major initiative of the Government was to introduce a new Industrial Relations Act that is fair to both employers and employees. For the first time in many years, people have respect for the system. Unlike other industrial Bills that were passed in recent years, that were dreamed up by those on the fringes of civilised thinking and introduced in some rabid Right Wing frenzy of hatred, the legislation is fair to everyone. Opposition members interjected. Mr LIVINGSTONE: It is true and members of the Opposition know it. The comprehensive legislation that the Government introduced was a single code of industrial relations for all of Queensland and was in keeping with the Hanger report. The Government also repealed the draconian legislation of the National Party Government. That legislation was arguably in breach of conventions of the International Labour Organisation, was found by the Human Rights Commission to infringe a number of basic human rights and was yet another ill-founded legacy of the previous Government's impractical ideology. I support the Estimates. Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (8.13 p.m.): I am pleased to participate in the debate on the Estimates of the Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations. Since the election of the Goss Labor Government, that aspect of Government activity has experienced much radical change, very little of which, in the view of those on this side of the Chamber, is good for Queensland. As the months unfold, the hidden industrial relations agenda of the Government becomes more painfully obvious. It is an agenda that, prior to the election, was kept largely out of the public eye. As I have said before both in this place and outside if, prior to the election, the Queensland public had been aware of the un-Australian contents of the agenda, it is extremely doubtful that the Government would have received the electoral support that it did on 2 December 1989. During the past few months, I have spoken extensively within this place about some of the major components of the agenda, so I will refrain from duplicating my detailed comments about the economic and moral vandalism that the elimination of Legislative Assembly 4084 23 October 1990 voluntary employment agreements, for example, represents. Instead, I will comment on the impact that some of the Government's industrial relations initiatives are having and are likely to have on the lives of individuals and on the economic fabric of this great State of ours. In particular, I refer to— (1) the hypocrisy in the Government's public attitude towards VEAs and enterprise agreements compared with its private attitude; (2) the sorry and pitiful plight of many SEQEB workers who are seeing their standards of living slashed as a result of the deliberate and malicious attitude of the Government; (3) the growing crisis of confidence that the union movement is experiencing in the Labor Government; and (4) the shameful and public attempts by the Premier and his senior Ministers to discredit and close down the Cooke inquiry. Every time that such claims are made, Government members may well shake their heads, yell abuse and seek to deny their validity. But I have no doubt that, deep in their hearts, they know that I am telling the truth. Government members collectively embrace the underlying philosophy that drives those and other un-Australian Government attitudes and policies, particularly in the important field of industrial relations. With the fullness of time, those policies will be rejected by Queenslanders, just as they will be rejected in New Zealand this coming weekend, at the next Federal election and in all other States where the heavy hand and the dead heart of Labor kills initiative and incentive and seeks to break the human spirit of those it governs by seeking to reduce all to the lowest common denominator.That is what this Government is all about—reducing everybody to the lowest common denominator. The truth of what I have just alleged cannot be better illustrated than in the Government's attitude towards those firms which have had their VEAs abolished by the new industrial relations legislation and its attitude towards SEQEB workers. Government members should listen to this, because I am going to tell them something new. Government members interjected. Mr SANTORO: I knew I would get their attention. On the one hand, we have the Labor Government's support for the applications to the Industrial Commission by Metway and Power Brewing whilst at the same time, on the other hand, it refuses to support moves and calls by SEQEB workers to similarly have their PEA conditions registered within an enterprise agreement by the commission. The fact that all the benefits of the Metway and Power Brewing VEAs are being preserved within the interim and, in time, permanent enterprise agreements is a matter of public record and cannot be denied by members opposite. The Government's support for these enterprise agreements has been publicly declared several times by the Minister for Industrial Relations. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister and thank him on behalf of the workers of Metway and Power Brewing for his enlightened attitude. The Minister's attitude stands in stark contrast to his utter denigration of the VEAs and the firms which had the courage to pioneer this brilliant initiative prior to last year's State election. He supports these agreements because—as he already has done—he wants to boast that his new legislation works, that it is reasonable and that it is acceptable to the business community. This attitude of today clearly lends credence to my previous claims that the Minister's opposition to VEAs was ideologically based and found its roots in the fact that under the previous legislation the Minister's and the Government's cronies—the unions—were not in the equation which led to the negotiation of the wages and working conditions so acceptable to the Minister and the Government today. The Minister knows that these sorts of conditions will never be negotiated again in the foreseeable future, because the bludgeoning influence of the unions in the negotiating process will keep on denying any real chance for such good outcomes. Legislative Assembly 4085 23 October 1990

The Government's attitude towards these enterprise agreements is even more laughable and pitiful when it is compared to its attitude towards the efforts of over 700 SEQEB workers who are attempting to have their personal employment agreements enshrined within an enterprise agreement. It is well known within senior and rank-and-file SEQEB circles and within the industrial relations community that SEQEB management has been sat upon from a great height by the Honourable the Minister for Resource Industries, undoubtedly supported by his close friend and former ETU comrade, the Honourable the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. Members of SEQEB management have been told that they themselves should not make application to the Industrial Commission for the striking of an enterprise agreement which would, like in the case of Power Brewing and Metway, preserve the benefits enjoyed by SEQEB workers within their PEAs. Furthermore, management has been asked to give no support—and this Government itself will give no support—to the applications for an enterprise agreement from either individuals or from AESDA, an ALP-affiliated union which in the near future will show that there is at least one union which is prepared to stand up and fight for its workers. Without the support of the employer—in this case the Goss Labor Government-such applications, unlike those sponsored by Metway and Power Brewing, will have very little chance of success. I do not hear members opposite interjecting, because that is a very telling point. The Minister is prepared to say to Metway and to Power Brewing that this Government supports their application on behalf of their employers and that they can go in to the commission with the Government's blessing. Yet, when the SEQEB workers—the Government's own workers, Goss' workers, Vaughan's workers and Warburton's workers—say that they want to go into the commission, register a special agreement and protect the conditions that they won and which their ALP-affiliated union negotiated and had registered before the commission, there is nothing but deadly silence from the Minister for Resource Industries and the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. Government members do not have a come-back for that because they know it is true. The Labor Party is not standing by its workers and telling them that it will help preserve their conditions. In the meanwhile, some of these workers employed by this Labor Government will experience a very real and direct decrease in their wages, which in the case of some individuals will be in excess of $4,500 a year. In at least one instance this sort of salary drop is leading to the sale of a SEQEB employee's home, whilst others will be forced to sell off some items of furniture and even motor cars. Such is the sad and sorry state that workers have come to experience under a Labor Government in Queensland. The founders of the Labor Party must be spinning in their graves as they witness the standards of living of this Government's employees vandalised by the misdirected ideological hate spawned out of the turmoil of the SEQEB disputes of old. Members opposite may again seek to deny the assertion that the Government's opposition is not ideologically based, but to convince them all I need to do is quote John Thompson, who would be well known to some Government members—— Government members interjected. Mr SANTORO: Government members should keep quiet for a minute and listen to this. On 28 September this year, on behalf of the Trades and Labour Council, John Thompson opposed an application by SEQEB employees for an enterprise agreement. On that day he told Commissioner Robert Bougoure that to grant the application "would leave exposed the wounds of the 1985 (SEQEB dispute) and do no good to anyone". If that is not an ideologically based statement and does not lend substance to my claim, then nothing will. I hold up the Labor Party's industrial relations policy which is titled Equity and Fairness. If the members of the Government try to convince the SEQEB workers that their policy is fair, they will be laughed at for the frauds which in this instance they are. It is obvious that this Government has almost totally handed over power to its union cronies not only because of the abolishment of VEAs and the utterly vindictive attitude towards defenceless SEQEB workers, but also through other provisions within Legislative Assembly 4086 23 October 1990 the new legislation which entrenches compulsory unionism particularly within the public service; enables unions to direct huge amounts of union funds to the ALP; forces employees to compulsorily contribute to union-dominated funds; abolishes the essential services legislation and the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act; and expands and entrenches the power of the big players in the industrial relations club at the expense of individual and small organisations of employers and employees. Given this wholesale transfer of power, one would have thought that a Labor Government such as this would have been in the good books of the union movement, and would have been able to guarantee industrial peace and the supply of Government services, particularly essential services. However, in Queensland this is not the case. This Labor Government is clearly beginning to face a crisis of confidence from its traditionally staunchest power base, the union movement. The history books will show that never in the history of this country and this State has a Labor Government fallen out of favour so quickly with as many key unions as this Government has done. This is not the claim of a Liberal who is out to create political mischief; it is the claim of a Liberal who reads the union journals, who talks to the rank-and-file unionists and who listens to the string of complaints levelled at this so-called conciliatory Government by union-leaders. Day after day, the headlines scream out warnings and threats to a Government that is still failing to deliver something to its union mates. Shortly, I will come to what I think is the "something" that it has failed to deliver. Honourable members see and hear the following comments, which represent just a small sample of what unions really think of this Government. I ask honourable members to listen carefully to this. An article in the Railway Advocate of August 1990 carries comments by the union's secretary, Mr Pat Dunne, who stated— "It does appear that Labor politicians never learn from past mistakes. In the Federal arena Labor was in the political wilderness for years until Gough Whitlam and his team won office. Almost from day one in that era the Labor Ministers ran wild in their efforts to change everything and in a short space of time the whole thing came tumbling down upon them and they were voted out of Government. Now, in Queensland the same thing is happening. Ministers are hell-bent on changing long established practices and procedures as though their very survival depended upon it. This is particularly so within the Railways." John Forrester, who is the secretary of AAESDA stated his support for PEAs in SEQEB in a letter dated 18 May 1990— "We ask, as an ALP affiliated union, for special consideration in this matter in the interests of Social Justice." The Government, of course, has ignored this plea and the exchanges are going to become even more acrimonious. One could almost guarantee it. The assistant secretary of the ETU, Wayne Randall, in a media release earlier this month accused the State Government of wasting over $2m spent by unions and management during 18 months of negotiations aimed at reforming the railways. He stated— "Mr Goss's Public Sector Management Commission is the baddie in this case as it recklessly charges through the public service corridors conducting its out of this world academic experiments." What about the secretary of the Queensland State Service Union, Mr Laurie Gillespie, who commented on the State Government's proposed public sector classification and remuneration system? He stated in his newsletter of 27 September 1990 as follows— "We have been informed that the position advanced by the Government is for the purposes of negotiation. It is regrettable that negotiation and the implication of Legislative Assembly 4087 23 October 1990

an adversarial situation has replaced the concept of meaningful consultation and resolution by consensus." These are Labor unions and these are comments made by the secretaries of those key unions. These are members of the ALP and people who seek to hold office in the ALP. They are doing a bucket job on members of the Labor Government who sit in this Chamber like stunned mullet because they know as well as I do that it is all true. I could go on and cite extracts from other journals and media releases of other unions, including the Professional Officers Association. I ask honourable members to listen to this because they will like it. The secretary of that union, Don Martindale, on 1 October gave the Government a right royal serve for letting down members within the corrective services system and for not delivering on its promises for additional pay and additional personnel. Members of the ALP may be interested to know that these comments came from the next assistant secretary of the Trades and Labour Council, whose appointment will be announced shortly. This man is clearly unhappy with Barton—the Socialist Left secretary—because Barton vetoed his appointment to the bench of the Industrial Commission. The job eventually went to a well-known supporter and friend of Mr Barton, a certain Miss Glenys Fisher, who certainly has not distinguished herself up to this point in time. Perhaps we can talk about the fire-fighters, or the police, or the nurses, or the members of another dozen unions and discuss what they really think. The headlines said it all. On 21 May in the Sun, the headline read "Rail strike threatens travellers". On 21 August in the same newspaper, a headline stated "Minister in plea to nurses". On 7 September in the Sun, a headline read "Angry nurses in ultimatum". On 3 September in the Courier-Mail, another headline read "Strike threat by fire-fighters". Other headlines read as follows: "Warders may extend strike", "Jail strike set to grow", "Council strike threat", "Public service to fight changes", and "Teachers walkout looming". This is the Labor Party Government that is supposed to be able to get on with unions—or at least that is what it claims to be able to do. It is truly incredible that barely 10 months after its election to office, this farce is occurring under a Goss Labor Government. Perhaps Mr Goss should admit his dismal lack of appreciation of, and involvement in, the union movement, which is clearly lining up against him. He should gracefully hand over to someone else in his team who can genuinely claim to have real grassroots involvement. Any number of members opposite would surpass the Premier in this respect, not the least being, for example, the honourable member for Brisbane Central; perhaps even the Honourable the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations or the Minister for Primary Industries—both of whom undoubtedly still lust for lost opportunities. Government members opposite sit in stunned silence because only 10 months after winning Government they are facing the biggest crisis that they will ever face. Labor's own union movement and its own union cronies and leaders are ganging up against this Government. This Government will feel the full might of industrial disputation. The police will march on Parliament House and the members of this Government will be portrayed in reality as the industrial relations frauds that they are. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes) (8.29 p.m.): I rise to inform the Chamber of the latest amazing episode in the saga of Queen Alexandra Home. It is an episode that shows that there are still people who hanker for the slipshod accountability of the past and who cannot accept the new standards of accountability now being implemented by the Goss Labor Government. It is also a story about specific learning difficulties because it seems that the National Party is indeed learning lessons from the past and has decided to steer very clear of the residue of the Bjelke-Petersen days. They are staying as quiet as mice; but not so, the Liberals. Yes, there are still some very severe learning difficulties within the Liberal Party, which is determined to go down with the sinking ship under the weight of double standards and failure to account to this Parliament. Firstly, I must provide an update on the latest developments because they really have reached high farce. In the tradition of farce, I ask honourable members to grant Legislative Assembly 4088 23 October 1990 me some improbabilities in the beginning before proceeding to the world of reality. These improbabilities include: a community centre that is hopelessly alienated from the community; a homeless cartoon character wandering the streets with a strange disability that impedes his asking for a home; a Government building that is rented out without Government permission, and for which the Government receives no rent; and a retired despot who believes that he is still the Premier of Queensland. Now, to the action. When I last reported to Parliament on this matter, the Department of Land Management had, on 14 September, asked the three organisations occupying the building to produce any authority that they may have had. I am informed that a number of responses were received. Responses from Life. Be In It and Campaigners for Christ were to the effect that Queen Alexandra Home Inc. had given them permission. Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. I do not wish particularly to curtail the member's speech, but I ask what relevance this has to the Estimates and to the motion moved by the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. Mr FENLON: I am happy to inform the honourable member of its relevance. I know that for some this is a very difficult point to grasp; however, under the Westminster system of Government and under the Constitution of the State of Queensland, in particular, it is the Queen, with the advice of the Legislative Assembly, upon whom power is conferred to make laws and to approbate the usage of Crown property. Perhaps somebody mistook the "Queen" in Queen Alexandra Home Inc. for the Queen recognised by this Parliament. Perhaps that was an honest mistake, since both organisations have assured me that they really believed that Queen Alexandra Home Inc. really did have power to rent out the premises to those two organisations since 1988. But that still does not explain why this Parliament was not informed that it had somehow dispensed with its authority and it does not explain why the private organisation, Life. Be In It, paid rent of $3,000 per year to Queen Alexandra Home Inc. for space with an estimated commercial rental value of over $30,000 per year. At this point, I am not disputing the fact that Life. Be In It is a fine organisation with highly reputable objectives. I am merely lamenting at the blind disposal of sovereign power and standing aghast at the twisted commercial logic which follows. Now, Madam Temporary Chair, you must be wondering at the authority being relied upon by Queen Alexandra Home Inc. which has enabled it to so capably exercise the powers vested in this Parliament. Upon producing the authority on which the incorporated association had so ably relied in the exercise of its assumed powers of occupancy to the Department of Lands, the document was found to be a letter. No, not a lease that should have been required pursuant to the Land Act; no specific set of instructions and requirements from the Governor in Council, but a letter! The letter is addressed "To Whom it may Concern" and carries the signature of the Premier at the time when the Queen Alexandra Home Inc. was first occupied in 1986, the Honourable Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, KCMG. This may not at first seem such an improbable feature of this story, but for one small irregularity—the date on the letter. The letter is dated 27 September 1990. Yes, I know that date bears repeating for those who share my wonderment at this strange quirk of history. It is dated 27 September 1990. Three Premiers and a Fitzgerald inquiry later, and he is still out there—the lone scribbler; running the State, the label on the jam tin—on the outside looking in. Yet the comic proportions of this story really become evident when we find that there really are people who have taken this letter seriously enough to go on the Cathy Job program and tell the world about it. I hope that Opposition members will be patient and find out about this new era of accountability in Mr Warburton's department. Enter, the intellectual mentor of Life. Be In It—cartoon character Norm—Mr David Bycroft, spokesperson for Life. Be In It. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mrs Woodgate): Order! I am having difficulty relating the honourable member's speech to the Estimates. I ask him to come to the point and be more relevant. Legislative Assembly 4089 23 October 1990

Mr FENLON: Thank you, Madam Temporary Chair. The point is that the building, the Queen Alexandra Home, will be coming under the jurisdiction of the Honourable the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations, Mr Warburton. Under Mr Warburton's counsel, the building will face a new era of accountability, which is what I am here to inform the Committee about. Indeed, Mr Bycroft did offer this letter—the letter signed by Mr Bjelke-Petersen on 27 September 1990—as the reason for occupancy of the building. Even the life-sized Norm, suitably attired in rubber suit and lounge chair, has been wheeled out weeping in the streets of Coorparoo to reveal the real nature of this harsh, cruel and tyrannical Goss Labor Government. This development is even more difficult to comprehend when we find that Life. Be In It never received permission to occupy Queen Alexandra Home nor has it even applied for such permission from any past or current State Government. Even when the Government sought public submissions from interested individuals and organisations by public advertisement in June this year, Life. Be In It did not bother to respond. Despite personally advising Life. Be In It on and since 17 September that Life. Be In It should apply to the Government if it wants free or subsidised accommodation, I am not aware of any such approach having been made to the Government. Yet I am amazed to find that there are people who find it difficult to believe that this might be a requirement of an accountable Government. We are debating the Estimates of the department, and accountability will be a feature of the administration of the Budget. If people cannot accept this, they must come to grips with a bad case of double standards that emerges. If any private organisations apply for Government assistance in this State, they are required to furnish details of their current and projected finances, precise details of the reasons for seeking that assistance and an account of how that financial or other assistance is to be utilised. I am currently making representations on behalf of other groups in my electorate on that basis. They would be very disappointed to see organisations such as this one jump the queue. But all of this still ignores the fundamental issue of Government decision-making and accountability in regard to the administration of this building that has been neglected since 1986 and that has been addressed for the first time this year by the Goss Government, that is, the decision as to what is the most appropriate efficient usage that should be made of the Queen Alexandra Home. On the basis of submissions from the public and various Government departments, a decision has been made that will mean that the building will be enhanced as a community centre. The current users will continue to enjoy it, and the community that has been alienated from it will also be able to enjoy it. It will mean that the office space occupied by the organisations will be used by Coorparoo TAFE for activities that are compatible with the community centre role. It will mean that buildings currently occupied by TAFE within the Coorparoo primary school may be vacated and handed back to the Coorparoo primary schoolkids, much to the delight of the school community who have made strong representations to me in this regard since I was elected as the member for Greenslopes. But this farce could not be complete without those impresarios of mirth, the members of the Liberal Party, crashing through the scenery and onto the stage. As I said at the outset, members of the Liberal Party have shown themselves to be much slower learners than the Nationals. That disability has reached its highest form in the guise of the Liberal alderman for Camp Hill, Mr Squire Richard Jeffreys. One could say that this is a case of fools rush in where Nationals fear to tread, for Alderman Jeffreys has really come out to show us where the Liberals still stand in relation to accountability. Alderman Jeffreys has complained at length in the council and even by writing to me about the measures that the Government has taken to clear up this appalling mess. He clearly sides with the status quo and fails to acknowledge the major lapse in accountability that has been witnessed. However, his cries of an alleged lack of consultation ring increasingly hollow when it is recalled that he did not even bother to make a submission to the Government on this matter. When the mess is cleaned up and the organisations currently occupying office space in the building have left, a public meeting will be held. A lot of work will have to be done, in conjunction with COTAH at Legislative Assembly 4090 23 October 1990

Coorparoo, to build a proper community centre to meet the many demands of the people of Coorparoo in the 1990s. Once the fundamentals of accountability and catering for local educational needs are put into place, there will be much to consult the local community upon, as the community centre is to cater for the current and the expanded range of prospective users. I know that the Liberal Party members in the corner of the Chamber will feel very embarrassed about the position taken by Liberal Alderman Jeffreys in supporting this appalling situation. However, they should keep in mind the term "farce", as it comes from the Latin word meaning "to stuff". I wanted to deal with the matter of access and equity. I have pleasure in supporting the Honourable Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations in presenting further information on initiatives being implemented through the Bureau of Employment, Vocational and Further Education and Training in accordance with the Goss Government TAFE policy document. I wish to inform honourable members of the number of specific access and equity issues that are being addressed. International Literacy Year is of significance. Governments, employers and unions have identified that the literacy of adult Australians will be a key factor in the success of industry restructuring and training. The bureau is responsible for the coordination and implementation of adult literacy programs, including increased provision for programs throughout Queensland. This year the department has been implementing a calendar of activities for International Literacy Year designed to meet the objectives outlined in the literacy policy paper Literacy Strategy 1990 and Beyond. Major activities include a review of adult literacy provision in the State, in consultation with Government and community providers, and making recommendations for a policy and strategy for adult literacy beyond 1990. They also include consultation with industry and unions with regard to the establishment of literacy programs in the work force, an increase in the number of adult literacy officers in colleges of TAFE and an increase in the number of programs offered, the maintenance of the Adult Literacy Information Service as a central referral and coordination agency and a series of innovative program grants focusing on increasing access to adult literacy programs for disadvantaged adults. A total commitment of $1m was made to the literacy policy paper, $770,000 of which will be expended this financial year. An initial commitment of $230,000 was expended last financial year—— Time expired. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs) (8.44 p.m.): I am very happy to join in this debate on the Estimates of the Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations. I want to begin by paying a very sincere tribute to the former departmental heads, Mr Ian Staib and Mr Barry Read. Both of these very outstanding public servants had more than 30 years experience in the public service. They were not political people. They just did their best for the Government, whichever party that might happen to be. I find their demise a little bit hard to understand. I wish them well in their endeavours at finding other careers. However, it has been a very devastating blow to them personally and to their families. I also pay a tribute to Mr Jim Campbell, the former head of the Division of Workers' Compensation, who retired recently. I also pay a tribute to Mr Bill O'Brien, who was the head of the board of DEVET—the Department of Employment, Vocational Education and Training. All the officers in both departments, both past and present, were and are good, hard-working, loyal public servants. The public of Queensland can be very proud of all of them. I left a department that had a viable, entrepreneurial outlook, and the people of Queensland were very definitely the beneficiaries. The previous Government was pleased with its achievements in those two areas, and I wish to touch on a few for a moment. For a long time, Queensland has been the leader in Australia in the field of workers' compensation and moves by the Federal Government to institute a national workers' compensation scheme must be resisted. Such a scheme would mean that Queenslanders Legislative Assembly 4091 23 October 1990 would pay higher premiums. They would not be the beneficiaries under such a scheme. Queensland has a perfectly good scheme as it is and it should be kept that way. I am pleased to see that the present Government is continuing to support the Division of Workers Compensation, and it is great that it is doing an even better job than it has in the past. During the past year, the money received from premiums and investments was $118m higher than payouts compared with a $4 billion debt in Victoria. Members can appreciate how efficient the division is. Mr Dollin: What about New South Wales? Mr LESTER: Many of the other States are not a great deal better. $90m was paid out in merit bonuses and now and during my time as the responsible Minister efforts were made to keep those merit bonuses going. They are a great safety incentive. The safer the workplace is, the higher the merit bonus; that is, the bonus that one gets back on one's premiums. Over a number of years and currently, the situation in Queensland has been that for every $100 paid in wages, Queensland employers are currently paying $1.40 by way of workers' compensation premiums. In Victoria, the figure is $3.30, and not a great deal less in some of the other States. During my period as Minister, I was very proud to see that widows received a decent payout whenever their husbands were killed in an industrial accident. That gave them the opportunity to pay off their home or do whatever else they wanted to do. Currently, the death benefit is $77,476 and there is considerable help with the education of children, even through to the tertiary level, if necessary. I understand that the Government is continuing to improve those benefits and I am certainly very pleased about that. On the subject of industrial safety, I point out that the previous Government introduced the Workplace Health and Safety Act. The council appointed under that legislation comprised representatives of Government, employers, health authorities and the work force. It ensured that all concerned had a say in the decisions that were made regarding safety and that they were responsible for their own actions. That legislation covered specific problems such as legionnaires' disease. Machine guarding is covered much more specifically under the legislation than it was previously. Every effort is made to deal with disease-related problems that can result from various practices in the workplace. The Government needs to continue to ensure that the workplace is safe and that sensible conditions are imposed. It is very important that the legislation does not discriminate against the employee or the employer. I must confess that I was disappointed when the Government varied the voluntary employment legislation that I felt had a great future in Queensland and would have been followed by the rest of Australia. I always had in mind the worker and, in every instance in which VEAs have been applied correctly, the worker and the company benefited, which meant that Queensland very definitely benefited as well. Businesses need to be given incentives to employ people and to train them in TAFE colleges. Queensland's record in this area is very good. I seek leave of the Committee to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of eight businesses, because although Queensland is in a period of doom and gloom it is important to give a lift to those companies that are doing well. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document— The following are Queensland Companies which are manufacturing and producing scientific goods and employing people Stratalog Pty Ltd 83 Jijaws Street, Sumner Park. Qld 4074 Stratalog borehole logging systems became a reality in 1973. The company was formerly called SIE and later Geosource Inc, Exploration Products Group. Its team of dedicated personnel, in association with the Australian mineral and water industries, developed a borehole logging system with emphasis on reliability, portability, and ease of operation. Legislative Assembly 4092 23 October 1990

Experience gained over many years showed that meeting these criteria was essential to satisfy the requirements of the industries. Extensive technical R & D was carried out and culminated in 1975 with the release of the T450 Portable Borehole Logging System. R & D to provide technical excellence continues and now includes a wide range of professional borehole logging instruments including downhole tools, winching systems, and surface recording systems. Today Stratalog systems are used in more than 40 countries around the world. The unique skills developed by the company are finding useful application in other scientific and electronic instrumentation. TPS Pty Ltd. 4 Jamberoo Street, Springwood. Qld 4127 TPS is an all-Australian electronics manufacturing company established in 1968 and specialising in instrumentation and electrodes for electrochemistry. Its equipment covers a broad range of applications in the laboratory, in industrial process control, and in environmental monitoring. Instruments and electrodes are available for pH, conductivity, selective ions, dissolved/gaseous oxygen, temperature and humidity. Equipment is also produced for specialist applications including cyanide control in gold mines, conductivity monitoring in power stations, and on-line monitoring for aquaculture and hydroponics. Computer aided design/manufacturing techniques are used to produce the latest in technologically advanced equipment for laboratory, field and process control applications. The FL80 is a single combination instrument for measurement of pH, millivolts, conductivity, temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen. The unit is housed in a rugged PVC and aluminium case for portable field applications. Monitor Sensors 7 Industry Drive, Caboolture. Qld 4510 Monitor is an Australian company specialising in the research, development, manufacture and deployment of digitalised meteorological and environmental measuring and recording instruments. Offered is a wide range of sensors, data loggers, computer software and associated modules, supplied as modules or as complete systems. Among the latter are fully automatic solar-powered environmental monitoring stations incorporating data storage and/or direct transmission. Individual stations can stand alone or be linked into comprehensive monitoring and database networks incorporating in excess of 100 locations. A research commitment provides the ability to develop specific user sensors to meet new demands in either the micro or macro climate area. Strong and continuing links with research institutions throughout the world ensure that a position at the forefront of technology is maintained. Environdata Australia Pty Ltd P O Box 395, Warwick. Qld 4370 Environdata Australia started in the early 80's manufacturing, under license, a CSIRO designed Automatic Weather Station. It now has over 300 stations in the field, both in Australia and overseas, being used mostly by government research bodies but also in mining, in electricity generating, and in fertiliser and insecticide manufacture. Environdata's equipment has been well researched to meet market needs. The Automatic Weather Stations can be solar-powered, making them suitable for remote sites and their large storage capacity means they can be left unattended for weeks or months at a time. They are reliable and easy to use. Analytical Instruments Pty Ltd 95 Landsborough Avenue, Scarborough. Qld 4020 Analytical Instruments is a scientific manufacturer which has entered the international export arena with a range of sample handling and preparation systems, including the AIM101 Microprocessor Controlled large Volume Auto-sampler. Contracts include the manufacture and supply of these autosamplers to the ARL group of companies in the U.S.A. and Switzerland. Legislative Assembly 4093 23 October 1990

The AIM101 can accommodate over 500 actual samples with volumes from 0.5mL to 70mL. The increased throughput and unattended operation enables maximum use of analytical instruments and release of staff for other work, resulting in a lower cost per sample. Other products are the AIM500 series of Microprocessor Controlled Block Digestors with very flexible programming and storage of user-defined operating parameters, and the DELTA family of PC Based Chromatography and Flow Analysis Data Software, a very powerful and flexible data acquisition/manipulation package. Labglass Pty Ltd 24 Windorah Street, Stafford. Qld 4053 Labglass manufactures the largest range of semi-automatic and fully automatic water stills in Australia with outputs from 3L to 12L per hour. Specialised double distillation units and units for the economic distillation of pretreated water are also available. These units are widely used to prepare pure water for many analyses used in environmental study and control, and in R & D. They are used also for general laboratory purposes. The company also manufactures a wide range of interchangeable glassware using the highest quality joints, according to Australian and I.S.O. specifications. The range of jointed glassware includes—reduction, expansion and multiple adaptors; a wide variety of condensers; extraction and filtration equipment; separating and dropping funnels; flasks and manifolds. General scientific glassware is made to standard or custom specification. Silica glassware for high temperature applications is made. A comprehensive repair service for all types of general and scientific glassware is available. Ionode Pty Ltd P O Box 52, Holland Park. Qld 4121 Ionode manufactures electro-chemical sensors such as pH, redox and ion selective electrodes. The company has automated many of the manufacturing steps to ensure uniform high quality products at very competitive prices. This has been achieved by using special equipment designed in-house, and the extensive use of injection moulded parts. In addition to the range of conventional laboratory and industrial electrodes, Ionode has developed the unique "Intermediate Junction" electrode which allows rapid cleaning of the sensing membrane. This electrode is especially useful for difficult samples, e.g. meat, dairy products, soils, mineral slurries, and foodstuffs. As well as in electrochemistry, the company has an active interest in research in other aspects of analytical chemistry, and has developed a novel flow based technology (Discontinuous Flow Analysis (DFA)) for automated wet chemical analysis. This technique has the advantage of very high speed and precision and is very flexible in its use—titrations, reagent addition analysis, dispensing, and high precision electrochemistry. A variety of detectors can be used and the method is suitable for on-line monitoring as well as for laboratory analysis. The detector response resulting from a predetermined cyclic flow profile is used to quantify the precision of every sample measurement, thus improving measurement reliability. The following is a Queensland company which is operating in Victoria and is doing well Varian Pty Limited 11-13 Palmer Court, Mount Waverley. Vic 3149 Exporting well over $1,000,000 a week of high quality scientific instrumentation, Melbourne based Varian Techtron ranks a clear Number Two in the world as a designer and manufacturer of atomic absorption (AA) spectrometers. Designed and manufactured at the sophisticated plant in Mulgrave, these products are shipped to almost every country of the world. Some 500 employees are responsible for the company's success. It has an aggressive quality control program which has resulted in a significant uplift in overseas recognition and sales. The company also designs and builds UV/Visible/NIR spectrophotometers and is a growing world force in this technology. The Cary range of instruments, long held to be the highest performing UV/Visible spectrophotometers available, is now totally built at the Australian plant. Legislative Assembly 4094 23 October 1990

The product illustrated, the SpectrAA-20 atomic absorption spectrophotometer, is only one instrument in a total range of AA instruments and accessories produced by the company. Mr LESTER: I would now like to deal with employment initiatives, especially those for youth employment. I felt that the previous Government had made great achievements, but that funding has been cut from $10.943m in 1989-90 to $8.384m in 1990-91. Grants for youth employment schemes have been cut from $3,876,000 in 1989-90 to $2,786,000 in 1990-91. That reduction is of enormous concern. In the Courier-Mail of 12 February 1988, the Government and I were attacked severely by the then secretary of the ALP, Ms Swan, who said that the previous Government's effort towards youth employment initiatives was pathetic. Mr Warburton also said that he would fix the problem and that youth employment would be a priority. The reality is that from September 1989 to September 1990 youth unemployment has increased from 16 700 to 21 500, an increase of 30 per cent. That increase in youth unemployment has happened as funds for employment initiatives have decreased. I am led to believe that no money has been budgeted for youth employment special training programs. Money for such programs is being taken from wherever it can be taken. Indeed, some of it has been provided by cutting funding in other areas. I ask the Minister to pay special attention to this. It is important. A lot of good work can be done. If the matter of funding can be rectified, attention should be turned to our homeless youth, to whom special consideration needs to be given. According to an article in today's Courier-Mail, 50 per cent of unemployed homeless youth contract hepatitis. Their problems are often caused by the selfishness of the parents. These youth need help. Some are dying, some are violent and some are despairing. They need a ray of hope; they need to feel useful; they need to feel wanted; and they certainly need to feel that they can be productive. Extra money needs to be budgeted to provide special courses for these people to help make them marketable to an employer, who would want them to be good enough in order to provide a return for him or her. In the past, some of these course have been very, very successful. Sure, I accept that they can be costly and that those involved in running them need to be very, very committed. Although some failures do occur because some of the youth come from very unfortunate backgrounds, the end result is well worth it. As has been the case in the past and as is the case now, there have been some successes. It should be remembered that, although those people have been disadvantaged, many of them have made it in life, but they would not have made it without these particular courses and without the help given by people in the department. The field youth coordinators and their back-up staff and officers have done and are doing a brilliant job. In fact, this year some 3 243 unemployed youth have been given direct assistance. However, it is definitely of concern to those hard-working people that the money appears to be drying up and that it is not available for the field service programs, which are the real crux of the matter. There is also a concern that to some extent they are becoming more bogged down in paperwork and are not receiving the funding to enable them to actually get in and help fix the problem. I ask the Government to give every possible consideration to making funds available because we all have to play a part in trying to help those people less advantaged than us to seek employment opportunities for the future. Certainly they are a minority, but we do have to try to cater for minorities. So often competition for entry to our great colleges means that many of them simply want to take the best people available. All of our TAFE colleges, which are doing a good job, must make sure that their courses are equally available to all people. They should remember that they are TAFE colleges and be careful not to favour too much the academically qualified over those who have manual ability, those who perhaps do not achieve exam results quite as high as others but who at a later stage can give a very excellent performance in the work force. I would like the community councils of TAFE colleges to have greater effect. I feel that, to some extent, this concept is withering away. It is necessary to have partnerships with business and, indeed, the community as a whole running these colleges. Let me Legislative Assembly 4095 23 October 1990 cite a couple of examples. One relates to printing. At one time, the Kangaroo Point TAFE College had a class room in which printing was taught. That course became outdated many times; it was not at the fore of what was happening in relation to printing. Now a partnership exists so that, when a printing company purchases new equipment, with the cooperation of the employer students go out on to the site and learn the workings of the new machine. That is the way in which it should be done in order to be successful. In conclusion, I wish the Minister—and those who help him—well in his portfolio. Employment and training initiatives are about the betterment of our country. They provide more jobs. If we can all cooperate, we will all do very much better. Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton North) (8.59 p.m.): In participating in this very important debate, I commend the Minister for a very responsible and well-balanced approach to what has proved to be a very difficult portfolio. It is a portfolio that is at the same time both demanding and challenging. It is a portfolio that has had a long history of turmoil. The Minister has shown that he is equal to the task of administering his portfolio. Accordingly, I think it relevant to point out that this is the first time for 32 years that in charge of this department is a Minister who knows something about industrial relations. Mr Livingstone: He will be there for a long time, too. Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes, I am certain of that. As part of his stewardship of the portfolio, he has taken the industrial relations section into a whole new perspective. I guess that central to that new direction is the new Industrial Relations Act, which has been commented on tonight by members opposite. It is apparent to me that the Opposition is still not prepared to accept the reality that this State needed a new approach to industrial relations and that it needed a brand-new Act to propel it into the twenty-first century. It is quite obvious to me that the limited understanding of industrial relations that is amassed opposite indicates that members opposite have a long way to go to understand that industrial relations is an important and integral part of developing a sound economy. The continual attack upon the trade union movement that honourable members witnessed in this Chamber tonight makes me pray that some members of the National Party never again sit in Government in this State. They believe that industrial relations is all about confrontation. Members of the Opposition made rehashed speeches, but that is nothing new. They are still union-bashing and deriding the efforts of those people who wish to adopt a commonsense approach to industrial relations. Mr Santoro: Tell that to the 700 SEQEB workers. Mr SCHWARTEN: I have not heard anybody mention anything about the lights going off. I believe that members opposite are disappointed that the lights have not gone off. Mr Hayward: They have not had their lights on for 10 months. Mr SCHWARTEN: In most of their cases the lights are on but no-one is home. The lights are still on in this State and they will stay on. Contrary to popular belief there has not been a plague of cane toads in this State, the Brisbane River has not dried up and there has been no outbreak of St Vitus dance in the Queen Street Mall. Those are the sorts of things that members opposite predicted would happen. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: The honourable member is an authority on St Vitus dance. I have to sit and look at him all day. There has been wide public acceptance of the new Act. Most sensible Queenslanders understand that the Act reflects modern-day industrial relations and that it is responsive Legislative Assembly 4096 23 October 1990 to modern-day needs. This morning in the House, the Minister tabled the 1990 annual report of the President of the Industrial Court. It is obvious that no members of the Opposition have bothered to open that report, let alone tried to read it or absorb its contents. If they had, they would not have made those idiotic statements. They have been bleating about voluntary employment agreements and the fact that there is no flexibility. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: I ask the honourable member to listen, because even he might understand this. I suggest that he obtain a copy of the report, if he can read it. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: I ask the honourable member to listen. Mr Justice Moynihan said— "Enterprise bargaining existed long before VEA provisions were introduced into the Act. There has always been provision for enterprise bargaining by agreement with Industrial Organizations. Many employers both large and small freely negotiated for outcomes to suit their business requirements and have registered agreements in this category. The new Act further facilitates such process and removes many of the inflexibilities of the repealed Act. The first Restructuring and Efficiency Principle in March 1987 led to Enterprise Agreements approved by the Industrial Commission in Award provisions with or without industrial organization agreement regarding trade offs and entitlements for second tier increases within enterprises. The 38 hour week decisions of the Commission in the 'Mechanical Engineering Award—State and Others Case' in March of this year again allows for consultation and agreement between employers and employees with or without Industrial Organization involvement with provisions contained in the Award to set up the procedures for the enterprise consultation processes. The current Structural Efficiency Principle is also following this course and provisions enabling enterprise level arrangements are presently being considered as part of restructuring exercises. The new Act frees up the restrictions on the Industrial Commission even more allowing more enterprise focus. Single employer Awards may be determined by the Industrial Commission. If rationalisation of Industrial Organization structures produces fewer Industrial Organizations as is foreshadowed their coverage could be expected to move to a broader industry basis. This in turn may reduce the need for the unwieldy variety of conditions which often occur and provide the incentive to seek common conditions by way of an enterprise Award approach. Fewer Industrial Organizations with wide industry coverage could lead to more controlled and orderly restructuring outcomes across industries. Within the framework of restructuring, individual employers and employer and employee organizations are required to negotiate, conciliate and if possible reach mutual outcomes utilizing arbitration by the Industrial Commission as a last resort." Mr Randell: Take it as read. Mr SCHWARTEN: I ask the honourable member to listen to this. Mr Justice Moynihan stated— "This is in contrast to earlier industrial climate which was more confrontationist and arbitral." Members of the Opposition who have been bleating about the lack of flexibility in the new Act should read and absorb that report and understand that this State has a fair and balanced system. It no longer has that shroud of secrecy by which minority groups Legislative Assembly 4097 23 October 1990 could come to sleazy little deals in back rooms and inflict their wishes on other people. This Government wants no part of that. The member for Merthyr made a very scurrilous and cowardly attack on the first female member of the Industrial Relations Commission, who was duly appointed by the Minister. It is an indictment on members of the National Party that, during the past 32 years, they could not find their way clear to appointing one woman to that commission. Approximately half of the population are women, but not one woman was appointed to the commission. Mr Santoro interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: The honourable member should not take my word for it. Mr Justice Moynihan stated— "Ms Fisher is, as far as I am aware, the youngest person to be appointed as a Commissioner and the first woman to be appointed to the office. Interesting as those considerations are, the important consideration is that she is patently equipped to make a significant contribution to the work of the Commission." The honourable member ought to apologise, but he would not have the decency or the guts to do that. He is pretty good at handing out buckets, but he should do some research. In his speech, the Minister pointed out that the industrial inspectorate has been extended. Over a period, members of the Opposition did not care a fig about the way in which employers treated employees in this State. It is pleasing that the Government has provided $462,000 to extend the inspectorate by 17, so that those unscrupulous employers who want to rob their employees of conditions will have more chance of being caught. That did not come anywhere near being placed on the agenda of the National Party Government. Members of the Opposition also bleat about how the number of industrial disputes decreased when they were in Government. What a furphy that is! Page 10 of the report of the President of the Industrial Commission contains a series of graphs. Even the member for Auburn could understand that; it is in a nice picture form. Over the past three years, the industrial disputation rate rose by approximately 150. Since the Labor Party has been in Government, the figure has decreased by approximately 50. That ought to put paid to the notion that members of the Opposition continue to peddle that somehow the Act that they introduced and the sledge-hammer approach that they took to industrial relations in Queensland had the effect of reducing the number of disputes in this State. The fact is that confrontation only yields more confrontation and the number of industrial disputations increases. Mr Santoro: Mr Gillespie—I quoted him: surely you must have been listening. Mr Gillespie—— Mr SCHWARTEN: The honourable member has had his turn. He has used this forum to deride people. Now, because he is wrong, he will have to eat humble pie. He is entirely wrong. Mr Hayward: The expert witness on the 7.30 Report. Mr SCHWARTEN: The honourable member made a fool of himself on the 7.30 Report. We all know about him. He is a dill. The new Act makes provision for the appointment of more industrial commissioners. Under the previous legislation, the former Government restricted the number of commissioners to six. As Mr Justice Moynihan pointed out, the workload at the Industrial Commission had reached the stage that it was intolerable. The backlog of work could not be dealt with. Accordingly, under the new legislation, the provision restricting the number of commissioners has been changed. Additional commissioners have been appointed and an existing commissioner was elevated to the position of chief industrial commissioner. Those changes will assist the commission to respond to the ever-increasing demands placed on it by the industrial relations community. Legislative Assembly 4098 23 October 1990

Members of the Opposition continue to bleat about the appointments that have been made, but they cannot come up with one good reason to question the competence of any of those people who have been appointed. Whilst I am on the subject of how inept members of the Opposition are, I heard the former Minister—the baker from Clermont—making reference to the Workplace Health and Safety Act. The member for Auburn did the same thing. They made a half-hearted attempt to attack the legislation. When they were in Government, they did not include provision for 11 committees under the Workplace Health and Safety Act. They made sure that, as far as possible, no tripartite discussion took place on the legislation. However, since the Labor Party has been in Government, the Minister has put forward that proposal and 11 committees were established. They have all met and most of them function well in the interests of workplace health and safety in Queensland. The discussion of the Estimates before us is a very important event in Queensland history. I am totally in agreement with the Estimates that have been put forward by the Minister, and all fairminded Queenslanders would support the initiatives that the Government is taking in the area of the Minister's responsibility. Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (9.14 p.m.): I indicate to the Minister that I want to comment upon a number of issues. I refer, firstly, to TAFE. When I was Minister for Education, I worked very closely with my colleague the member for Peak Downs. We had a very close working relationship. I had a strong admiration for what was being done by the TAFE sector and I was very much aware of the growth in the TAFE sector across Queensland. I am pleased to see that that is continuing this year. One of the previous speakers from the Government side mentioned that, after compulsory schooling, TAFE caters for the largest sector of education. Sometimes, I feel that too much concentration is spent on tertiary education when more effort and money should be given to TAFE, which caters for a much larger number of Queensland's young people who are training for the workplace. I also pay tribute to Mr Bill O'Brien, who chaired a committee under the previous Minister. I thought that he and the previous Ministers worked very hard at putting together contacts between industry itself and the TAFE sector. That arrangement was working extremely well, and I hope that it continues. The Education Department also had what was called the TAFE link program, under which TAFE courses were introduced into high schools. I know that they are continuing. Those courses are most important for those young people who continue on to Years 11 and 12 but who do not intend to undertake tertiary education and do not have the academic capacity to do that. It is important that they receive some meaningful prevocational training so that when they enter the work force, they have an accelerated start towards claiming a trade ticket. On a parochial note, I state that when the member for Peak Downs was a Minister, a TAFE college was planned for Dalby. Plans were to be started in 1991 and construction was to commence in 1992. I have just learnt that the Government has postponed that for 12 months. I understand that under the five- year rolling plan the planning will take place in 1992, construction in 1993 and establishment in 1994. The people of Dalby will be rather disappointed when they find out that it is another 12 months down the track. Nevertheless, they want it to happen. There is a severe down-turn in the profitability of rural industries. Young people in rural areas have to pursue different careers other than going back onto the land. Because there is a huge financial impost on the parents if they have to send a student off to another town. it is important that there is some form of training for those people in rural areas. The nearest one would be at Toowoomba or Kingaroy, and the sooner that sort of training can be provided for the young people in those areas, the better. The families of many of these people have lived in the region for four generations and they deserve a fair share. Further down the track I would like provision to be made for a TAFE annexe to be attached to the Chinchilla State High School. It could be fitted in under the school plan Legislative Assembly 4099 23 October 1990 and a town of that size should be part of the network. It is probably part of the Minister's departmental planning already. One way in which this sort of training can be delivered in a more efficient manner is by not having too many administrative centres, but more points of delivery. I turn now to the Cooke inquiry. Today the debate lapsed because of the Matters of Public Interest debate and it is an allotted day for the Estimates, but a couple of matters must be raised. Because the inquiry is continuing for so long, the Minister and the Premier have both expressed their concern about the expenditure of public money. It struck me as strange that Ken Goodhew, the vice-president of the ALP, earlier this year is on record in the Australian openly admitting that in fact he frustrated the Cooke inquiry for four months. Of course, that frustration cost money. There was four months of wasted time and each day cost $3,000, which is the figure I heard today. Therefore, when one considers the processes that went on it would seem that the argument put forward by the Premier and the Minister concerning the expenditure of public money lacks credibility. I wish to quote the following from an article in the Australian of 11 January 1990— "Ken Goodhew, Vice-President of the Queensland Labor Party has vowed to 'make it hard for the party' in the lead up to the federal election. He said the party had 'done the dirty' on him and couldn't expect any favours in return. Mr Goodhew said that 'they (party officials) know that Goss wouldn't be Premier', if he (Goodhew) hadn't kept the Cooke Trade Union inquiry 'at bay'. Mr Goodhew has been summonsed to appear before the inquiry when it resumes hearings next Monday." He was looking after the ALP and keeping all the bad news of the Cooke inquiry out of the papers prior to the State election. In doing so he was wasting public money. I read in the papers today that the Premier said that Marshall Cooke had advised that he was turning up nothing new. Perhaps it is the case that he is finding much more than he anticipated and, that being the case, there is every justification for the fact that the inquiry should carry on. A concern about the honesty and integrity of every association in this State should be a higher priority than the expenditure of public money. The Minister has said as much himself, but then put qualifications on it. It seems to me that the revelations that came out of Marshall Cooke's first report, which dealt with the FEDFA, show that in fact illegal donations in the amount of $93,892.51 have been made to the ALP over a period of six years by dodging the Political Objects Fund. When one bears in mind that the secretary of the FEDFA is Ken Goodhew, who is an office-bearer of that union and also a State vice-president of the ALP and that this went on for a period of six years, one could put the case that the ALP knew that it was receiving illegal funds. I will be interested to see what sorts of recommendations come out regarding who should be charged and what action the office of the Special Prosecutor will take. This Government was elected on the basis of its credibility and this must be seen through. As a layman, I think that there is some sort of a case for people who are accessories to some sort of illegality answering for that. Marshall Cooke is inquiring into the liquor trades union and also the AWU; it may well be found that the sum of $93,891.51 coming from the FEDFA is only part of it. It may well be found that massive amounts of money belonging to the people who are members of those unions—and some of them are members by compulsion—are being illegally syphoned off into ALP funds. Another matter of concern to me—and one which I raised when the Minister introduced new legislation into this Chamber—is that the Labor Government said that as soon as it came to power it would put this matter right and put it beyond the law. However, legislation has been changed and the Political Objects Fund is now out of the legislation. Mr Harper: No accountability. Mr LITTLEPROUD: There is no accountability, which is one of the unfortunate things. The people of Queensland desperately want accountability and honesty. The Labor Government was elected on that platform. When I was a member of the Legislative Assembly 4100 23 October 1990

Government I was prepared to back the Fitzgerald inquiry to achieve just that. Some of the newer members of this Chamber who have been elected have high ideals and no doubt plenty of ability, but it is unfortunate that they are saddled with the fact that the party has some things to pay back to its former members, especially Trades Hall. Trades Hall wanted the Political Objects Fund to be put out of the road. It is unfortunate that what the Labor Party promised the people of Queensland is being tarnished by this double standard. This Government is simply delivering what is required by its trade union affiliates, which is most unfortunate. It remains to be seen what comes out of Marshall Cooke's recommendations and what action the Special Prosecutor takes. Mr Stephan: Do you think that the Labor Party members would have known where the money was coming from? Mr LITTLEPROUD: I made the comment that over a period of six years a State vice-president made those donations to the ALP. He obviously knew that it was illegal. As a member of the union he knew it was illegal and as a member of the ALP he knew it was illegal. The ALP is culpable and, because of that, the Goss Government is culpable. Mr Harper interjected. Mr LITTLEPROUD: Some of them may well have known. I understand that there are three members in this Chamber who owe their positions to the pretty substantial donations that have come from the liquor trades union. That fact still has to come out of the inquiry. I am running out of time and wish to speak now about an article headed, "Enterprising unions bid for a new role" that appeared in the Business Review Weekly of 12 October. It would seem to me to indicate that a large number of people who are members of the work force and who would be members of unions are not happy with the step back that Labor's legislation takes Queensland—back to the fifties. They are saying that it is time for more flexibility, but the new legislation is letting them down. The article of 12 October states— "I think the unions thought the new legislation would just abolish enterprise agreements and all the workers would go back to their old unions . . . I think they underestimated the feeling of the workers. Everyone's talking flexibility in the workplace these days: governments, business leaders, even union officials . . . If the traditional unions can't see that the problem of rising numbers of casuals, and members not wanting to pay dues is related to the workers' desire for better representation in a more flexible workplace, then they'll just keep losing members to more flexible unions who provide what the employees want." There is a message contained in that article. I believe that the Labor Government should be flexible, especially bearing in mind the flexibility that is being called for by their colleagues at the Federal level. They are saying that enterprise agreements are the way to go because they provide for more flexibility rather than domination by a union that is not really in touch with the wishes of the work force. I digress to relate what happened during my administration of the Education portfolio a little more than 12 months ago. The Department of Education was trying to introduce flexible staffing. In good faith, senior departmental officers called in members of the Queensland Teachers Union for discussions. They pointed out that there was a demand for a greater range of subjects in Queensland schools and that there existed in the community a pool of human resources that could be called upon on a temporary basis to provide the extra skills that were required. The program was to undergo a trial in a number of schools. The discussions were held in confidence with members of the union, but the union officials left the meeting, telephoned the schools and blackballed them. They said, "If you people cooperate with the Department of Education to provide this flexibility"—and honourable members should bear in mind that flexibility was what Queensland people wanted for their children—"you will be in trouble." The program Legislative Assembly 4101 23 October 1990 was quashed. I was terribly disappointed, and so were the senior officials of the department. As I said earlier, we discussed this matter in good faith and told the union officials about the aspirations of the teaching profession and the parents. Nevertheless, because of its 1950s mentality the union put a stop to the program. I wish to refer to matters mentioned previously by the member for Merthyr and the member for Auburn who spoke about appointments to the State Industrial Commission. Two people have been appointed this year by the Minister. I refer to Miss Glenys Fisher and to Mr Ray Dempsey. It is most unfortunate for the Government and the Minister that Miss Fisher issued a public statement when she was informed of her appointment. Miss Fisher stated— "Look, I am overwhelmed by this appointment. I am a Labor Party sympathiser"— and there is nothing wrong with that these days— "and I hate VEAs. I don't know how I can properly and honourably discharge my duties." A public statement of that nature made by a person who is appointed to a position on the Industrial Commission bench is unfortunate for her and embarrassing for members of the Labor Party. If the Minister wanted to maintain credibility when presenting legislation and to claim to have the right attitudes, that statement was exactly the type of statement that he did not want. Mr Foley: Do you regard that as embarrassing? Mr LITTLEPROUD: I believe that I am speaking on behalf of many people who live in my electorate and who found that statement to be reprehensible. They now query the quality of the person who has been appointed to that position. On 7 February, Mr Dempsey appeared on the 7.30 Report and stated— "I'm on the public record as saying that any employers who have voluntary employment agreements are stealing money from their workers. The only problem is that the National Party Government in Queensland brought in legislation to permit them to do that. What they did was probably legal in the sense that the Government legislated to permit that . . . the moral reality is that they are stealing money from their workers." I think it would be pretty difficult for a man espousing those types of attitudes to act impartially as a member of the Industrial Commission. If the workers are to achieve the flexibility that they are calling for, which was referred to in the Business Review Weekly article, one wonders about their chances if the matter of enterprise agreements is to be determined by people such as Mr Dempsey. It seems to me that the legislation that has been presented smacks too much of continued control by the union leadership without very much attention being given to the best interests of the workers. Industrial relations will always be a difficult area of government. Debates in this Chamber are usually characterised by speeches reflecting the extremes of political opinion rather than a concentration on the common ground that lies in the middle. I want honourable members to know that for approximately 24 years I was a member of the Queensland Teachers Union. I have probably been a member of a union for a longer period than many Government members have. On some occasions, I thought that the union was quite all right, but unfortunately they let people down. Mr Schwarten: An active member? Mr LITTLEPROUD: A financial member, and I put my spoke in when I could. Mr Schwarten: Paid your money, but not an active member; didn't go to too many meetings. Legislative Assembly 4102 23 October 1990

Mr LITTLEPROUD: There were not too many meetings to go to. I thought it would be more productive to go to other meetings where I could make a bigger contribution to the world. Unfortunately, the Queensland Teachers Union does not represent the majority of teachers. In recent times—in the period leading up to the last election and since the last election—it seems to me that events have shown that the leadership of that union is too closely associated with one political party. It is not very difficult to guess which one it is. There is a degree of disenchantment among members of that union, which is unfortunate. Time expired. Mr ELDER (Manly) (9.29 p.m.): I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate on the Estimates of the Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations. I will confine my comments to the Division of Accident Prevention. The goal of the division is stated in the Budget Papers as follows— "To reduce the human and financial costs sustained by the community as a result of work- related injuries and illnesses." The program description states— "Consultative, regulatory, educative and research services are provided to— ¥ ensure that employers, employees, and the general community establish and maintain safe and healthy work environments and work practices; ¥ ensure that the general public has maximum protection in and around workplaces and in their use of high risk plant and machinery; ¥ monitor trends in work-related injuries and review health and safety legislation and standards; and ¥ promote workplace health and safety and statutory obligations through community education and information dissemination." The Workplace Health and Safety Act introduced significant changes to workplace health and safety. A comprehensive education and training program was developed to reduce reliance on traditional inspectorial programs, achieve an increased awareness of health and safety issues and reduce the incidence and severity of workplace accidents and injuries. The Government also intends to amend the legislation later this year so that people who work in rural industries are afforded the same protection as that applying to all other workers in other industries. The commitment of this Government, and in particular the Minister, is clearly demonstrated by the increased support for accident prevention that was provided in the Budget. With the introduction of the Workplace Health and Safety Act, the Division of Accident Prevention had to refocus its role to the needs of the modern work place. The new Act has enabled the division to relinquish its traditional role based primarily on prescriptive inspections and introduce systems of inspections using audit techniques to encompass all workplace health and safety issues. The Act also encourages self- regulation throughout industry by the development of internally responsible audit and control systems by employers. In particular, that means that manufacturers, employers and owners must assume the responsibility for controlling hazards arising from their business undertakings and plant and machinery operations. Employers are required to provide and maintain a working environment that is free from risk to health and safety of their employees, persons attending their workplaces and the community in general. The Act also places certain duties and responsibilities of care on employees to support that concept. The most significant change in the division in the past year has been the integration of the division subprograms to serve in a supportive and consultative role to the industry. I wish to make comment in particular on the construction workplace program. The construction workplace branch has two main areas of responsibility. These are the audit and technical services area and the inspectorial services area. The responsibilities of the Legislative Assembly 4103 23 October 1990 audit and technical services include the registration of construction plant designs—machinery that has to be tested—workplace audits, provision of technical advice to industry and the division, and the application of health and safety standards to construction and building workplaces. The responsibilities of the inspectorial services include project and employment audits, advice and assistance to employers on developing and maintaining health and safety management systems, some prescriptive inspections, accident investigation and advice to industry on training requirements. The accident investigation area plays an important role. The annual report of the department shows a total of seven fatal and 121 non-fatal accidents reported last year. The most significant accident involved the failure of the personnel hoist on the construction site at Main Beach in which two people were fatally injured when the hoist car fell nine floors. The investigation revealed serious maintenance problems with respect to personnel hoists in terms of compliance with manufacturers' requirements. The hoists had not been checked by the employers for some time. It was reassuring to see that, after the inspections, instructions were issued to require hoist-owners to have log books with the hoists and make them readily available for inspection by branch inspectors. That is one of the important audit roles that the inspectors play. As well, during the year, 83 prosecutions were instituted for breaches of the Construction Safety Act, the most significant of those being the substantial fine that was imposed by the Industrial Magistrates Court on the company that failed to ensure the safety of its workers at the Expo site. Unfortunately, two workers were killed on that site when the steel work supporting the sails at Expo collapsed. The inspectorial services play an important role. One would hope that enforcement and accident investigation procedures will decrease as the requirements provisions of the Workplace Health and Safety Act are met and implemented by industry across the board. One initiative of the new Act that is assisting greatly is the continuing appointment of workplace health and safety officers and representatives in workplaces. That is considered essential, as the training involved and the participation in health and safety issues offer the best method of improving health and safety performance at the workplace level. The Workplace Health and Safety Act includes a requirement for the nomination of workplace health and safety officers at certain workplaces where more than 30 persons are engaged or where hazardous conditions exist. A workplace health and safety officer is primarily an adviser on health and safety issues, including the prevention of industrial accidents and diseases and safety training, including induction training, for new employees. Officers also assist employers to meet their specific duties of care under the Act. To qualify for appointment as a workplace health and safety officer, a person is required to complete a course accredited by the Director, Division of Accident Prevention. The course now undertaken by those officers consists of two stages. Stage 1 is the core module which must be completed by every person who desires to become a workplace health and safety officer. Stage 2 is a module specific to particular industries. Stage 2 modules are being developed to provide for all industries, including the construction industry, the manufacturing industry, the chemical industry and services, that is, retail, tourism, recreational and health services. Those courses are being developed by the Division of Accident Prevention in consultation with industry to ensure that the contents truly meet the needs of industry. The courses are conducted by training experts and organisations which are accredited by the Director, Division of Accident Prevention. It is expected that some 2 000 workplace health and safety officers will be trained by the end of 1992, when the requirement for workplace health and safety officers becomes mandatory in some industry groups. The Minister is taking a positive role to defray the cost in the training program. Funding assistance arrangements have been approved. Under those arrangements, employers who pay for the training of their employees are reimbursed a part of the cost of the course for the training of a workplace health and safety officer. The Workplace Health and Safety Act also provides for the nomination of workplace health and safety representatives in certain circumstances. Representatives communicate Legislative Assembly 4104 23 October 1990 health and safety concerns of workers to employers and assist in the development and implementation of solutions to those problems. It is intended that courses for workplace health and safety representatives be developed on a similar basis to those applicable to workplace health and safety officers. To facilitate the training of workplace health and safety representatives, the trade union movement has formed a training unit to coordinate such training. Similar financial assistance to that applying to workplace health and safety officers has been recommended by the Workplace Health and Safety Council to defray the cost of training. The Workplace Health and Safety Act has provided for the establishment of a workplace health and safety council comprising representatives from employee and employer organisations, senior Government officials and experts in the field of workplace health and safety. The primary role of the council is to advise the workplace health and safety authority on policy matters relating to workplace health and safety. As well, the Act also provides for the establishment of industry workplace health and safety committees. Those committees will examine any matter relating to workplace health and safety and make recommendations accordingly to the council. These committees will ensure that the appropriate health and safety standards are established and maintained for all industry sectors. One such matter that these bodies have identified as requiring attention is industry education. Lack of information and expertise in health and safety at the workplace level are major barriers to injury and disease reduction. The Division of Accident Prevention is presently expanding its programs to address these problems in certain areas. Programs to provide basic workplace health and safety training at secondary school level prior to involvement in work experience programs and before school-leaving age are being implemented with the assistance of the Education Department. In addition, health and safety components of TAFE and other relevant tertiary courses are being implemented on a progressive basis to ensure the medium-term availability of health and safety expertise in trade and tertiary qualified employees. Degree programs in occupational health and safety are being developed in conjunction with tertiary institutions. In particular, a Bachelor of Applied Science (Occupational Health and Safety) will be offered by the Queensland University of Technology for the first time in 1991. The division is also continuing to undertake training and examinations for certificates of competency required for the performance of hazardous occupations. The need for workplace health and safety officers under the Act requires further expansion of arrangements for the training and examination of persons to fill these positions in industry. It is intended that all industries should have appointed workplace health and safety officers within five years and that training and accreditation programs for various industry sectors will be progressively implemented over this period. Where tripartite industry workplace health and safety committees have requested it, induction training packages have been developed to assist in ensuring that new starters and young workers are made aware of their obligations and responsibilities with respect to workplace health and safety. These packages are designed to address the injury rates among young workers and new employees. In some industries, injury rates in these groups are twice those of older and more experienced workers. The division is also continuing its program for the development and supply of printed and audio- visual materials to assist in the provision of information about health and safety requirements and processes at the workplace level. In this regard, an education program in respect of the prevention of accidents has been designed for secondary school children. The schools program "Accidents Don't Happen" consists of a video with accompanying teacher and student notes. This program is designed to become part of the curriculum in Years 11 and 12. That schools program is the first such program developed in Australia, although work has now commenced on similar programs in other States and I believe that training materials will be exchanged among the States. It is considered that the package will provide the foundation from which improved health and safety consciousness among young workers can subsequently be established. Legislative Assembly 4105 23 October 1990

Also assisting in the area of education is the division's promotion unit, which was established in 1989 and aims to inform and educate industry and the general public on health and safety matters. The development and production of the industry-based training packages has become a focal point of this unit. It has already made available a construction induction training kit, which must be undertaken by all construction workers and subcontractors and their staff who arrive on site. As well, it has introduced a comprehensive training package called "Project Right Start". That package has been developed for health and safety issues in the metal trades industry and can be applied to many other industries. In addition, the unit has recently introduced a new program called "Back Care at Work". It is interesting to note that, since July 1986, back injuries have cost Queenslanders nearly $103m in workers' compensation alone, plus several times this amount in lost productivity, retraining and other long-term losses. Generally, manual-handling injuries are the result of poorly designed manual handling procedures and a lack of training and information. As I have said, the division is addressing this problem with the development of this resource kit, enabling employers to comply with the new manual handling provisions. The "Back Care at Work" package enables employers to deal with manual handling problems and risks by providing effective and workable solutions. This will reduce and ultimately eliminate totally unnecessary workplace injuries. I would certainly like to endorse the work that the unit has been doing. The industry with which I was involved, that is, the scaffolding industry, had a lot to do with the promotion unit in assisting it to establish the construction induction training kit. I think that the unit does a grand job. I commend the Minister for his continued support for accident prevention and his increased support at a budgetary level for the Division of Accident Prevention. The Minister is doing a grand job. I hope that he continues that work. It is important in the long term for the economic development of this State to examine just how legislation impacts on areas such as accident prevention—— Time expired. Mr CONNOR (Nerang) (9.44 p.m.): I rise to speak about industrial relations but, more specifically, I want to speak about the Green Paper that was circulated relating to workers' compensation and the proposed changes to workers' compensation in Queensland. I have grave concerns that the direction in which these proposed changes will lead Queensland is the same direction in which Victoria has moved. I believe that, if the proposed changes are implemented in Queensland with the wrong attitude to safeguarding the workers' compensation funds, exactly the same thing will happen in Queensland as happened in Victoria, that is, the State will have a superannuation scheme that is $4 billion underfunded. The Victorian WorkCare scheme is completely broke. The Queensland scheme will go exactly the same way if these proposed changes are implemented. Why I am so concerned is that at the same time as Queensland is experiencing a 4 per cent reduction in workers' compensation premiums—and that is admitted in the Budget papers—it is increasing the spending of the pool. What I am saying is that the pool of funds that has been amassed over a number of years is there to cover the people who have been injured during those years. Three or four years down the track, those workers will scoop into the coffers to get out a few more dollars to pay for injuries and there will not be any money there, just as has happened in Victoria. I will get down to a few specifics, which come directly from the Green Paper, which states— "The proposed changes provide increases in additional benefits for injured workers." That is a very noble course. Queensland has a shrinking pool of funds, and yet it is going to increase substantially the benefits for injured workers. The Minister should be honest about the legislation. If he is going to increase the benefits for workers, then the premiums to employers must be increased to properly fund those benefits. Without proper funding, the same thing is going to happen as has happened in Victoria. Legislative Assembly 4106 23 October 1990

I turn to the other proposed changes—the incorporation of mining diseases into the ordinary provisions of the Act and the extension of the table of injuries. This one is a beauty: claims can be made if an injury is "due to the aggravation or acceleration of any disease where employment was a contributing factor." That proposal really opens a can of worms. I repeat that claims can be made if an injury is due to the aggravation or acceleration of any disease where employment was a contributing factor. People who have had an allergy or any other sort of disease will go off work for two weeks claiming that the dust, or whatever, it is in the workplace has contributed to the allergy or the like, and a multitude of other spurious claims. The claim is limited only by one's imagination. This clause opens up rorting the like of which has never before been seen in Queensland and, like Victoria, it will end up with premiums of 3.3 per cent per annum as opposed to Queensland's present 1.4 per cent. I add that Victorian employers are also responsible for the first five days of incapacity and the first $344 of medical expenses. In Queensland, the fund covers it all. Mr McGrady: What are you suggesting? Mr CONNOR: If the honourable member seriously wants an answer, I will give it to him. The next proposal will increase the period for which compensation is payable from 26 to 39 weeks. If honourable members had not noticed, that is a 50 per cent increase—nine months instead of six months on full pay. Another proposal is that employers fund the rehabilitation of their injured workers. That is another cost that will be put on to the employer. All this is to be achieved without increasing premiums. People are moving to Queensland from Victoria because they cannot obtain jobs in that State. Mr Beattie: You ought to know that. You represent a Gold Coast electorate. Mr CONNOR: That is so, but they also have trouble with jobs down there, too. The cost of employment is so great that employers cannot afford to employ people. That is why Victoria is going broke and these changes are a prescription for the same disease that afflicts Victoria. Then there is the tax one has when one does not have a tax—penalties! Queensland is going to have a tax for late payment of premiums. Also, all the existing penalties will be increased significantly. All of those proposals are contained in the Green Paper. That proposal will fund more inspectors to look over the shoulders of employers to ensure that they dot every i and cross every t on time. Then there is the carer allowance for workers under rehabilitation. Who knows what that little gem is going to cost, and yet Queensland is not going to have any increase in premiums. It is going to face all those increases: a 50 per cent increase in the time that one can claim on injuries, a substantial increase in benefits for workers, diseases to be considered as injuries, more generous provisions for private hospitals, ambulance, travel expenses and medical, employers involved in compulsory workers' rehabilitation, increased death benefits, psychologists' costs to be classed as medical treatment and carer allowance for workers under rehabilitation, but there will be no increase in costs.According to the Minister's own figures, all those benefits will be funded from a pool that will have a 4 per cent reduction in income. In Victoria, employers with 50 or more staff are finding it necessary to have one full-time employee just to keep up with the paperwork involved in workers' compensation. Victoria's workers' compensation scheme moved along the same path as that about to be introduced in Queensland—increasing the benefits without any appropriate increase in the premiums. I am not suggesting that the premiums should be increased. By having lower workers' compensation payments, Queensland has a big advantage in attracting employers to this State. It is one of the major labour oncosts and Queensland is keeping it down. That should continue, but the making of workers' compensation claims more attractive to the employees of Queensland will also affect the State's productivity. If Legislative Assembly 4107 23 October 1990 employees can go out for longer with greater benefits, they will do it; there is more incentive for them to do it. In Victoria, WorkCare has caused a huge increase in absenteeism with a similar cost to productivity; the main problem being that it is too easy to make a claim and the benefits are too great. The Victorian Cain Labor Government took only two years to get its workers' compensation fund $5.5 billion in the red. Even last year, after an increase of between 50 per cent and 100 per cent across the board, it was still only able to reduce the underfunding to $4 billion. That is what Queensland can look forward to two or three years down the track, a 50 per cent to 100 per cent increase in workers' compensation and dramatic increases in payments by employers when employees go off on workers' compensation. In addition, employees will be worse off because the Victorian experiment has shown that following those types of reforms, the benefits eventually must decline because too many people have their noses in the trough. In Queensland, there are no limitations to the common law rights for compensation. In other words, people are fully insured by workers' compensation. In Victoria, they are limited at common law for the amount of compensation that can be claimed under workers' compensation. To sum up, the Goss Labor Government's proposal to move in that direction will mean that, for a short time, Queensland employees may enjoy the best benefits in Australia, but they will also find that they will not have their jobs because employers will not be able to afford to employ them. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (9.53 p.m.): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise to speak on the Budget Estimates for the Department of Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. Before I continue with my speech, I think it is important that I make a slight digression to address some of the comments that were made by the member for Nerang. I point out for his edification and enlightenment that a Green Paper is put forward for discussion purposes. It is not a concrete document of Government policy; it is one of the hallmarks of a Government that believes in consultation and participatory democracy. It is about time that those people in the Liberal Party and the National Party who attack, as they did today, the contents of a Green Paper came to understand that it is presented for discussion purposes. The days of the Neanderthal man have gone. It is about time that members opposite learned what a Green Paper is all about. I think all members in this Chamber should applaud the priorities and the directions being pursued by the department and the Minister in moving away from the period of confrontation and division which were so much the hallmarks of previous National Party Governments in this State. Those Governments used industrial relations as a political battlefield to obtain cheap political points at the expense of employers, trade unions and ordinary Queenslanders. The Minister needs to be congratulated on adopting an approach to industrial relations which is designed not only to bring about harmony but also to become an important ingredient in the economic growth and stability of Queensland. It is a pleasure to see harmony in industrial relations and not cheap political gimmicks being pursued at the expense of ordinary Queenslanders. Many of us who were intrinsically involved in politics over the last 20 years cannot forget industrial disputes that were provoked by the National Party for short-term political gain. The worst of these, of course, was the SEQEB dispute. There is no doubt that the National Party sought to use that dispute to try to win the Rockhampton by-election. Not only was a Cabinet meeting organised in Rockhampton to try to take advantage of this dispute and to try to destroy the Labor Party, but also it has been seriously suggested that heavier load-shedding took place in the electorate of Rockhampton, where areas were left without power for longer than was necessary. Mr Harper interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I can understand the honourable member's pain and how guilty he feels tonight. But it is about time that this was said. The load-shedding was such that areas in Rockhampton were left without power for longer than was necessary in an Legislative Assembly 4108 23 October 1990 endeavour to hurt the Labor Party electorally and to do as much damage as possible to the SEQEB workers. Mr Harper interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I can understand how the honourable member for Auburn feels. He twitches nervously in his seat in agitation, because at last this matter is being put on the record. It should never be forgotten that a recommendation went from the Industrial Commission to Cabinet on 11 February 1985, the day before the SEQEB workers were sacked. I point out to the member for Auburn that that recommendation from the Industrial Commission would have resolved the dispute, but it was rejected by the Cabinet not only because Cabinet did not want to accept the umpire's decision but also because, in its mind, it was found to be politically advantageous for the National Party. I think we on this side of the Chamber have to be honest and accept that some damage was done in the public's mind as a result of that politically motivated dispute, although it certainly did not affect the Labor Party's vote in the Rockhampton by-election. But many innocent, honest people were hoodwinked for a considerable period of time, and perhaps a small minority are still hoodwinked by the National Party propaganda arising out of that dispute supported, of course, by the Liberal Party on as many occasions as it can find the nerve to get onto its feet. The people of Queensland must seriously ask themselves: why was the umpire's decision not accepted by Cabinet? Why was this dispute not resolved without the hardship that consequently took place? I heard with regret that one of the former SEQEB workers who became a cleaner at Trades Hall and at Labor Party headquarters, Mr Ron Davies, died last week. He was one of many people who had been through considerable hardship as a result of the previous National Party Government's uncaring attitude. Like many people, I am delighted that the superannuation benefits have now been restored to those workers who were entitled to them. It was a thing that should have been done. It provided decency, equity and fairness and it overcame what was indeed a very sad state of affairs brought about by the previous Government. The other thing we must never forget about that dispute is that it was the power station operators who were able to turn off the power, not the SEQEB workers. This is the lie that took place. The power operators were the ones who limited the power, not the 1 000 SEQEB workers who were sacked. The power operators were not sacked. That is not in any way an attack on them, but it simply highlights the fact that the whole dispute was politically motivated and that, of course, people suffered as a result. Mr Harper: Dempsey accepted responsibility. Mr BEATTIE: I can see that the member for Auburn welcomes that new era. We have now therefore moved into that new era of industrial relations in Queensland where we ask for these matters to go back to the independent umpire. That is what it is all about: getting an independent umpire. That is something that the Cabinet of which the honourable member was a member would not accept. I remind the House that of the 47 people—— Mr Stephan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Just listen to this. I know that the honourable member for Gympie will not understand this, but other members will. I remind the House that, of the 47 people who voted in favour of the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act when it went through the House on 5 March 1985, 31 are no longer with us. That, too, heralds a breath of fresh air and a new approach to industrial relations. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I do see some people from the past but, given a little time, even they will pass. Legislative Assembly 4109 23 October 1990

Never again should industrial relations be used as a political weapon for short-term gain. And we should never lose sight of the fact that at a time of some economic difficulty the business community in this State needs stability for growth, it needs stability to maintain its current markets and it needs stability to attract overseas contracts and overseas dollars. It is too serious for anybody to try to play industrial relations games. The consequences of that are economic difficulties not only for the companies and the employees concerned but also for the State's economy. That, of course, is our first priority. On other matters, the Minister deserves the approval of the whole Chamber for the appointment of Ms Glenys Fisher on 8 February 1990 as the first female commissioner to the Queensland Industrial Commission. The Labor Party has acknowledged a fact which has not previously been acknowledged in this State, that is, that a large percentage in the work force deserve to have a female commissioner on the Queensland Industrial Commission. When I look at the history of this State, I am often staggered to find that it took until February 1990 to have a woman appointed to the Queensland Industrial Commission. Where was the National Party when it came to women's issues? Why did it not appoint women to the Industrial Commission? Mr Santoro interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The honourable member can carry on and wave his arms like the Statue of Liberty. Never did the National Party or the Liberal Party think about putting women in their rightful position. Queenslanders can be proud of many things in this State. One matter in which there can be no pride is the lack of women's involvement in the real decision-making processes of this State. This Government is rectifying that. I congratulate the Minister on taking the step of appointing a woman to such a key role, even though it was long overdue. On 23 March 1990, the Minister launched a program called Tradeswomen on the Move, which is aimed at increasing the number of female apprentices in non-traditional trades. That is another key initiative of this Government that is fundamentally important to the future of women in the work force. Other areas of change that I believe are significantly important for the future of the State involve workers' health. The previous National Party Government was extremely slow in establishing tripartite industry committees, which are an important component for monitoring and advising on occupational and safety issues. Mr Harper should hang his head in shame about that. This Minister has established those committees, which cover a wide spectrum of industry classifications such as metal, building, construction, diving, chemicals, manufacturing and so on. Those committees will play an important role in advising and monitoring occupational health and safety issues that are important to on-the-job health and safety. In January this year, the Minister moved quickly to start an education campaign in high schools that is aimed at informing students about safety in the workplace so that they are ready to practise safe practices when they begin their working lives. That education program included the introduction of a workplace health and safety kit for high schools. That was a very sound and constructive move. Why did the National Party not do that? It wanted to use industrial relations as a battlefield and employees as cannon fodder. In February 1990, the Minister launched a project called Right Start, which involved an information kit on workplace health and safety for metal industry employers and employees in their association. That was complemented with the announcement of tough safety measures for the maintenance of men and material hoists used on building sites. When the honourable member visits those sites he will be safe and his head will be protected. Honourable members would be aware of some unfortunate accidents that have occurred recently. Safety measures must be followed very carefully. Too often those Legislative Assembly 4110 23 October 1990 measures have been a matter of some contention between employers and employees on building sites. One could be forgiven for asking whether some sites comply with the necessary demolition requirements. Mr Santoro interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I am sure that the member for Merthyr will be interested in my next remark. The site of the Boot Factory on the corner of Caxton Street and Hale Street, which is currently being demolished as part of the Brisbane City Council's Hale Street ring-road project, has dubious commitment to safety regulations. The footpath has been blocked off for some time. That has made it difficult for people who use that area, because they have a stream of traffic on one side and the roadway is blocked off on the other. It is very suspect as to whether that site complies with the necessary demolition requirements. Mr Ardill: The council doesn't worry about pedestrians. Mr BEATTIE: It does not care about ratepayers, either. I call upon the Lord Mayor to doubly check exactly what provisions are being followed on that site. As many honourable members would appreciate, I jog past that site every morning. On a number of occasions my life has been put at risk. I realise that that may please some members. However, I assure them that my loving family is deeply concerned about my welfare. It is about time that the Lord Mayor ensured that things were done correctly. As to workers' compensation—in April this year, the Minister provided for increases in benefits for recipients of workers' compensation. Those increases have operated since July 1990. In June 1990, a 4 per cent reduction in workers' compensation premiums paid by employers was announced. That reduction has operated since 1 July 1990. This Government is doing something constructive to help employers fight the current economic difficulties. What did the National Party ever do to help employers? It whinged, moaned and carried on. Although the Labor Party has been in Government for only 10 months, it has done something constructive. Both of those significant initiatives are in the proud tradition of the T.J. Ryan Labor Government's commitment to workers' compensation. As I have indicated previously in this Chamber, as someone who has practised in the industrial relations and legal spheres, I am aware of many occasions on which workers who were hurt on the job suffered long delays in getting their common law claims determined by the courts and long delays in being brought to a stage of health rehabilitation. I urge the Minister to continue to ensure that, in relation to workers' compensation, careful consideration is given to dialogue with the legal and medical professions to ensure, firstly, that reports that are required from medical practitioners and specialists are provided as quickly as possible and, secondly, that legal delays involving common law claims be reduced to a minimum. I am aware that the latter point will involve close dialogue with the Attorney-General. I am aware of a small minority of medical practitioners in Queensland who, quite frankly, have had to be pressured to provide the appropriate health reports for the Workers Compensation Board. In one instance that I am aware of, because of delays the doctor had to be referred by complaint to the Medical Board. That doctor adopted an incredibly arrogant attitude when he appeared before that tribunal. There is no justification for that. It is a heartless course of action when people who, because of injury, are least able to deal with their circumstances are delayed because of the bureaucratic incompetence of a small percentage of the medical profession. That is totally unacceptable, and I believe that it would be opposed by all members. I turn now to TAFE training and employment. I am happy to say that the electorate of Brisbane Central contains the South Brisbane College of TAFE, which covers such subjects as aviation, business studies, ceramics, computer studies, drafting, electronics, Legislative Assembly 4111 23 October 1990 engineering, glazing, instrumentation, language education, marine, plastics, pre-employment, radio, television, sports and exercise studies. The director of that college, Mr Colin Marsh, runs a very effective institution which is providing a very substantive benefit to this State. I have visited that college on a number of occasions and spent time at the college of tourism and hospitality. As the Minister is aware, there is a particular problem about making certain that the South Brisbane TAFE campus becomes one of integrity in its own right. That may require the closing of some access streets to the South Brisbane Expo site. I know that these matters are currently under consideration. However, I indicate on the public record my full support for the aims and objectives of the South Brisbane College of TAFE to have at least one of the access roads into the South Bank site closed to give a total integrity to the TAFE campus, which can become linked with the Brisbane State High School for library purposes. Time expired. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook) (10.07 p.m.): I commend the Government for a number of the initiatives that it has taken in the Budget, particularly those regarding technical and further education. The increase in funding of 19 per cent in access education—basic education, communications and employment skills, with emphasis on women, migrants, disabled people and Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders—is to be commended. Spending on adult education has been increased by 17 per cent, and spending on advanced vocational education and training, which includes para-professional levels that build on previous education, training or experience, has been increased by 5 per cent. The Budget includes a huge 90 per cent increase in its allocation for educational enterprise; that is, activities that generate income through provision of full cost-recovery services to industry and Government both in Australia and overseas. That increase seems to be somewhat exorbitant, especially when the Government has allocated only an extra 13 per cent to initial skills development so that school-leavers can learn a trade and take on apprenticeships. That field could have been expanded significantly. It is very important for the future of this State and for the future of many young people. What I find hard to swallow is the 28 per cent decrease in funding for employment initiatives that aim to increase employment opportunities for young people, to which the member for Peak Downs referred. In the Estimates, grants for youth employment initiatives have been reduced by approximately $1.1m—from $3,876,000 to $2,786,000. I thought that that was one of the Government's strengths. This is the same Government that tore strips off the former National Party Government for neglecting the needs of the young unemployed. This is the same Government that, when in Opposition, flew the flag for the working class family and the unemployed. One of the former Government's most outspoken critics was Mr Wayne Swan, who was then Chairman of the Community Youth Support Scheme, now known as Skillshare. His name may ring a bell. He is now a Labor Party stalwart and its campaign director. In 1988, Mr Swan was quoted as saying— "Queensland's commitment to training for young unemployed is pathetic. The number of unemployed young Queenslanders is tragic." Mr Swan is now conspicuous by his absence from the debate. Some honourable members may remember that Mr Swan was also involved in a deceitful ploy to mislead voters at the last election. He was the architect of a scheme to hand out how-to-vote cards that resembled Liberal Party cards but gave preferences to the Labor Party ahead of the National Party. The cards bore a strong resemblance to the Liberal Party's blue and white how-to-vote cards and their distribution was stopped only after a court injunction was obtained by the Liberal Party. That demonstrates the questionable credibility of Mr Swan. Obviously, his previously heartfelt concern for the unemployed youth of Queensland was purely political. I return to the Budget. The Budget Estimates make a mockery of the Labor Government's rhetoric and hollow promises. The lack of commitment to young unemployed people is further evidence of the insincerity and hypocrisy of the Government. Legislative Assembly 4112 23 October 1990

Claims that the so-called employment initiatives program is responsive, tailored to local needs, cost effective and sensitive to the needs of the unemployed are nonsense and cheap political talk. How can the State Government claim that it promotes employment when it cuts costs on all fronts and stifles development throughout the State? The rural economy is an example. The closure of railway stations and freight depots throughout the State will contribute to the unemployment queues. Mr Harper: And the courthouses. Mr ROWELL: And the courthouses, as the member for Auburn said—a very important area. Mr Harper: And the small police stations. Mr ROWELL: And so it goes on and on. Mr Nunn: And the race tracks. Mr ROWELL: And the race tracks, too. It is a never-ending queue. Other Government moves, such as cuts in QIDC rural concessional funds, increases in farm truck registrations, new industrial legislation that gives more power to unions, and massive cuts in tourism funding will further cripple local economies and increase unemployment and poverty throughout Queensland. I refer to TAFE capital funding. The proposed Ingham TAFE college has been postponed, probably indefinitely. In a reply to my inquiry, the Minister gave me an assurance that construction would begin in 1993-94, should funds be allocated in the State Budget. That qualification was the overriding view of the Minister on that item. It was like saying that the college has been put on the never-never list. It shows a total lack of commitment by the Government, and an easy out. The TAFE college is very important to the Hinchinbrook electorate and TAFE is very important to the future development of the Queensland economy. The additional skills gained by people in the work force are necessary for Queensland to maintain its competitiveness in the marketplace, especially with its export industries. There is an absolute need for TAFE to be industry driven and changes in technology make it imperative that a constant watch is kept on the dissemination of information to the work force and to the various industries. Under the previous Government's five-year rolling plan last financial year the Ingham college was allocated $150,000 and would have been receiving approximately $1.9m late this year or early in 1992, with a remaining $1m budgeted for 1992-93. The existing temporary facility is bursting at the seams, with over 280 students attending each week. The forward planning was done last year and, despite an increase of over 50 per cent in the capital works program expenditure from last financial year, in 1990- 91 Ingham TAFE still slipped down the list. There has been an increase in capital expenditure by this Government, yet this college is still slipping down the list. Prior to the election the Labor Party task force described Hinchinbrook as the most neglected electorate in Queensland. Many rash promises were made. It is obvious that Labor Party electorates have dominated the Budget allocations and taken the biggest slice of the cake. Mr Borbidge: It is pork-barrelling. Mr ROWELL: That is what it is. It is pork-barrelling. Mr Pearce: Give some examples. Mr ROWELL: There are a number of examples. Perhaps the member would like to look at the Labor Party's five-year progressive plans. They are lined up one after the other. Mr Veivers: What do they say? Legislative Assembly 4113 23 October 1990

Mr ROWELL: All the Labor Party electorates now have TAFE facilities. That has to be compared with the facilities that existed under the previous five-year rolling plan. Mr Pearce: Does it tell you about the one that was taken away from Broadsound because it wasn't needed? Mr ROWELL: Apparently it was not needed. Does the honourable member have any problem with that? The Hinchinbrook electorate has demonstrated a need for such a college and has successfully lobbied the Government to obtain that temporary facility. In fact, there does not appear to be a commitment in the Budget for the acquisition of land for the site of the Ingham TAFE college, despite the following comment made to me by the Minister in a letter dated 27 June this year— "Site acquisition is progressing and should be finalised by the 1990/91 financial year." However, there is no commitment in the Budget for it. Where does this money come from if it is not in the Budget? It has to be allocated in the Budget. Ingham is over 100 kilometres from the nearest TAFE facility. There is no residential accommodation in Townsville for students. Many students are too young to hold a driver's licence and have to find accommodation and transport if they wish to embark upon TAFE studies. Mr McGrady: Why didn't your Government do it before? Mr ROWELL: The National Party wanted to do it, but it was stopped. The Minister can verify that as well. There was a proposal to build campus accommodation in Townsville. That has been stopped and I understand that at the present time there is some other proposal for it. The National Party Government did have a solution to the problem. Mr McGrady: After 32 years. Mr ROWELL: No. Never mind about 32 years; the National Party was going to do it this year. A facility at Ingham would provide a centre for both youth and adult students to avail themselves of the majority of courses that are advantageous to the community. If employment opportunities are not available in the district and students who have completed courses have to go further afield to find jobs, at least young people will be able to cope better when leaving home to seek employment away from the district. Many people in the Ingham community are conscious of the very positive work put in by the TAFE coordinating committee to ensure the establishment of a new facility in the district. The level of disappointment as a result of this deferment will be of some consequence to the Ingham community. The people have been expecting this facility to be built this year, but the Government has not yet reached the point of land acquisition. It is very serious. Mr Veivers: Why is that? Mr ROWELL: It is serious because young people want the opportunity of employment in the district. The land acquisition has not gone ahead and yet the Minister has made a commitment. Mr Beattie: Is he your speech-writer? Mr ROWELL: The honourable member is a very good interjector. He knows exactly what he is talking about. I would like to raise this point with the Minister if I could have his attention for a moment. The Ingham TAFE is very important to the Hinchinbrook electorate. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the position in the region and I hope in the future that consideration will be given and moneys will be apportioned so that the complex can get under way. Legislative Assembly 4114 23 October 1990

Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (10.22 p.m.): I support the Honourable Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations in the presentation of his Estimates. The Queensland Government has a commitment to vocational education and training which is clearly shown in the Bureau of Employment, Vocational and Further Education and Training's administration of the apprenticeship and traineeship systems and the monitoring of both on-the-job and off- the-job skills development training in these systems. The apprenticeship and traineeship systems provide an important branch of vocational education and training. Queensland can boast over 23 000 apprentices in over 140 callings and a further 3 700 trainees. No-one should underestimate the importance of the apprenticeship and trainee system in this State. Much is made of university education and the way in which the choice of who will be given a place in universities is made, but in reality only 25 per cent of school-leavers go on to university. The rest of Queensland's young people are looking for jobs and technical and further education. Indeed, the importance of technical education in an increasingly technical world cannot be underestimated. Having taught school-leavers for years, I know how important the chance of gaining an apprenticeship or a place in a TAFE college is for the average young person. During the speech made by the member for Peak Downs, reference was made with some sensitivity to this matter, for which I commend him. However, apprentices and TAFE college students are not the only ones who are being trained. Pre-vocational and pre-apprenticeship courses also provide valuable training for those who are preparing to enter structured training arrangements. Again, the numbers are significant because 3 744 people are enrolled in trade-based pre-vocational courses. An additional 217 people are enrolled in pre- apprenticeship trade-based courses that are offered in TAFE colleges throughout the State. The indications are that more and more people will enter structured training courses, either through apprenticeship or traineeship systems. This will be brought about in particular by the introduction of award restructuring principles into both State and Federal industrial awards. A major principle in this restructuring is the development of career paths, with traineeships and apprenticeships being a major entry point into many trades or skilled areas. With the development of skill-based career paths, employees will be promoted and paid according to their skills. The training provided to achieve the standards of skill will have to be accredited. These developments are being introduced into the apprenticeship system by competency-based apprenticeship training. Currently, there are three competency-based training pilot schemes being implemented in the cooking, electrical fitter and mechanic, and motor mechanic trades. Over the next few years, it is expected that other trades will commence competency-based training. As well as these competency-based training pilot schemes—developed by the Government in conjunction with industry—the Stanwell Power Station has a program for apprentice formwork carpenters. Progression through the apprenticeship is entirely competency-based. Indeed, some trainees at the site have already completed a two-year apprenticeship in formwork carpentry within eight months. The level of achievement of competency will be assessed by a tripartite assessment committee consisting of an employer representative, an employee representative and a Government representative. The competency-based training scheme has always played an integral part in the traineeship system. There are presently 40 different callings, and new proposals for traineeships are constantly being investigated and developed by industry, as required. At this point, I commend the previous Government for establishing the traineeship system. A few years ago I attended the launch of a traineeship system. I admit that at that time I was sceptical that it would every get off the ground. However, there has been a gradual increase in the number of trainees and I know that the scheme has the support of the present Minister. As competency-based training catches on, group schemes are likely to play an ever-increasingly important role. They will play an important part in placing apprentices and trainees with employers who can provide limited, but specialised, training. By being placed with several employers, an apprentice or trainee receives Legislative Assembly 4115 23 October 1990 training in all facets of his or her calling. Because employers can take part in the most important job of training Australia's most precious resource—its people—they also benefit. Currently there are 24 group schemes that are being jointly funded by the State and Federal Governments. More than $2m will be provided by the Queensland Government to support group schemes in 1990-91. Competency-based training is dependent on skill standards. The Queensland Government has joined the Commonwealth Government and other State and Territory Governments in establishing the National Training Board to ratify skill standards developed by industry. In addition to apprentices and trainees having access to training in specialised skills, the introduction of multiskilling of the work force will mean that many tradespeople will require access to training or retraining in specialised skill areas. This will mean an increased need for post-trade training, either in the workplace or through training programs conducted in schools and colleges. Provision of places for further education for adults is one of the most exciting developments. Having taught adults who came back to night school to obtain a senior education, I am convinced that the joy and self-esteem gained by mature people from further education will be well rewarded in the work force. The training guarantee will ensure that training is given a high priority by industry. In turn, industry will look to the bureau for guidance in fulfilling its obligations under the guarantee—in particular, for assistance in the design and implementation of structured training programs. These programs will relate to all classifications of employees and cover a wide range of subjects from managerial training to workplace health and safety. Additional courses will be developed for Queensland's colleges. All colleges will be called on to design courses for employers to introduce themselves into their own workplace. The bureau will act as a trainer or a consultant during the training process. The bureau's field services branch plays an invaluable role as the interface between the bureau and industry. The branch is responsible for assessing and monitoring apprenticeship and traineeship training and will ensure appropriate training in the workplace. It has a very big role to play in selling competency-based training to industry. In recognition of that role, the Government has shown its support for field services with an allocation of $2,349,100. This is an increase of $355,000 over last year's allocation, which will allow for the engagement of an additional six officers. The Government's commitment to vocational education and training is also demonstrated by the availability of travel and accommodation allowances for apprentices and trainees who require assistance while attending off-the-job training. Government support for this program is shown by the allocation of $3,225,400 which is indexed annually in line with CPI movements. There is no doubt that industry is entering a new era of growth in the development and implementation of training strategies. This will result in more people participating in traditional vocational systems as well as substantial growth in non-traditional training areas, such as post-trade training. This shift in emphasis represents a huge challenge to the Government in maintaining its commitment to vocational education and training, but the Bureau of Employment, Vocational and Further Education and Training is poised and ready. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I call the honourable member for Gympie. Government members interjected. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (10.30 p.m.): I thought that would please honourable members. I am pleased that they have woken up. I will see what effect I have upon them when I talk about employment and vocational training. I was surprised that, when Mr Beattie spoke in the Estimates debate, he did not take many interjections. However, because he was being asked about the employment of Mr Ray Dempsey, there is no doubt in my mind as to the reason why he did not take interjections. Mr Veivers: He didn't know the answer. Legislative Assembly 4116 23 October 1990

Mr STEPHAN: He did not know the answer and wanted to hide from that particular appointment. Mr Beattie: Tell me why. Mr STEPHAN: I was waiting for the honourable member to take an interjection and tell me why Mr Dempsey was more qualified than some of the other applicants for the position. His views on the appointment of Mr Dempsey would have been very biased. Of course, Ray Dempsey was involved in the power industry dispute. I wonder how even-handed he will be in his position as commissioner. The CHAIRMAN: Order! It is inappropriate to talk about commissioners like that. The honourable member should return to the Estimates. Mr STEPHAN: I thought that the commissioner was employed by the department that I am discussing in this Estimates debate. However, I take your point, Mr Chairman. I turn to the voluntary employment agreements that the Government has seen fit to withdraw. It was interesting to note how well the VEAs were being accepted by the work force generally and in particular by the people who took part in them. Those people signed the agreements believing that they would last for four or five years. However, the Government decided that it would not have a bar of them and, against the wishes of the workers, pulled the rug from under their feet. It is interesting to note that 103 voluntary employment agreements were filed and 45 were registered. Bearing in mind that VEAs did not receive good publicity or much encouragement in many areas, that was not a bad start. However, because of increased productivity, VEAs were of great benefit to employers and employees and to the whole State. I am disappointed that the Government denied to this State the great benefit that could be derived through voluntary employment agreements. If Australian businesses are to be competitive on world markets, those types of agreements will be needed in the work force. The Government must look to the future rather than at its own ideologies. Australia will not survive in the marketplace against countries that are increasing productivity and becoming very competitive. The member for Condamine, Mr Littleproud, mentioned the Cooke inquiry. Earlier today, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Cooper, moved a motion of support for Mr Marshall Cooke, QC. I know why members of the Labor Party are so nervous about the Cooke inquiry continuing. When one looks at the report that has been handed down to date, one knows why the Labor Party is nervous; it is because of the "donations" that have been given to the Labor Party and accepted quite readily. Section 57A of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act provides that a union shall not expend money which expenditure constitutes political objects unless it maintains a political objects fund which fund shall be separate and distinct from the other funds of the union. The section requires contributions to the political objects fund to be voluntary and by way of a contribution separate from and not included in the membership subscription. The section also protects from victimisation a member who does not contribute to the political objects fund. The Cooke inquiry has revealed a situation in which that has not happened, which is why the provision of those funds has been illegal. Political objects are defined as the expenditure of money on the payment of any expenses incurred either directly or indirectly by a candidate or prospective candidate for election to the Parliament of the Commonwealth or any State or to any public office before, during or after the election in connection with his candidature or election; or on the holding of any meeting or the distribution of any literature or documents in support of any such candidate or prospective candidate; or in connection with the registration of electors or the selection of a candidate for any such Parliament or any public office; or on the holding of political meetings of any kind. I will examine political donations that have gone into union funds and are contained in union records. The following donations were made to the ALP: on 13 September 1983, $250; on 29 March 1984, $10,491.60; on 28 March 1985, $12,390; on 17 February Legislative Assembly 4117 23 October 1990

1986, $12,381.36; on 4 March 1987, $14,872; on 25 March 1988, $17,288.70; and on 22 February 1989, $18,218.85. Mr Palaszczuk: Wind up. Mr STEPHAN: The member for Archerfield is getting upset. This is something that he does not want to hear, but it is a fact of life. It is not much good getting upset when these things are brought out in the open. The fund was illegally put together. The funds have not been voluntarily given for the purpose that was intended. Members of the Government should be ashamed. I do not think they want to hear much more about this. That is one of the reasons why they hope that Mr Marshall Cooke, QC, will go away and hide for a while. Much more is behind the comments that have been made of late than whether or not sufficient money is available to pay his salary. There is a big difference in the cost of the Fitzgerald inquiry and the Cooke inquiry. When they were in Opposition, members of the Labor Party were adamant that the Fitzgerald inquiry should continue to its successful conclusion. I will leave my comments in that respect at that. I want to comment on a couple of other aspects of this department. First of all, I want to say something about the TAFE colleges that have been established in this State. They have proven to be an enormous success story. For quite some time a TAFE college at Gympie has been on the drawing board. The Minister has said that it is due for completion this year and that it will be open to students next year. Quite a number of students in Gympie have been using the facilities that are available either through the existing schools or the centre itself. They are doing a tremendous job under very difficult circumstances. The TAFE college will certainly be a great asset to Gympie and a great asset to students of all ages who see fit to take part in the courses that are offered. I turn to the college councils. The college councils have been a very successful part of these colleges for quite some time. I certainly hope that they will continue to be utilised in a way that will be of benefit to the community generally. It must be borne in mind that the proposed role of the college council is to service the needs of its student clients, industry and the community by appropriate and timely advice to the college director, regional management and commission on matters affecting the provision of vocational and further education and training. Many professional men and women in the community are very willing to give advice. I do not think that their advice can be ignored. If it is ignored, that will not be of benefit to the community. The college council is also to assist in promoting the college and its services to its local community, the regional community and, if and where appropriate, the community at the State level. I believe that word of mouth is the best way to promote anything. People take notice. It is for that reason that I feel sure that provided those objects are followed, the college in Gympie will be a success story, just as similar colleges in other parts of the State have been a success story. That leads me to rural colleges. I know that the rural colleges have gone through a bit of a tough time. In fact, the rural community has gone through a tough time. Life on the land has never been easy. Someone is on record as making the comment that life was not meant to be easy. Life on the land is certainly never easy. The farmers have to continually combat the elements, that is, the sun, the wind and the rain—without a lot of training, I might add—— Mr Harper: And to combat the Labor Party. Mr STEPHAN: And to combat the Labor Party. One of the greatest problems that the rural community is experiencing at the moment is high interest rates, high taxation and the unfeeling attitude that is adopted by so many members of the Labor Party. I mentioned earlier in the piece that there is a difference in attitude and a different environment away from the streetlights. One has to go out into the country to realise just how tough a time the rural community has. As I have Legislative Assembly 4118 23 October 1990 said, the farmers are combating the elements without a great deal of training or expertise. They have to go on their own personal experience. These colleges will answer the call to supply the type of training and background that is needed. The training will be handed on and put in practice and, hopefully, will be of benefit. I am not sure that it will cut the costs, but the expertise derived from the rural colleges will be of great benefit to the community generally. Time expired. Hon. N. G. WARBURTON (Sandgate—Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) (10.45 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The honourable member for Auburn endeavoured to suggest that the Queensland Government had not applied itself to its financial responsibilities in respect of TAFE. I would have thought that an increase, as I indicated, in the recurrent funding of $12.5m for this financial year and a restructuring program, which, as I clearly said, was designed to ensure a closer working relationship with industry and the community, was proof positive of my Government's commitment to vocational education and training. The honourable member raised, as did other honourable members, the issue of college autonomy being eroded and the input from college community councils being diminished. They should all be encouraged to read the Green Paper on the formation of a TAFE training and employment commission. They will discover from it that this Government is committed to strengthening the input from industry and from the community into the operation of the State's TAFE system. I add that the Green Paper makes no threat whatsoever to the autonomy of TAFE colleges; rather, it proposes to strengthen their responsiveness to community and regional needs by the introduction of a strategy for networking at a regional level. That strategy is aimed at ensuring that the people of this State get the best possible return from the investment in the State's TAFE system. The honourable member for Auburn did a repeat of his performance when the much acclaimed Industrial Relations Bill was debated in this place. However, I would have to say to the honourable member that his attack on recently appointed industrial commissioners was new for him. In my view, it was unnecessary and despicable. For the edification of honourable members, bearing in mind the status held by industrial commissioners right across this nation, it is my opinion that such an abuse of privilege is tantamount to contempt of the commission. From my point of view, it is indeed unfortunate that both he and others in this place, including Mr Santoro, saw fit to take the course that they did. In relation to the ongoing, futile resurrection in debate after debate of the interment of those secret deals known as VEAs, I simply refer honourable members to what my colleague Mr Schwarten said during his quoting of the President of the Industrial Court in this State, Mr Justice Moynihan. A careful reading of what Mr Justice Moynihan has said should put that matter completely to rest. Both Mr Harper and Mr Rowell raised the issue of the need to conduct technical and further education courses at Ingham. Facilities for the conduct of vocational education and training programs are being leased in Ingham, as Mr Rowell appreciates, and at the moment programs are being offered through that centre. As he properly said, planning for the construction of a vocational education and training facility at Ingham remains on the Capital Works Program. However, it is essential that priorities be set on the basis of real need, and that is the way in which this Government will continue to travel. It will not be making based on political grounds. I am not suggesting for one moment that that has been the case in Ingham. My departmental officers regularly review the Capital Works Program for the department on the basis of industry and community needs, and I give the assurance that all of those reviews, including the review in respect of Ingham, will be conducted with open input from both industry and community groups. Legislative Assembly 4119 23 October 1990

Both the members for Peak Downs and Auburn referred to the employment division. The employment program has been funded in strict accordance with the funding program approved by the National Party when it was in Government. In accordance with this Government's commitment to accountability and wise expenditure, the effectiveness of the employment program is currently being examined through a joint Treasury Department review and the outcome of that review, rather than political opportunism, will determine the extent of public funding that is directed to this program. Mr Harper raised the matter of the Bundaberg college which received an additional $109,000 this financial year to support growth in vocational education and training in the region. In determining the distribution of those additional funds, the needs of the marine centre and the remote campuses such as Mundubbera will be borne closely in mind. The honourable member for Peak Downs concentrated to some extent on workers' compensation and again his concerns are adequately answered in the Green Paper, the content of which I am sure will form the basis of a very good, new Workers Compensation Act. Mr Littleproud showed himself to be a somewhat amateurish sleuth; I found it extremely difficult to follow his argument concerning the recommendations of the Cooke inquiry. I can only respond by reminding the honourable member that the inquiry into the FEDFA, which includes the activities of particular union officers, has been completed, that the report has been tabled in this Chamber and that he has been given a copy of that report. All of the recommendations made by Commissioner Cooke about alleged criminal activity are before the Director of Prosecutions. His argument is diffused completely because that report contains no recommendation that implicates any political party, including the political party to which I belong. I take this opportunity, because I did not get it today, to put to rest once and for all the forlorn hopes of Opposition members that the Cooke inquiry will, in some way, detrimentally affect the Government. It will not, and that is because we, as a Government, will continue to demand honesty, integrity and accountability at all levels. I will say for the benefit of Opposition members that it will not because the people of Queensland very correctly perceive, as the Premier has often stated, that the Government will not be selective in any way when it comes to ensuring that persons who commit crimes are brought to justice. It makes no difference to members on this side of the Chamber if a law-breaker is a union official or a Queensland politician. I have heard the Premier say that on numerous occasions. However, suffice to say, bearing in mind what is currently happening in the aftermath of the Fitzgerald inquiry, that both National and Liberal Party members in this place will suffer the political penalty for their colleagues' indiscretions for a long, long time to come. Try as they may, it will be members opposite who will suffer the consequences of any inquiry that will be held. They will not escape from that. The honourable member for Merthyr gave a repeat performance of his earlier contributions on industrial relations matters in this place. It is very interesting indeed that, on the one hand, Mr Santoro accuses the Government of pandering to unions and meeting their demands, yet on the other hand he criticises the Government for standing up to the unions in a number of areas in the public sector. The Government adopts a fair and reasonable approach and represents, I believe, the interests of all Queenslanders. I appreciate that the honourable member, being consistently one-sided in his views, cannot understand this even-handed approach. But notwithstanding what he said this evening, I point out that the Government is continuing to negotiate on the issues he has raised and is prepared to have the independent umpire, the Industrial Commission, determine the issues when agreement is reached. In conclusion, I am confident that my department can and will meet the challenges of the future in a way that will serve in the best way possible our State and its people. At 10.55 p.m., Legislative Assembly 4120 23 October 1990

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Under the provisions of the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 3 October, I shall now put the questions for the Vote under consideration and the balance remaining unvoted for Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations. The questions for the following Votes were put, and agreed to— $21,728,000—Law, Order and Public Safety, Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations (Consolidated Revenue). $451,050,000—Law, Order and Public Safety, Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations (Trust and Special Funds). $326,540,000—Education, Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations (Consolidated Revenue). $28,366,000—Economic Services, Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations (Consolidated Revenue). Progress reported. WHISTLEBLOWERS (INTERIM PROTECTION) AND MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 2 October (see p. 3712). Mr COOPER (Roma—Leader of the Opposition) (10.58 p.m.): The Opposition supports this interim legislation and it takes note of the fact that it is interim legislation and that a lot more has to be done. Following the passage of this legislation, a lot of consideration will have to be given to it. It was Mr Tony Fitzgerald, QC, in what is now commonly known as the Fitzgerald report, who recommended that the then proposed EARC should prepare legislation "for protecting any person making public statements bona fide about misconduct, inefficiency or other problems within public instrumentalities and providing penalties against knowingly making false public statements". I think that is as important as the legislation, because the last thing that we in the Opposition want to see is people in this State and this nation becoming dobbers. This recommendation basically was implemented in the Electoral and Administrative Review Act, which was introduced by the National Party Government late last year. In explaining this recommendation, Fitzgerald referred to enactment of the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1989 in the United States and commented that there was an urgent need for similar legislation in Queensland. I believe that we will be looking to the United States to provide further information before the final Act comes into play. It behoves all of us to take great note of how this interim legislation works and to study the issues paper that EARC will present later. Fitzgerald did not merely recommend that an employee with knowledge of internal fraud or corruption should be encouraged to report his knowledge of it to the law enforcement authorities, he went one step further by recommending that such a person should be protected as well if he or she makes a bona fide public statement or, in other words, blows the whistle. Underlying the Fitzgerald recommendation is that whistle-blowers, unless they are given formal legal protection, will suffer reprisal from the organisation to which the whistle-blower belongs. This Whistleblowers (Interim Protection) and Miscellaneous Amendments Bill was requested by the Chairman of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission, Mr Sherman, to provide protection to employees until the EARC reviews the whole area of whistle-blowers' protection. It is understood that, before the end of this year, EARC will try to produce a comprehensive report on whistle-blowers legislation. It is clear that the timetable for legislation addressing the matter will cover the next parliamentary session some time in 1991. Both the Criminal Justice Commission and the EARC rely for their investigations on information that is provided by employees of Government, statutory authorities and Legislative Assembly 4121 23 October 1990 local authorities. Therefore, interim protection is needed and is provided by amendments to both Acts covered by this Bill. It will ensure that there is in place action that can be taken if a whistle-blower is subject to victimisation. The CJC in particular must have the ability to deal with persons who prejudice others for providing assistance to the commission. The Opposition will support the passage of this interim legislation. Unlike the Labor Party, when it was in Opposition in 1989 and when the Bills relating to the Criminal Justice Commission and the EARC were introduced in October of that year, the Opposition does so with grace, not just with lip-service. Mr W. K. Goss: Do you call that grace? Mr COOPER: Absolutely. These matters are tremendously important. Many people have a vested interest in ensuring that accountability has very real meaning in this State, particularly in relation to whistle-blowing. Legislation of this type is very new to this State, this nation and, indeed, to other nations throughout the world. This Bill provides both commissions with statutory power to seek interim and final injunctions from the Supreme Court to restrain persons who are proposing to engage in conduct that would constitute victimisation. A person who breaches such an injunction would be liable to contempt of court. The Opposition supports the other measures that will assist the commissions in carrying out their functions. I reiterate that this concept is new to Australia. Much research still has to be done. The Opposition is prepared to ensure that it is done well and that consultation occurs not only in this nation but in other countries that have experience in these matters. I look forward to the EARC issues paper, which I believe will be issued later this year. I implore the public and the media to become involved in that process. This new legislation can affect the course of Government and the running of this State for many years to come. We have a responsibility to ensure that it is not treated lightly simply because of the lateness of the hour. It is vital that note be taken of this process. If it can be improved upon, that must be done. I am pleased to note that the onus is on the person doing the whistle-blowing to convince the court of his or her good faith in providing assistance to the commissions. That is absolutely vital. One could conjure up all sorts of different situations in which people could have self-serving, vindictive or vitriolic intentions of dobbing somebody in. Therefore, when a person makes a complaint to the commissions he or she cannot do so in a frivolous or self-serving manner by the leaking of information or the dobbing-in of people. Australia is not a nation of dobbers. Australians who are prepared to front up and provide information should be afforded the necessary protection. However, I note that there are penalties for people who provide frivolous information. Governments, statutory authorities and local authorities should not be hampered in their duties because of a fear of someone who is prejudiced against them. I am sure that all honourable members would understand that. The issues paper, which will be of vital importance to the people of this State, will perhaps set an example to other States and the Commonwealth. Right from the start, because of the Fitzgerald inquiry, we have a unique opportunity of setting an example in accountability for others to follow. I implore all honourable members to ensure that this legislation is treated responsibly. I note the other amendments that are embodied in this interim legislation. The Opposition supports all the amendments. Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (11.07 p.m.): Tonight is an historic night for Queensland law-making. This is the first piece of legislation to come before this House based on the report of a Fitzgerald-inspired parliamentary committee, which is based in turn upon the recommendation of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission, which is one of the two great commissions that were recommended in the report of Mr Fitzgerald, QC. On 7 June, I had the honour to table in this House the report of the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review on whistle-blowers' protection interim measures. Tonight, those recommendations are embodied in legislation before the House. Legislative Assembly 4122 23 October 1990

This is an example of what Mr Fitzgerald, QC, had in mind, namely, that there should be some opportunity by means of an all-party parliamentary committee to draw together the contributions from all sides of the political spectrum to focus on that which needs to be done to remedy the defects in our public administration.The whistle-blowers interim protection provisions amount to two things. They make victimisation an offence and they provide power to those commissions to seek injunctions to restrain victimisation. The provision to protect whistle-blowers under the legislation is circumscribed. It applies to people who go to the CJC or EARC; it does not apply to persons who make public statements. That will be the subject of an issues paper by EARC that is expected later this year. The provision ensures that the ordinary citizen who comes forward to the CJC or EARC with relevant information is protected, not just those who come forward in compliance with a notice or a requirement. What the legislation does is this: it ensures that we should never again in Queensland have to leave someone such as Sergeant Col Dillon in the position where he had nowhere to go. One well remembers that fateful bottle of scotch that Sergeant Col Dillon found in his locker, which he took home. He did not have anyone whom he could trust to blow the whistle on that bribe. Eventually, he was able to produce that bottle of scotch and blow the whistle at the Fitzgerald inquiry. When that whistle blew, it opened up a whole new arena in the dynamics of that inquiry. Never again must there be such a collapse of the institutions of democracy so as to allow men of goodwill such as Sergeant Col Dillon to be left in that abysmal position. The legislation is in line with a similar whistle-blower protection provision that is built into the Police Service Administration Act, which was passed by the Parliament earlier this year. Members will recall that that Act provides a duty for police to report misconduct and makes it an offence to victimise police for so doing. But the canker of corruption extends well beyond the police force. Accordingly, the protection must be extended well beyond the police force. There have been, for no apparently good reason, anomalies between the Electoral and Administrative Review Act and the Criminal Justice Act. This legislation cures those anomalies. It says to any would-be wrong-doer, "If you have in mind to victimise a person because he or she is blowing the whistle to EARC or the CJC, be warned, because, if you do engage in victimisation of that whistle-blower, you will be creating an offence punishable by law." The legislation states further that the commissions have power to pre-empt, under the legislation, the victimisation occurring. After all, prevention is better than cure. The injunction power that has been given pursuant to clause 6, which creates a new section 2.25.1 of the Electoral and Administrative Review Act, is a very powerful provision. It is based upon the recommendations of Mr Sherman, the Chairman of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission, and is expressed in very great breadth. One must note with some concern that the provisions in subsection 5 enable such an injunction to be granted restraining a person from engaging in conduct whether or not it appears to the court that the person intends to engage again, or to continue to engage, in conduct of that kind; or whether or not the person has previously engaged in conduct of that kind; and whether or not there is an imminent danger of substantial damage to any person if the first-mentioned person engages in conduct of that kind. That is to say, the provision extends the normal principles that govern the granting of injunctions. It does so in accordance with a request of the Chairman of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission. It adopts the model that has become well known at the Commonwealth level of the Trade Practices Act. That is to say, the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission or the Criminal Justice Commission may obtain an injunction with the same facilitative legislation as has been made available to the Trade Practices Commission. No doubt, that is of great assistance in smoothing the path for those powerful commissions. However, I sound a note of caution at this stage that it is interim legislation. One must look carefully before one enshrines permanently in the statute books a departure from the ordinary principles that govern injunctions. As a matter of general principle, one should be most reluctant to depart from the ordinary rules that apply betwee Legislative Assembly 4123 23 October 1990

citizen and citizen. In this case, a need has been identified and, in the interests of ensuring that the commissions may act promptly and without unnecessary fetters, a broad power is proposed to be given under the legislation. Similarly, the path has been cleared for the commissions to seek injunctive relief by ousting the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act so far as they might limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Put simply, that means that the Supreme Court has power under this legislation to grant an injunction, notwithstanding the fact that the issue arises out of an industrial dispute. That has a great deal of significance because many such issues may well arise out of industrial disputes. It may be that, in the context of a dispute between an employer and employee, an employee may make a complaint to the CJC, or indeed to the EARC, and then seek to rely upon that complaint as a pretext for grievance upon the employee subsequently being dismissed. The concern is obvious that the jurisdiction conferred on the Industrial Relations Commission, which was otherwise exclusive, could be subverted, and that one might create an alternative route through to the Supreme Court that would frustrate the scheme of the Industrial Relations Act. Again it should be said that this is interim legislation. No doubt the proper relationship that should obtain between the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is a matter that will be the subject of learned attention from the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission and from the consultation process in which that will engage. The honourable the Leader of the Opposition touched upon the thorny question of the next stage. It is unlikely that anyone would disagree with the protections afforded in this Bill, which are, after all, simply protecting people who go through the right channels. The more difficult question arises in respect of protecting whistle-blowers who make public statements. In the United States of America, the practice in that somewhat more robust society has been to attempt or to purport to protect people who blow the whistle in the public arena. The Civil Service Reform Act 1978 set out the basis of that protection through the Office of the Special Counsel, and in 1989 an amendment to that Act, known as the Whistleblower Protection Act, was passed in order to strengthen the protection available. That protection has been criticised as being somewhat uncertain. Be that as it may, the existing state of the common law in our nation leaves much to be desired when it comes to ensuring that whistle-blowing is properly protected. One of the problems facing the potential whistle-blower who is employed and who is seeking to blow the whistle upon a matter of corruption or inefficiency is that he or she may be bound by a contractual duty of confidentiality or, indeed, a fiduciary duty of confidence. This was discussed by the High Court in the case of A. v. Hayden (No. 2) (1985) 59 ALJR 6, where Chief Justice Gibbs made the following observation— "It is clear that a person who owes a duty to maintain confidentiality will not be allowed to escape from his obligations simply because he alleges that crimes have been committed and that it is in the public interest that he should disclose information to them. He bears the burden of establishing the facts upon which he relies to relieve him of the obligations. That seems clear on principle and I have seen no authority that suggests the contrary." Whether Queensland goes down the American path or seeks to enshrine principles of whistle-blower protection, not in some bureaucracy such as the Office of Special Counsel, but in general principles of law is an interesting question with which we shall grapple in due course. Another issue with which this legislation deals is the appointment of acting chairmen. That is provided for in clause 3, which amends section 2.5 of the principal Act. That simply will facilitate arrangements for the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission, and is worthy of support. Similarly, clause 4 amends section 2.13 so as to facilitate the printing of EARC reports by the Government Printer. These provisions illustrate the difficulties in enshrining in legislation the appropriate sorts of powers and immunities which should properly attach to these commissions. When one considers commissions such as the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission or the Legislative Assembly 4124 23 October 1990

Criminal Justice Commission, one is left grasping for various analogies with which to compare them. In one sense they are like a commission of inquiry, which is in turn somewhat like a court. In another sense the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission is like a Law Reform Commission. In another sense the Criminal Justice Commission has aspects of a police force. Depending upon which analogy one takes, one comes to a different conclusion as to the powers and immunities which should attach to them. This point comes very much to the fore when one considers the issue of the protection of persons who make statements to EARC. At the moment, section 7.2 (2) of the Act gives an absolute privilege against liability for defamation for a person who makes the publication to EARC in good faith in connection with the discharge of any of the commission's functions. As reported in the weekend media, the Parliament Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review has received correspondence from a former politician who has urged change to that provision, namely, that the requirement for the publication to be made in good faith should be abolished. Accordingly, the parliamentary committee has written to the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission seeking its views on the subject. On the one hand, some may say that it is going too far to give absolute privilege to protect statements that may be both untrue and made in bad faith. On the other hand, it is no doubt vital that EARC should be given access to all relevant information to assist it in its inquiries. The way in which one resolves that dilemma depends to some extent upon the way one views the overall function of EARC and, indeed, the overall function of these independent statutory commissions. The spirit of the Fitzgerald report is that one should seek to find agreement among differing political views when agreement is possible. This legislation that comes before the House tonight is the first example to be placed on the statute book of Queensland of the fruits of that process arising out of the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review. It is a piece of legislation of which members of all political parties may be justly proud. Mr QUINN (South Coast) (11.26 p.m.): The Bill before the House may be best summed up in three parts. The first part is clause 3, which provides for the appointment of temporary chairmen or temporary commissioners and is a purely machinery aspect of the Bill which provides flexibility and common sense. The second part is clause 4, which is similar to clause 3 and provides for the tabling of reports. It also facilitates easy access to those reports by members of the public and members of Parliament. The remaining clauses of the Bill provide interim protection for whistle-blowers. Previous speakers have mentioned that this aspect of the Bill has already been examined by the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission. The Government has foreshadowed the introduction of legislation either later this year or early next year. An urgent need exists to protect public officials who expose misconduct or maladministration in public organisations. It is also necessary to protect the livelihood and careers of those officials against victimisation. This Bill remedies the shortcomings of the EARC and CJC legislation as it stands at present. The Liberal Party supports the principles inherent in the concept of whistle-blowing legislation as a means of exposing official corruption and as a means of focusing the attention of public officials on their duty to carry out their responsibilities in an honest and competent manner. The Liberal Party supports the Bill. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (11.28 p.m.): In view of the lateness of the hour, I intend to be very brief. I rise to support this interim legislation. I can see that it is receiving the usual "warm welcome" for which members of the Opposition are renowned. I am delighted that they are so "excited" about its introduction. I simply state that this is important legislation. Members will recall that the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice wrote to Tom Sherman and other members of EARC earlier this year in relation to this legislation. At that time, the Woorabinda Aboriginal Community Council had decided to terminate the services of its council clerk, Mrs Pamela Adams, on 22 March 1990. Mrs Adams was employed as the council Legislative Assembly 4125 23 October 1990 clerk, which is a statutory position under the Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984. The State Secretary of the Municipal Officers Association, Ray Selby, wrote to me as chairman of the committee. The matter was discussed with other members of the committee and eventually with the commission. We were concerned that complaints had been made to the Criminal Justice Commission by Mrs Adams and her organisation in which Mrs Adams alleged that she had been dismissed. That was a matter of some seriousness, and the parliamentary committee treated it accordingly. Following discussions with the commission, the members indicated support of the need for not only a victimisation clause to be inserted in the Criminal Justice Act 1989-90 but also for the injunction power contained in the Bill that is being discussed during the course of this debate. I believe it is important to place on record the committee's appreciation of Tom Sherman's actions. Firstly, I am pleased that the Premier took up this matter as quickly as he did and brought forward this interim legislation. In summary, it amends the Criminal Justice Act to provide for the offence of victimisation. Similar provisions are already included in the EARC legislation. Secondly, and most importantly, as I mentioned earlier it vests power in both commissions to seek interim and final injunctions in the Supreme Court to restrain persons who are proposing to engage in conduct that would constitute a breach of the offences provisions of the Acts. The Bill contains a requirement of good faith, which has already been referred to. This legislation is not an open-ended cheque. When legislation is presented in its final form, the provisions and limitations of the clauses will have to be carefully examined. Honourable members would be aware that under the Criminal Justice Act, certain responsible officers involved in public administration are compelled to report matters to the Criminal Justice Commission. That is a very important function for the commission to perform and a very important responsibility. Indeed, the commission has written to a range of public servants to point out that responsibility. Up until today, the provisions were inadequate and did not provide protection for people who were required by law to make complaints to the commission. I believe that this legislation goes a long way towards resolving the problems. It is sad that it took an initiative from the unfortunate circumstances involving Mrs Pamela Adams to bring this about; nevertheless, it has been brought about. I hope that Mrs Pamela Adams will be reinstated. I do not know what the current position is, but her circumstances should be rectified, because it was her obligation to report those matters through the union to the commission. I thank EARC for its report and the MOA for drawing the matter to the attention of the House. Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn) (11.31 p.m.): I take the opportunity to place on record a few thoughts which I have, brought about to a degree by practical experience, on the development of any legislation to protect the role of so-called whistle-blowers. Firstly, it appears to me that there is a considerable need for caution in providing protection for those who may or may not be genuine in their belief that they have a responsibility to become a so-called whistle-blower. Unless extreme caution is exercised, great disservice may result to the community, and even greater distress may result to individuals. I recall the exercise of one who publicly expressed his concerns—I judge not whether those concerns were expressed out of a genuine concern or simply a mischievous motive—only to be discredited in the finale by the court. It is small comfort, though, that the dismissal was made by the court, that the thinking was discredited by the court—small comfort to those who were affected by that whistle-blowing. In the circumstances, reputations suffer irreparable damage, and the total rejection of the accusations is achieved only at very considerable financial cost. The debate tonight has even more convinced me of the potential perils inherent in trying to achieve what all members have agreed is a justifiable intent of whistle-blowing legislation. It will certainly be with critical analysis that I examine whatever may be Legislative Assembly 4126 23 October 1990 brought forward in the future. The inclination to protect the whistle-blower to the detriment of those on whom the whistle is allegedly blown must be recognised. Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts) (11.34 p.m.), in reply: This is interim legislation. I thank members for their contributions to what was a straightforward debate. I thank particularly the Leader of the Opposition, who made his contribution with so much grace. Motion agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 11, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr W. K. Goss, by leave, read a third time. LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ABORIGINAL LANDS) ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 2 October (see p. 3713). Mr SLACK (Burnett) (11.37 p.m.): The Opposition supports the Bill. It is straightforward and allows for the provisions of the Liquor Act to apply to the Shires of Aurukun and Mornington Island, particularly in relation to under-age drinking. The Opposition supports that position. Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (11.37 p.m.): I wish to comment on the importance of the Bill. For historical reasons, which I will not debate tonight, the Aboriginal communities of Aurukun and Mornington Island are treated differently from most of the other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in the State. At another time, we may have an opportunity to debate those historical reasons and examine other issues related to that. Under the Local Government (Aboriginal Lands) Act, the communities are constituted as shires; however, unlike most other local authorities throughout Queensland, Aboriginal councils, including those at Mornington Island and Aurukun, find themselves with responsibilities in many respects far greater than those of ordinary local authorities. One would not find too many local authorities throughout the State which have the responsibility for running canteens, supplying alcohol and that type of thing. However, the Aboriginal communities have that responsibility. Through this amendment, Aurukun and Mornington Shires particularly will be included within the provisions of the Liquor Act. I will not go into some of the problems that are being experienced in Aboriginal communities as a result of alcohol consumption and, at times, alcohol abuse. Once again, I think there will be other opportunities to debate those issues. However, I think it is important to point out that the Aboriginal communities themselves—in this particular case the Aurukun and Mornington Island communities—are very keen to do whatever they can to help themselves to address the problems that they are experiencing as a result of alcohol abuse. They support the amendments that are being introduced by the Minister on this occasion. I applaud the work that is being done by the councils and by the individuals in Aurukun and Mornington Shires and also in many of the other Aboriginal communities to try to address the problems associated with alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse which are affecting them. As I say, the councils and many individuals within the communities are not sitting back and waiting for other people to do all the work for them. They are actually taking many initiatives and endeavouring to grapple with the issue themselves. I think that is an important principle. Legislative Assembly 4127 23 October 1990

The amendments that are being proposed are fairly straightforward. I commend the Minister and I support the Bill. Mr COOMBER (Currumbin) (11.40 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports this amending legislation. The principal Act provides local government status to the Shires of Aurukun and Mornington, but there does not appear to be any method of imposing acceptable standards of public behaviour inside a canteen or controlling who may sell or purchase alcohol. All these standards apply to members of the public in other areas of the State under the provisions of the Liquor Act. The Shires of Aurukun and Mornington will now come under the provisions of the Liquor Act and they will be able to control under-age drinking. They will also be able to prohibit the sale of alcohol to a person under the age of 18 years, authorise police to enter and remove disorderly persons from premises and give them the power of arrest. All in all, the Liberal Party supports the amending legislation. It believes that the Aboriginal communities will welcome these changes to the principal Act. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (11.41 p.m.): This Bill will bring the canteens operating at Aurukun and Mornington Island into line with licensed premises in the rest of the State. Under circumstances prevailing at present, the provisions of the Liquor Act have only limited application within these shires. Section 81 of the Act empowers a police officer to make an arrest in the case of an individual who is obviously drunk or is behaving in a disorderly manner. However, the relevant section does not address the problem of under-age drinking. Although the local authorities at Aurukun and Mornington Island attempt, through self-regulatory practices, to prohibit the sale or supply or alcohol to persons under 18 years of age, these good intentions are not always successful in practice. The original Act was passed in 1978, and it effectively put the two settlements beyond the control of the Liquor Act, which applies to all other Queensland citizens. In an article which appeared in the Sun on 9 March this year, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services indicated that he would hold urgent talks to close this legal loophole. The Minister condemned the previous Government—and rightly so—for allowing under-age drinking to continue unchecked for more than a decade. His criticism was in reply to a report which had appeared in the same publication the day before. That report revealed that children as young as seven were swilling jugs of beer and wine in front of police. Because the legislation was flawed, the police were powerless to act. The Sun quoted Sergeant Trevor Adcock as saying— "The old bylaws are useless and need urgent change so that authorities can ban anti-social behaviour and ban the sale of alcohol to minors." Sergeant Adcock supported the charge of inaction levelled by the Minister, Mr Mackenroth, at the previous Government. He claimed that repeated submissions regarding proposals for changes to the liquor laws on the settlements had been rejected by the National Party Government. That is typical of the hypocrisy that existed under the previous administration. While members of the former National Party Government were running around the State staking their claim as the champions of law and order, the truth was found to be a pale shadow of the rhetoric. Sergeant Adcock said also— "So while 10 or so Aboriginal community police sitting at the entrance to the Arukun canteen grounds present an image of law and order they have no power and everyone knows it." The black community itself recognises the battle that it has on its hands to come to grips with the misuse of alcohol. Responsible members of that community look to the Government for support. The last thing that they want is the creation of a situation in which very young people can obtain access to alcohol and enter upon licensed premises. The intolerable situation at Aurukun and Mornington Island has gone on long enough. Legislative Assembly 4128 23 October 1990

I congratulate the Minister for Police and Emergency Services for his genuine concern in regard to this issue. In addition, the Minister for Housing and Local Government has, through this legislation, given new hope to the elders in those settlements. With the passage of this legislation, some relief from the problems associated with alcohol abuse will be forthcoming. The amendment to the principal Act will prohibit the presence of a person under 18 years of age in a bar or elsewhere on licensed premises at any time if that person is in possession of liquor. It will prohibit the supply of liquor to a person under 18 years of age on licensed premises or at an adjacent place. Furthermore, it will require a licensee to remove from a bar any person apparently under the age of 18 years and it will authorise the licensee and others to demand from a person on or about to enter licensed premises proof of age. These are conditions that apply to the wider community, and they will be most welcome at Aurukun and Mornington Island. I support the Bill. Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (11.45 p.m.): The member who has just resumed his seat indicated clearly his total ignorance of the Bill or any aspect of the Bill when he said that the former National Party Government did not insert these clauses into the legislation because it had a special attitude which discriminated against people of Aboriginal descent. In fact, the reason why no restrictions were put in place is that the councils wanted to maximise their freedom of movement and not have to meet the very onerous requirements of the Liquor Act. If the same provisions applied in Aurukun, for example, as apply in Brisbane under the Liquor Act, these canteens would have to be built on the same scale as a hotel in Brisbane. Before members of the Government make scathing comments, they should at least have the decency to do a little bit of homework. A Government member interjected. Mr KATTER: Does the honourable member question what I am saying? If he disbelieves what I am saying, he can go and ask the ACC himself. I am just revealing a bit of information that may enlighten members of the Government, because they are careless and too lazy to do any homework. The councils involved should not be handling the liquor outlets. I invite the responsible Minister and the Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Affairs to read any of the Auditor-General's reports. If they do so, they will find that all of the problems that seem to be insurmountable relate to the canteens. I agree totally with the remarks made by the honourable member for Cook, that it really is too much to ask a local authority to run a hotel. A local authority cannot possibly accept that task as well as the other numerous burdens placed upon it. Some people who understand what is required need to can go in and explain to the local authority that it can lease out the hotels and make the same amount of money, or even a bit more, out of the lease and yet not have the onerous responsibility which keeps bringing opprobrium every time an Attorney-General's report is released. It is important also to bring to the Minister's attention that it was always the intention that the councils, which now operate under the Community Services Act, were to be brought under the umbrella of the Local Government Act. An arrangement was made for an eight year transfer period, of which about four years has elapsed, but ultimately they would be far more comfortable operating under the same legislation as all the other local authorities. The Community Services Act should ultimately be administered by the Minister for Local Government. The honourable member for Cook and others may be more qualified to assign a time frame for that move, but the previous Government was working on a time frame that ends in about three or four years' time. The Community Services Act would then have been amended by the Minister for Local Government. Both departments should at all times be aware of that proposal, which was always the logical development. Legislative Assembly 4129 23 October 1990

Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government) (11.48 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions and for their support of the Bill. My departmental officers have had discussions with both the communities at Mornington Island and Aurukun, which both support the provisions of the Bill. Concerns have been expressed about under-age drinking and some riots have occurred. The Government needs to get this legislation through as soon as possible. Motion agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Burns, by leave, read a third time. STATE HOUSING (VALIDATION OF ORDER IN COUNCIL) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 2 October (see p. 3712). Mr COOPER (Roma—Leader of the Opposition) (11.49 p.m.): It is fully understood that such provisions must be tabled in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Looking at the date that is involved in this legislation, 30 November, and bearing in mind that an election occurred on 2 December, it was obviously not possible to validate the particular Orders in Council. The Opposition understands that that has to be done now. Accordingly, the Opposition supports the Bill before the House. Mr J. N. GOSS (Aspley) (11.50 p.m.): The members of the Liberal Party support this legislation. However, they are surprised that it has taken so long to bring this validating legislation before the House. They also remember that there was an election held in the intervening period, and no doubt that created some problems. The Liberal Party supports the Bill. Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government) (11.51 p.m.), in reply: I thank the honourable members for their support of the Bill. Motion agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Burns, by leave, read a third time. ADJOURNMENT Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (11.52 p.m.): I move— "That the House do now adjourn." Legislative Assembly 4130 23 October 1990

Charleville Floods Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (11.53 p.m.): Tonight, I want to put on record an update of the post-flood experience in Charleville. In May of this year, I spoke of the horrors experienced by many, the suffering of many of mothers and families and the courage of many such as the pilots, police, State Emergency Service workers, residents, helpers and many others too numerous to mention. I also spoke of the rebuilding that would be required, the need for assistance for business and the provision of incentives to rebuild. Many groups and organisations have assisted in that rebuilding and reorganisation process.I must take this opportunity to mention a couple. One is the Department of Administrative Services and the other is the Murweh Shire Council, which has been very much up front as well. The reconstruction and rebuilding involves two aspects. The first relates to the reconstruction of homes, sporting facilities and community facilities. The other relates to the rebuilding of business and the rebuilding of lives. The replacement homes that were brought in to the town were of great assistance. The houses from Moura were very welcome. They were placed on stumps as high-set homes to escape any future flooding in the town. They look quite good. The problem relating to these houses is that at present there is no clear evidence of title to them. I do not think there is any problem with it; it seems as though it might have been an administrative oversight. Nevertheless, the people have never received a piece of paper stating that the houses are actually theirs. That is creating a problem at this stage. I have written to the Minister for Administrative Services about this matter and he has replied stating that it is actually within the province of the Minister for Local Government. I hope that in due course those people will receive a letter stating that they have title to those houses, which will mean that they will not have to worry about that aspect in the future. I think it is fairly important that I refer to one of the reasons why all of this came about. No-one was really concerned whether or not he had title until the last 12 houses arrived and confusion arose as to who owned the house and land. It is not my intention to place blame or to make political points out of this issue. It is my responsibility to ensure that the people are represented. I do not believe this is the time to make an issue out of the matter. Although an issue does exist, it is not necessary to make political points out of it. Residents of substandard houses believed that they were offered houses to be placed on the land, in line with the previous replacements that had been made throughout the town. Because the new houses were arriving quickly, those residents moved out of their houses hurriedly. Before the new houses could be erected, foundation work had to be done. As can be imagined, because of the wet conditions at the time—and even now the ground is still very wet—fairly extensive foundation work had to be carried out and two or three feet of soil had to be replaced. To their horror, some days later when several old homes had been partly dismantled, those residents discovered that the new homes were not theirs and that they were to pay rent and comply with various other conditions. Although the people had agreed that their houses would be replaced, about which they were very happy and appreciative, they found that they in fact did not own the new houses. Although a serious blunder has occurred and marred a generally good clean-up program, it is not my intention to castigate the person or persons involved; rather, I wish to speed the healing process of the torment and concern of the people whose houses were affected. As a matter of urgency, the Minister should advise by letter all residents who received replacement homes that they in fact have clear title to their houses, as was explained to them in the beginning. The concern that this issue has raised is extreme. Families who have received replacement homes are very grateful for the assistance they have been given and they have gone about their business of rebuilding their lives and making their homes as comfortable as possible. Time expired. Legislative Assembly 4131 23 October 1990

Mr A. W. Nelson Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (11.58 p.m.): I speak tonight on a matter of significant public interest and in doing so sound a serious word of warning to the general public. I have been approached by Mrs Jessie Brown of Loganholme seeking help in her dealings with private inquiry agent Allan W. Nelson of Maxwell, Nelson and Associates Pty Ltd, private investigators. Mrs Brown sought the assistance of a private investigation firm to look into the circumstances of her sister's death. Her sister, Alice Maude McKenzie, died at Loganholme in 1982. Mrs Brown hired the services of inquiry agent Kerry-John Myers, who then handed the matter to Allan W. Nelson, all part of the one firm. Mrs Brown paid Nelson and Myers a total of $27,000 by bank cheques and another $1,000 in cash for their investigatory services. However, despite determined efforts by Mrs Brown to obtain her file and the detailed results of the investigation, she has been unsuccessful. There is serious doubt that an investigation actually took place. She has been conned out of $28,000 by Nelson for nothing. Repeatedly, she has unsuccessfully attempted to contact Nelson to obtain her file. On 7 May 1990, Nelson wrote to Mrs Brown in the following terms— "Dear Madam, This is to advise that a members voluntary winding up of Maxwell, Nelson & Associates Pty Ltd is occurring. Mentor Investigation Group Pty. Ltd. will be taking over all relevant files, including yours. This will take effect in the very near future. We will notify you when the exact date becomes known. We thank you for your patronage in the past and assure you of our closest attention at all times. Yours faithfully, Allan W. Nelson" I would hate him not to give any attention. I table a copy of the letter for the information of the House. What a liar! What a con artist Nelson is! I table copies of Mrs Brown's customer's record of bank cheques from Mrs Brown to Maxwell Nelson and Associates and Kerry-John Myers. I also table copies of receipts and bank acknowledgments for the moneys paid and copies of Mrs Brown's Commonwealth savings account at Cleveland from which the moneys for the bank cheques were drawn on 7 September 1989, 11 September 1989, 3 October 1989, 16 October 1989, 8 November 1989 and 4 December 1989. Alice McKenzie's death was the subject of a Supreme Court trial in January this year at which the two accused were acquitted. For the information of the House, I table some extracts of media reports of the trial. Mrs Brown has made complaints about certain matters arising out of her sister's death to the Criminal Justice Commission. I table her letter to the CJC and the CJC's reply to her and the parliamentary committee. I should point out that the Criminal Justice Commission will not be able to assist her in this matter because it is a private contractual matter between her and Nelson. Those matters, however, are not central to my point tonight, which is that Nelson deliberately played on Mrs Brown's grief for her sister to con her out of $28,000. I attempted to obtain Mrs Brown's file from Mr Moulden of Mentor Investigation Group Pty Ltd. I attempted unsuccessfully to talk to Mr Moulden by phone. I even tried to ring Allan Nelson but, of course, he is now out of business. I vaguely know Allan Nelson from my days as ALP secretary when he tried to get security work from the party. In fact, earlier this year he sent some material to me in my capacity as chairman-elect of the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice. He then tried to use my letter of general acknowledgment to that material to further con Mrs Brown into believing that he was pursuing her matter with the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Legislative Assembly 4132 23 October 1990

Justice and the Criminal Justice Commission. At one stage he even tried to get Mrs Brown to pay $2,000 in cash for investigatory work. I hope that the tax office and the Police Commissioner will look into Mr Nelson's affairs. He is a crook, and I warn Queenslanders to have nothing to do with him. I table copies of Mrs Brown's correspondence to me, which she is happy to have tabled because it provides more detailed information. Included in that material is a letter from legal aid and other press reports. I should add that Mentor Investigation Group Pty Ltd, through its Mr Moulden, has also refused to hand over the file and has told Mrs Brown's legal representative that the file has been handed back to Mr Nelson and that she will need a court order to obtain a copy of it. This is a very serious situation. Allan Nelson, who was accused at one stage of bugging the Lord Mayor's office and was subsequently charged and convicted of attempting to bug another office, is ripping off people who are least able to pay. Those people are particularly vulnerable emotionally because of their circumstances, particularly in the case of Mrs Jessie Brown because of the death of her sister. I hope that the Police Commissioner will pursue this matter. Mrs Brown has lodged a formal complaint with the police. The matter will obviously be investigated. In the meantime, while that investigation is taking place, it is important that the people of Queensland are put on notice of what is happening. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the documents referred to. Issue of Writ by Queensland Housing Commission Against Caloundra City Council Mrs SHELDON (Landsborough) (12.03 p.m.): I rise to speak tonight about a matter that is of great importance in my electorate and for all local government authorities in Queensland. Today a writ was issued by the Queensland Housing Commission against the Caloundra City Council. That writ claims, firstly, a declaration that the council's actions were unlawful in disconnecting water and sewerage to duplexes being erected by the Queensland Housing Commission in Kookaburra Crescent, Bokarina. Secondly, it sought an injunction to compel the council to restore the supply of water and sewerage to those duplexes. Thirdly, it seeks damages for trespass by the council on the plaintiff's land. Fourthly, it seeks interest on such damages and, fifthly, it seeks costs. This action by the Queensland Housing Commission is inconceivable considering that item 5 on page 3 of the Queensland Housing Commission's Residential Planning Policy and Standards states that the area where a dwelling unit, namely, a two-bedroom duplex, will be built will be 300 square metres. Therefore, a dwelling comprising two duplexes would need 600 square metres. The Housing Commission is building duplexes in Kookaburra Crescent on 560 square metres. It is defying its own guidelines. Page 1 of the policy states— "Where the Commission proposes a scheme outside these general policies and standards this will only be done with the concurrence of the local authority." I assure you, Mr Speaker, that the local authority—the Caloundra City Council—did not concur. It did not have the opportunity. The Queensland Housing Commission never sent any plans to the council regarding those dwellings. The first contact by the Queensland Housing Commission was an application for connection of water and sewerage. The council wrote to the Queensland Housing Commission expressing its concerns and asked for a meeting to discuss the issue. The Queensland Housing Commission agreed. An appointment was made to see the council on 26 September 1990. On 24 September, the Queensland Housing Commission laid the slabs before any consultation took place. The Minister for Housing and Local Government owes the Caloundra City Council and the people of the Sunshine Coast an explanation for the commission's breach of its own guidelines. Legislative Assembly 4133 23 October 1990

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am concerned that the member for Landsborough is talking about a case in which a writ has been issued and that the matter is possibly sub judice. Under those circumstances, I call the member for Pine Rivers. Mrs SHELDON: Mr Speaker, I did ask the Clerk about this. I understood that any civil proceeding was not sub judice until a date of hearing had been set down. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Has no date been set down? Mrs SHELDON: Not to my knowledge. Mr SPEAKER: The member for Landsborough may resume her speech. Mrs SHELDON: Prior to the last election, at page 6 of the Labor Party's policy document on reorganising local government in relation to compliance, the Premier, Mr Goss, said— "A Labor Government will ensure that the Crown is bound equally with other citizens in complying with local government by-laws, town plans and ordinances." That was yet another false Labor Party pre-election promise. This Government obviously considers itself to be above other citizens in the community. Marsden Home for Boys, Kallangur Mrs WOODGATE (Pine Rivers) (12.07 p.m.): Tonight I wish to draw to the attention of this House a problem that I am sure is not confined solely to my electorate of Pine Rivers. I refer to a lack of resources and funds for the efficient running and operation of a drop-in centre where young people in crisis or simply in need of support or advice can go. A community worker is employed as part of the work of the Marsden Home for Boys, which is in the suburb of Kallangur in the Pine Rivers Shire. That person's job brief dictates that he or she works within the community with troubled youth and their families. An example of that working within the community has been the establishment of a drop-in centre, which was an initiative of the Marsden Home in conjunction with the Petrie Lions Club. It is conducted from a local hall on two days per week, namely, Monday and Friday from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Since the official opening of the drop-in centre on 1 December last year, 86 young people have attended, making 318 visits in all. The average age is 16 to 18 years and the maximum age is 20 years. A break-up of the age groups shows that four were aged 14 years, 43 were 15 to 17 years, 32 were 18 to 20 years and seven were 21 to 24 years. However, eight of those were single parents who were all in the 17 to 18 years age group. Statistics reveal that 19 families were in conflict. Of those 86 young people, 23 went to crisis accommodation within one week. The short-term objectives of the drop-in centre are, firstly, to rent permanent premises that are centrally located and close to public transport where young people and their families can seek help in secure, safe and therapeutic surroundings. Secondly, it will provide counselling, assistance, advice, information, support and follow-up for clients. Thirdly, the drop-in centre will respond positively to the needs of young people and will address the problems of homelessness, poverty, unemployment, grief and loss, and lack of family and community support in a non-threatening, non-judgmental environment. Fourthly, it will link young people into appropriate community resources and network with other welfare agencies. Fifthly, the drop-in centre will address the lack of living skills and work-related skills and will direct clients to appropriate courses or agencies. It will also provide a meeting place for youth to express their views and air their grievances. Hopefully, it will lay the cornerstone for an awareness in the community of the grave problems that our youth face and provide realistic ways of resolving issues in the future by the children of today. The drop-in centre has long-term objectives and goals. Ideally, to enable the drop-in centre to carry out its work effectively, a permanent living situation to house some Legislative Assembly 4134 23 October 1990 of the youth is needed. After the initial session at the drop-in centre, young homeless people are placed in crisis accommodation, which is only for a few days. Whilst that is a valuable resource, what is needed is a house with a supervisor, where the youth are safe and the issues of rejection, emotional instability, lack of skills, poverty or grief and loss can be responded to and the delicate but vital work of rehabilitation can be completed. As the program expands and develops, the drop-in centre should become a full-time operation. To enable the centre to work efficiently, at least one other worker will be needed. Another vehicle is needed. Perhaps a bus should be considered. A mobile drop-in centre has been suggested to enable staff to cover the very large Pine Rivers Shire. The only funding received is a subsidy for wages paid to social workers and the aforementioned help from the Petrie Lions Club. Marsden Boys Home has received unofficial notification of a grant of $11,195 from the Division of Youth for Marsden's community program to be used specifically for rent, electricity, telephone, insurance, etc., for one year. That is a one-off grant. There are many items for which no funding is received but which are vital to the program. Such items include large and not-so-large sundry items that most people take for granted; for example, a mop and bucket, detergent, cutlery, a refrigerator, a broom and crockery. The list is endless. Recently, the director of Marsden Boys Home wrote to Tom Burns in his capacity as Minister for Housing and Local Government to advise him of the desperate need for accommodation for young disadvantaged people in the Pine Rivers Shire. Most of the young people on the streets lack work skills. Because of their poverty, youth and emotional trauma, very few of them can gain access to the public rental market. During their visits to the drop-in centre, they are provided with all that its limited resources can offer. The Minister was told that, for the Marsden Boys Home to complete its work and to assist young persons to deal with their problems, it is imperative that they be placed in a safe, medium-term environment so that they can gain work skills, organise social benefits and address their emotional trauma. Most importantly, they should not return to the streets, which is what happens now, or return to temporary accommodation, which places them at risk. To enable that goal to be achieved in Pine Rivers and, hopefully, to keep Queensland's gaols and psychiatric institutions from being filled a decade down the track, they simply need a house or, ideally, two houses—one for males and one for females. Time expired. Torres Strait Islands Electrification Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (12.11 a.m.): I rise to address the issue of the Torres Strait islands electrification. I have always attempted to adopt a bipartisan approach to Aboriginal and Islander affairs. I have spoken to the relevant Minister and the member for Cook and pleaded my case with them. The electrification of the Torres Strait islands was one of the most important and promising projects that the State of Queensland had going for it. If Australia is to become a clever country—to quote the Prime Minister—that project is what being a clever country is all about. But I must emphasise that that was Queensland's good luck; it had nothing to do with the decision to install solar rather than diesel generation. The most important issue was to deliver a system of power generation that would give the Torres Strait islands a reliable, adequate system of electrification. During a monsoonal depression, Edward River went without power almost continuously for more than 10 days. The wrong parts were flown in and, because heavy rain closed the airstrip, the correct parts could not be secured from the mainland. Mer Island also went without a proper water supply for two weeks. The Thursday Island mechanic was on holidays. The mechanic who eventually arrived did a shoddy job. The equipment broke down again. The hard-working council clerk fixed it himself, but he made a small mistake. A second plane was chartered and another mechanic was flown out. He was flown back again by charter. As was the case at Edward River, the work was done at enormous cost to taxpayers. Legislative Assembly 4135 23 October 1990

For two weeks, people in one area went without power and in another without water. In 1990, people should not have to go without power or water for protracted periods. On smaller islands, some of which are only 20 acres in area, all machinery is within reach of sea spray—highly corrosive salt water. Most islands are sandy coral cays. Silicone sand, one of the hardest metals, grinds machinery into disrepair very swiftly. The distance of the closest island from Thursday Island is approximately 100 kilometres. The islands suffer a very great distance problem. Six break-downs have occurred at Coconut Island—five in the diesel plant and one in the inverter. I obtained these figures from the person who looks after the operation on Coconut Island. Those figures show that the diesel plant, not the solar plant, was the problem. The brown-outs that have been referred to often in this place have occurred because the generators do not have sufficient inverter capacity. The Government has not increased generator capacity with the growth of the load. The problem has nothing whatsoever to do with the acceptability or non-acceptability of solar energy. High and ever-increasing maintenance and fuel costs were our second consideration. Ongoing costs would have to be borne by the Islanders and/or the Queensland taxpayers. The cost of living on Thursday Island is 40 per cent higher than it is in Brisbane, and in the outer islands it is higher still. The fishing industry fluctuates wildly. To burden those people with fuel, maintenance, replacement and repair costs would be callous in the extreme. Since the former Government first considered the scheme in late 1984, fuel has almost doubled in price. The cost of carting fuel to the outer islands is enormous. The Federal Government allowed 6c per litre on the mainland. Taking into account the handling costs, and the handling facilities that are to be built, the cost might be five times that figure. It might cost an extra 30c per litre above the 80c per litre that it costs at present to transport fuel to the outer islands of the Torres Strait. As to environmental considerations—almost all of the outer islands are surrounded by shallow water and reefs. Carting fuel across open seas to islands with no sheltered harbours is highly dangerous. Spillages onto some of the clearest water and most spectacular reefs in the world would be extremely detrimental to them. The greatest number of significant wrecks in the world exist between the Darnley deeps and Thursday Island. Queensland's worst shipping disaster was the Quetta. With the manhandling of drums or delivery pipes, spillage will occur regularly. Queensland has the opportunity to be at the forefront of the most important technology of the twenty-first century. Indonesia is a $30m market for 100 years, and Indonesia's outer islands still will not be electrified. The South Pacific market is bigger still than Indonesia. Queensland's diminishing dune at Shelburne Bay is the world's richest silicon deposit and the feed stock for the photovoltaic cells to which I have referred previously. This is a matter of grave public importance: the ALP Government was elected on a platform of accountability. Ministers and Cabinets probably often waste hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money but, unfortunately, the Government and its advisers, as often as not, can cover their tracks. It is rare indeed that Oppositions can secure proof of such incompetence or transgression. However, I table in this House extracts from a report by Preece Ewbank, which was commissioned in 1985 by the Premier's Department, and an extract from another report from WEAL and Integrated Electronics Corporation, which was commissioned by the interdepartmental committee under the auspices of the Premier's Department. I will quote verbatim from both documents. The first document states— "For the most realistic situation, fuel at 86.9c/litre and cost recovery of electricity supplied, the comparative values are $1,105,000 for the Diesel System and $890,000 for the centralised PV system." The second report gives a figure of $1,373,306 for total capital cost and a figure of $2,576,557 for the alternative energy system. Both these reports give the clear indication that, in the case of the WEAL and Integrated Electronics Corporation—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Legislative Assembly 4136 23 October 1990

Mr KATTER: I seek leave to table both documents, Mr Speaker. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the documents on the table. New South Wales Writing School Mr McGRADY (Mount Isa) (12.17 a.m.): I rise in this Parliament this morning to inform members and the community about a writing school which operates from New South Wales and in particular about the problems experienced with this organisation by an elderly constituent of mine. This lady, who is in her late seventies, decided that she wanted to take up writing and replied to an advertisement in a local magazine. This advertisement indicated that this writing school would assist her in her quest to become a better writer and an author. This lady sent away $162.50, plus a first monthly payment of $52.50 which acted as a deposit for her to be enrolled at the school. The lady was then asked to complete a report and forward it to the school. The school secretary then wrote back to say that the completed form had been received and that a Mr Jeff Toghill had been appointed to be her tutor. This all happened in New South Wales and there is no physical presence of the school at all in Mount Isa where she lives. The course is simply done by correspondence. The deal was that this lady had to then forward the sum of $52.50 every month. I believe she sent one essay back to these people and then became seriously ill. She wrote to this outfit stating— "It is with deep and sincere regret that I have to abandon my idea of continuing with the writing course. I have been in hospital again from the 11th to the 17th August. My trouble is very serious. I have a disease of the spine and severe arthritis at the base of the skull." This condition caused black-outs and other problems. The lady went on to explain further her medical condition and the fact that she could no longer continue her course. She concluded by stating— "At your convenience maybe you would organise a refund of some proportion of my moneys." This organisation then wrote back to the lady on 11 September 1990, and said— "This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter which was discussed at a recent meeting of the school board at which it was resolved to advise you that, although we appreciate your current situation, there is no provision for cancellation of your writing school course nor a refund of fees at this time and payment of fees is required to be made." However, the school was prepared to extend her time. Big deal! It went on to say that the agreement into which she entered allowed for a refund of fees in either of two situations, and provided her with a copy of the guarantee, which basically said— "You may examine the course material in the privacy of your own home for 15 days and if you are not satisfied you may return it during the 15-day trial period and any moneys paid by you will be refunded in full, or secondly if you decide to proceed to the full comprehensive course you are protected by our unique money back guarantee." And so it goes on. This lady had paid almost $400 before she came to see me. She was most upset and naturally concerned. I wrote a letter to the writing school explaining this lady's situation and asking it as nicely as possible if it would refund some of the money back to her. I subsequently received a letter in reply saying that the school would not do so. I tried to contact the principal of the school in Sydney. He was not available and I spoke to a lady who made it perfectly clear that she did not care what the condition of the student was; the lady had signed a contract and the school would continue to demand the money from this very ill and elderly lady. Legislative Assembly 4137 23 October 1990

Here we have a situation where some pathetic organisation is playing on the emotions of a lady who, in the twilight years of her life, wanted to see a dream come true. Had she gone to the TAFE college or employed a local tutor, I am sure that they would have been only too happy to assist. Instead she made the mistake of going to this outfit in New South Wales. I believe that the attitude of the writing school—and its address is in Warriewood, New South Wales—is disgusting, to say the least. It is taking advantage of a lady who has no private means and who, together with her husband, simply exists on the old age pension. It is trying to screw every last cent in this agreement out of her. The reason why I have raised this matter in the Parliament is to warn other potential students before they sign such a document. I appeal to this organisation to refund part of the money that has been paid and also waive any further monthly instalments. I have advised the lady not to pay any further instalments and let the school take legal action against her if it dares. I hope that members of the public who hear of this matter will take care before they enter into any agreement with outfits which they know little or nothing about. The pioneers of this nation deserve better treatment than that handed out to my constituent; a lady who has paid her dues to this nation and who I believe deserves better than what she has received. There is nothing wrong with correspondence schools, but there is something terribly wrong with the attitude of this outfit that is operating in Sydney. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 12.23 a.m. (Wednesday). Legislative Assembly 4138 23 October 1990