Legislative Assembly 4816 20 November 1990

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

TUESDAY, 20 NOVEMBER 1990

MR SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m. ASSENT TO BILL Assent to the Queensland Small Business Corporation Bill reported by Mr Speaker. PAPER PRINTED DURING RECESS Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have to report that I have received, in accordance with section 46J (6) of the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977-1988, the annual report of the Queensland Treasury Corporation for 1989-90, which I lay upon the table of the House. Whereupon the document was laid on the table. PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Fencing of Swimming Pools From Mr Borbidge (45 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. Residential Development, Eprapah Creek From Mr Briskey (254 signatories) praying that the Parliament will not allow residential development at the mouth of Eprapah Creek in the Redland Shire. Sand-mining Products Loading Facility, North Stradbroke Island From Mr Briskey (88 signatories) praying that the Parliament will not allow the construction of the proposed sand-mining loading facility on North Stradbroke Island. Dredging of Boyne River Mouth From Mrs McCauley (556 signatories) praying that the Boyne River mouth be dredged and the channels be re-marked. Petitions received. PAPERS The following paper, which was laid on the table on 6 November, was ordered to be printed— Second Report (Volumes I and II) of the Commissioner appointed to inquire into the activities of particular Queensland unions. The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Reports for the year ended 30 June 1990— Queensland Police Superannuation Board Legislative Assembly 4817 20 November 1990

Small Business Development Corporation The following papers were laid on the table— Report of the Cotton Marketing Board for the year ended 31 December 1989 Report of the Rice Marketing Board for the year ended 31 March 1990 Report of the Atherton Tableland Maize Marketing Board for the year ended 31 May 1990 Reports for the year ended 29 June 1990— Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing Sunny Queen Egg Farms Reports for the year ended 30 June 1990— Brisbane Market Trust Dumaresq-Barwon Border Rivers Commission Lower Burdekin River Rice Producers Cooperative Association Limited South Queensland Commercial Egg Producers' Organisation Report and Balance Sheet of the Queensland Turf Club for the year ended 30 June 1990 Regulations under— Public Service Management and Employment Act 1988-1990 Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act 1982-1989 Physiotherapists Act 1964-1984 Co-operative and Other Societies Act 1967-1986 Co-operative Housing Societies Act 1958-1974 Building Societies Act 1985-1987 Professional Engineers Act 1988 Orders in Council under— Ambulance Services Act 1967-1988 Liquor Act 1912-1990 Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act 1982-1989 Primary Producers' Organisation and Marketing Act 1926-1989 Health Act 1937-1990 Retirement Villages Act 1988 Judicature Act and Supreme Court Act of 1921 Supreme Court Act of 1921 Proclamation under the Veterinary Surgeons Act Amendment Act 1990. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Changes in Ministry Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts) (10.07 a.m.), by leave: I desire to inform the House that on 12 November 1990 His Excellency the Governor— (a) Accepted the resignations of the Honourable Keith Ernest De Lacy as Treasurer and Minister for Regional Development of Queensland and the Honourable Geoffrey Norman Smith as Minister for Manufacturing, Commerce and Small Business of Queensland; Legislative Assembly 4818 20 November 1990

(b) Appointed— the Honourable Keith Ernest De Lacy to be Treasurer of Queensland; the Honourable Geoffrey Norman Smith to be Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development of Queensland; and (c) Approved the transfer of the responsibility for Regional Development from the Treasury Department to the Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development. I lay upon the table of the House a copy of the Queensland Government Gazette Extraordinary of 12 November 1990 containing the relevant notifications. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE 1. Employment by Queensland Government of Public Servants from Commonwealth and other States Mr BEANLAND asked the Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts— "What are the names of the public servants and those on Ministerial staffs appointed since December 2, 1989 who are on secondment from (a) the Commonwealth Public Service; and (b) other State Public Services and what are the positions they hold?" Mr W. K. GOSS: The member for Toowong has already asked about secondees to the Queensland public service and has already received an answer. For his benefit, I repeat that the Queensland public service does not keep records which discriminate on the basis of a public servant's or ministerial staff member's employment background. Consequently, we have no record about Commonwealth public servants on secondment to Queensland, public servants from other States on secondment to Queensland or the particular positions held by secondees. Let me note only that proper recruitment and selection processes are observed when appointing staff to the public service and to ministerial offices. I add one brief point. I fail to see the purpose of these repeated questions, but if the member for Toowong has any complaint, concern or question about the suitability or qualifications of any individual for any appointment, let him raise them fairly and squarely. 2. Teacher Remuneration Ms ROBSON asked the Minister for Education— "What are the anticipated pay rates for teachers and principals in the Queensland education system?" Mr BRADDY: As honourable members would be aware, recently there has been considerable interest in the issue of teacher salaries. The Goss Government supported the Queensland Teachers Union in its case before the State Industrial Commission, and I am pleased to say that the commission has recently granted an interim 5 per cent pay rise for class room teachers, principals and associate administrators to take effect from 1 December. I have requested that officers of the Department of Education ensure that teachers receive this increase in time for their Christmas holiday period as I recognise that teachers have waited a long time for an anticipated increase in their salaries and the opportunity for a better career structure. On 1 July 1991, new pay rates for teachers employed by the Department of Education will come into full effect. These will range from $23,880 for three-year trained teachers in their first year of service, to $38,000 for four-year trained teachers in their ninth year Legislative Assembly 4819 20 November 1990 of service. This rate will place Queensland teachers on the same salary level as their counterparts in the majority of other States. Four-year trained teachers would receive $27,000 in their first year of service. Subject to the findings of the Industrial Commission, three-year trained teachers may also obtain a final salary of $38,000 provided that they meet certain progression arrangements. For principals and associate administrators, the Department of Education and the Queensland Teachers Union have reached an agreed position. The Industrial Commission has not, however, had the opportunity to hear the full argument in support of the proposed salaries and has not yet made a final determination. The proposed salary profile has been developed following an extensive work value assessment of all principals' positions and a benchmark survey of associate administrators. The proposed profile provides for eight levels of remuneration across five pay points. If endorsed by the commission, it would provide for a salary of up to $61,550 for a principal of a special class school, for example, a large high school. It is anticipated that this would come into effect sometime after mid-1991. In the interim period, principals and associate administrators will receive a 5 per cent pay rise payable from 1 December, with a further instalment payable from 1 March 1991. Mr Speaker, the quality of our education system is inextricably linked with the quality of our teachers. I am pleased that the award restructuring process is providing Queensland teachers with the same salary levels as their interstate counterparts, and the Goss Government will continue to support teachers seeking career structures which improve the quality of our children's education. I am hopeful that the resolution of these industrial matters before the commission will also allow teachers the opportunity to focus greater attention on the broader range of education issues facing Queensland in the next decade. 3. Queensland Industry Development Corporation Interest Rates Mr KATTER asked the Treasurer and Minister for Regional Development— "(1) Is he aware of reports during the week ending 3 November that the QIDC is offering money at 17 3/4 per cent whilst the Commonwealth Development Bank is lending to some persons at 13 1/2 per cent? (2) Are these reports correct? (3) Will he include the QIDC in the Federal Treasurer's investigation into Australia's banking corporations and their interest charges or will QIDC books be off limits to the Federal authorities? (4) Is he aware that whilst the Federal Treasurer is demanding that banks and lending institutions reduce interest rates, the ALP Government's instant expert, Mr Polychronis, had advised that the QIDC general lending rate, not just special rates, be increased to commercial rates which the ALP Federal Treasurer describes as 'grossly and unjustifiably excessive'? (5) Will he advise whether Mr Polychronis' report is seriously flawed or alternatively is the Federal Treasurer wrong in his statements that lending institutions can and should lower their interest rates?" Mr De LACY: (1 and 2) I am not aware of the reports to which the honourable member referred. In the early part of the week ended 3 November 1990, QIDC's benchmark lending rate was 17.25 per cent per annum, so that it is conceivable that, after allowing for reasonable risk margins and so on, QIDC could have been lending funds to certain clients at 17.75 per cent. However, market interest rates have been falling over recent months in response to the reducing cost of funds and, in fact, QIDC's benchmark lending rate was reduced to 16.25 per cent per annum effective from 1 November 1990. I also point out that QIDC's current indicator lending rate is 15.75 per cent, which, if not the lowest, is amongst the lowest rates quoted. QIDC is also currently offering Legislative Assembly 4820 20 November 1990 loans that are fixed for one year from 14.2 per cent per annum with no add-on charges—a very competitive package. The honourable member referred to the Commonwealth Development Bank lending to some persons at 13.5 per cent per annum. My department's inquiries strongly indicate that no lending has taken place recently by the Commonwealth Development Bank at 13.5 per cent per annum and, indeed, that the rate quoted by the honourable member is as much a mystery to the bank as it is to me. (3) The Federal Treasurer has agreed that an inquiry be held by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration into how competition has improved Australian banking and into whether the benefits of competition have been passed on to customers. QIDC is not subject to regulation by the Reserve Bank of Australia and does not fall within the terms of reference of the inquiry. In any event, as I have already demonstrated, QIDC's interest rates are very competitive and having QIDC subject to another inquiry would just be a waste of time and public money. (4) Both fact and logic are sadly lacking in the honourable member's proposition. Although Mr Polichronis recommended that all QIDC's lending, excluding Government schemes of assistance, be placed on a commercial footing, I have clearly demonstrated already that QIDC's rates are very competitive. They are not at all excessive or unjustifiable as implied by the terms of the question. (5) Mr Polichronis' report is not seriously flawed, nor is there any rational connection between what Mr Polichronis recommended in his report and what the Federal Treasurer has said, or has not said, about the lending practices of the banking sector. In conclusion, I must say that the Opposition's attempts to score points regarding the QIDC are pathetic. Last month, the Leader of the Opposition was comparing apples with oranges—a variable rate loan from QIDC and a fixed interest loan from the South Australian Department of Agriculture. Now the honourable member is attempting to outdo even his leader by making comparisons with a phantom rate. It is patently absurd for the honourable member to insinuate that QIDC is overcharging. The facts speak for themselves. Mr Speaker, under the Goss Government, the QIDC has been made more accountable, more efficient and more commercial. Schemes of assistance have been better targeted. It is a great Queensland institution, and will continue in its vital role of servicing and assisting Queensland's rural and business sectors. 4. Queensland Railways Mr KATTER asked the Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development— "(1) Will he give assurances to the railwaymen of Queensland that their jobs are secure and that there will be a continuation of the practice of non-replacement i.e. the State Government will not move to a practice of redundancy with respect to Queensland Government Railways? (2) Will he give assurances to the railwaymen and the people of Queensland that Queensland Government Railways will not be handed over to the Federal Government or 'their friends' or that it will be in any other way put, in part or in whole, under their ownership and control? (3) Since railways are no longer in consolidated revenue in the Government books of account, will any trading deficit this year be funded by State Treasury or will the 'commission' have to borrow to fund such deficit? (4) Alternatively does he intend to make radical changes that will facilitate a profit this year?" Mr HAMILL: (1) Since 1986, Queensland Railways has successfully reduced the work force from 25 500 to 20 350 using a policy of natural attrition. No employee has been terminated; but, rather, employees have been relocated or elected to take the Legislative Assembly 4821 20 November 1990 additional cash payment provided in the Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme (VERS). The staff turn- over last year was 10.5 per cent. If that same turn-over applies during the current year, 2 000 people will retire or find jobs elsewhere because they have chosen to do so. As people leave it may be found that some jobs are unnecessary, or need to be changed in some manner. The people in those jobs will be consulted. They have the option of relocation under the Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme or they can elect to leave Queensland Railways and take the cash payment provided under VERS. The suitability of VERS is currently being examined and it is expected that an enhanced payment and other favourable features will be available early next year. (2) Mr Katter is no doubt referring to misleading media reports—many of which he has instigated—that the National Rail Freight Corporation (NRFC) will be taking over State railway systems. In fact the proposal is that the NRFC will be taking over responsibility for interstate freight only, which basically comprises that freight which moves by rail between capital cities. In Queensland, this represents 3 per cent of Queensland Railways business, and covers only the standard gauge railway from Acacia Ridge to the Queensland/New South Wales border. There are significant benefits to be gained from a seamless interstate rail freight network, with improved services being provided to customers, the elimination of crew and locomotive changes at State borders, a rail service which is more competitive with road transport and the expected movement of heavy freight away from overcrowded road systems onto our railways. (3) Treasury has recognised that 1990-91 is a transition year between the previous Government department and the future commercial organisation. Therefore, Treasury would consider the circumstances causing any deficit in deciding how it would be funded. The operating budget of Queensland Railways for 1990-91 reflects an expected break-even result, after including interest and redemption. (4) As stated in (3), Queensland Railways is expecting to break even this financial year. I am satisfied with this prospect. However, changes are being made to the organisational structures and operational procedures of Queensland Railways. These will allow Queensland Railways to operate commercially and be accountable for its bottom line. 5. State Government Funding of Private Schools Mr ARDILL asked the Minister for Education— "With reference to claims that have been made in letters to me stating that this State Government does not provide financial assistance to private schools, particularly parish schools— What funds are provided for this important sector of the education system?" Mr BRADDY: In the recent State Budget the non-Government sector, in common with the Government sector, received an enormous increase in funding from the State Government. I appreciate that the honourable member has received letters from some groups claiming that non- Government schools did not receive a fair share of funding because I also have received similar representations. The apparent confusion on the part of some non-Government groups has occurred because they have failed to take into account the full range of assistance provided by the State Government. The rate of per capita grants for students enrolled in non-Government schools increased by 8.4 per cent in the recent Budget. However, actual expenditure on these grants increased by an enormous 14.4 per cent because of enrolment increases and other factors. Honourable members should therefore be aware that the new rate of direct assistance provided to students in non-Government schools is well in advance of the 8.4 per cent claimed in some quarters. Honourable members should also be aware that, apart from direct per capita grants, the State Government has provided enormous increases in a number of other areas. Legislative Assembly 4822 20 November 1990

The interest subsidies paid to non-Government schools to assist with building projects and other capital works have risen by a massive 31.3 per cent, from $9.9m to $13m. The huge increases to the textbook allowance promised prior to the State election will be paid to non-Government students in 1991. This represents an increase of more than 40 per cent for the families of these students. Funding will also be provided to non-Government schools to meet the State Government's share of teacher salary increases which will flow from the award restructuring process. In addition, State Government funds are provided for the living away from home allowance scheme, grants to organisations for the handicapped, endowments to grammar schools and grants to private creche and kindergarten associations. All up, the funds for non-Government schools, including parish schools, rose by a substantial 15.7 per cent in the Budget. This reflects the high priority placed on education in both the Government and non-Government sector by the Goss Government, and I would urge honourable members, when responding to representations from non-Government schools, to be aware of these facts and to provide an accurate reflection of the Government's real achievements in this area. 6. Eton State School Mr RANDELL asked the Minister for Education— "With reference to the concern of many parents in the area of Eton State Primary School regarding the future of the pre-school there— (1) Is he aware that at the beginning of next year there will be totally inadequate accommodation for the forecast enrolment of possibly in excess of 35 pre-school and grade 1 children combined? (2) As there have been suggestions that many of these children could go to North Eton School, but this would entail journeys, I have been told, of up to 15 to 20 kilometres and would not be satisfactory, what is the possibility of a properly equipped modular building being located at Eton School to adequately cater for these children by the start of the 1991 school year?" Mr BRADDY: I am aware of the situation at Eton State primary school, and I can inform the honourable member that officers of the Department of Education have discussed the matter with the school principal and the school community. Preschoolers and Year 1 children at Eton State School form an early education class (EEC) housed in a small, old one-teacher school building relocated on site. Total enrolments are steadily growing at the school and have increased from 81 in mid-1989, to 89 in mid-1990, and are anticipated to reach 93 in 1991. The estimated preschool enrolment for 1991 is 16. A purpose-built EEC building is located at Eton North State School. The enrolments at Eton North have fallen from 52 in mid-1989 to an anticipated 36 in 1991. The estimated preschool enrolment for 1991 is 4. The drop in enrolments is associated with the closure of the North Eton sugar mill. The school community was advised on 30 August that attempts would be made to relocate the Eton North EEC to Eton State School for the commencement of the 1991 school year. By letter dated 30 October 1990, the principal of Eton State School was advised that the relocation would not be possible before the commencement of the 1991 school year. It was therefore suggested that for 1991 preschoolers be transported from Eton to Eton North. The distance is 5.8 kilometres. The district inspector met with representatives of the school community on Tuesday, 13 November 1990. At this meeting the proposal that preschoolers be located at Eton North in 1991 was accepted on the understanding that a building will be provided at that school for the commencement of the 1992 school year. The project will be included as a priority for the next year's draft capital works program and I can assure the honourable member that every effort will be made to assist the local school community prior to the relocation of the unit. Legislative Assembly 4823 20 November 1990

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Comments by Minister for Police about Queensland Police Union Mr COOPER: I ask the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: to whom was the Minister referring precisely when he reportedly described the police union hierarchy as being "fools who tell lies to members", and what is his evidence? What did he mean by his reported statement on the police rally that he would "love to see them get out and do some work"? Mr MACKENROTH: In reply to the question from the Leader of the Opposition—— An Opposition member interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: The honourable member would look better with a club over his head. Last Sunday, the police held a rally. I point out that I never opposed the holding of that rally by the police. Such a rally would never have occurred when the National Party was in Government, because it would have brought in some special police to arrest those police who attended the rally. Our Government at least endorses the right of people to demonstrate, even if it is against the Government. We have not taken any action against any groups—— An Opposition member interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: Do you want to hear the answer or not, you fool? We have not taken any action against any groups in the community, be they employees or any other groups, who wished to protest against decisions of the Government. We support the right of all people in the community to show their views by demonstrating. The statement that I made, which was reported in the press, about someone being a fool and a liar was in response to a statement made at the police union rally on Sunday by Tom Mahon, the secretary of the police union, who claimed that an answer that I gave to a question three or four weeks ago in this Parliament was a lie. He called me a liar in relation to that answer. I said quite clearly that Tom Mahon of the police union executive is a fool and a liar, and I will stand by that statement. At Sunday's rally, the police union executive did not tell its members the truth. I can understand the frustration of police officers on award restructuring. However, it must be spelt out clearly that this Government's initiative started the award-restructuring process. Mr Cooper interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: The Leader of the Opposition did not start it. No decision was made by Cabinet to commence award restructuring before we came into Government. Our Government started that process, and it will continue that process. I have already explained in detail the position and the steps that we have taken. Recently, we appointed a specialist industrial relations section of the Police Department to deal with the award restructuring. The Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations has also lent support to ensure that that process will be expedited. Mr Littleproud: You've said enough now. Mr MACKENROTH: The Opposition asked the question; it will get the answer. Through this Government's initiative, we have entered into 38-hour week negotiations with the police union. Queensland will be the last police Legislative Assembly 4824 20 November 1990 service in Australia to receive a 38-hour week. The former Government would not even talk to the police about that process, just as it did not talk to any public sector employees. Our Cabinet decided to enter into those negotiations with public sector unions. We are a long way down the track on that matter. I challenge the police union—particularly Tom Mahon—to show the people of Queensland or members of the Opposition any action that has been taken by me or the Government that has slowed down the process of award negotiations. The truth is that we have taken no action or steps that have done anything to slow down that process. If people go to parks, carry on and claim incorrectly that we have done something, that is a lie. If people tell lies, they are liars. Industrial Commissioner Swan Mr COOPER: I ask the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations: could he advise if it is true that Ms Deirdre Swan has never appeared in the Industrial Commission as an advocate? In his view, did that experience, or lack of it, equip her for her role as an industrial commissioner? Mr WARBURTON: I doubt very much whether the facts that the Leader of the Opposition believes he has are correct. In fact, I would say that they are not. However, bearing in mind that the Leader of the Opposition earlier gave notice of a motion in this House, I take the opportunity to state that I have full confidence in the ability and the integrity of the President of the Industrial Court and I am responding to that. Mr Cooper: I wasn't talking about him. Mr WARBURTON: It does not matter who the Leader of the Opposition is talking about; I know what I am answering. I have full confidence in the honesty, the integrity and the ability of the President of the Industrial Commission. If the occasion arises and the president gives me particular advice, I will take that advice on board. In relation to the honourable member's question—I find it completely inappropriate, and in many respects I regard it as being in complete contempt of the Industrial Commission. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Gympie under Standing Order 123A. Mr WARBURTON: The appointment of the commissioner has been made and has been acclaimed. As far as I am concerned, that is the end of it. Cabinet Discussions with Rural Industry Leaders Mr PREST: I ask the Premier: can he report to the House on the outcome of the talks that the Cabinet held yesterday with Queensland rural industry leaders? Mr W. K. GOSS: I think it is important that all honourable members receive the benefit of a brief report, because the rural industry is very important to the Queensland economy. I urge all honourable members—particularly those who have rural constituencies—to have a look at the nine- point package that was decided on yesterday by Cabinet after listening to rural industry leaders. I will not go through it in detail. However, I suggest that honourable members examine in particular the proposals in relation to rural assistance schemes. This Government has restructured the somewhat confused and overlapping set of schemes that it inherited from the previous Government. Under the previous Government there were 18 schemes, which resulted in considerable confusion and overlapping. Mr Cooper: Gutted. Legislative Assembly 4825 20 November 1990

Mr W. K. GOSS: All of the funding has been retained, so the Leader of the Opposition cannot say that they have been gutted. The funds are better targeted to people who are in need. Furthermore, this Government is going to approach the Federal Government to get a better share for Queensland—which the previous Government failed to do—because it does not believe that this State gets what should be its share of rural assistance funding from the Commonwealth. I also highlight Cabinet's decision in relation to the Wolfe report, which brings in long overdue reforms in relation to land tenure in this State. Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: I point out to the member for Burdekin that by tomorrow sufficient copies should have been printed so that it can be tabled. Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr Cooper: That's not print—reality. Mr W. K. GOSS: Members of the Opposition cannot even coordinate their interjections. As I was saying, within the next day or so sufficient copies should be printed so that it can be tabled and copies can be distributed to all honourable members—I would expect on Wednesday or Thursday of this week—for public comment. What Cabinet has done is endorse it in principle subject to industry and community consultation and input once the detailed report has been seen. The Government has made some decisions that are very important and welcomed by rural industry leaders. Those decisions include a reaffirmation of the right of freeholding in respect of grazing homestead perpetual leases. Mr Cooper interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: But it was important to state that because of the dishonest scaremongering by the Leader of the Opposition and others. I will come to that in more detail in a moment. Most important, and very welcome by rural industry leaders, was the decision by Cabinet to institute a moratorium in relation to those increases for two years and thereafter to have a phasing-in period for three years—something that recognises the current downturn and a need for an opportunity for rural producers to adjust gradually to that long overdue reform necessitated by the failure of the previous Government to adjust those schemes since 1970. Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Burdekin will cease interjecting. I warn him under Standing Order 123A. Mr W. K. GOSS: The most remarkable thing to come out of yesterday's events was not so much the Government's positive approach, the invitation to rural industry leaders to hold discussions with Cabinet and the fact that the package was welcomed by three very experienced leaders of the rural industry—the head of the Queensland Farmers Federation, the head of the Queensland Graingrowers Association and the head of the United Graziers Association—but the disgraceful comments this morning on the radio by the Leader of the Opposition, who said— "Really, I think that the producers have again been conned." I invite honourable members to think about the clear implication of what the Leader of the Opposition is saying, which is that the producers do not know their industry, that they are ignorant and that he knows better. That is an insult to rural industry Legislative Assembly 4826 20 November 1990 leaders. Honourable members should think carefully about the following comment made by the Leader of the Opposition— "I am fully aware of the difficult position that producer organisational leaders find themselves in. I'm in a position though where I can spell it out a bit more clearly, I guess." Is the Leader of the Opposition saying that the rural industry leaders do not mean what they say? Is he saying that the rural industry leaders who said yesterday that Cabinet's package was welcome, that the Government had been positive and that it was the best hearing they had had from any Government for 30 years, do not mean what they say? Is he saying that the rural industry leaders are dishonest? I think that he should set the record straight. In conclusion, the Leader of the Opposition is upset because this Government is assisting the rural industry. Why is he upset? He is upset because he wants pain, hardship and heartbreak so that he can score a political point. The truth is that for the Opposition this is the bottom line: because the Leader of the Opposition cannot provide leadership of the Opposition, he is looking to rural industry leaders to do his job for him, and they refuse to do so. Industrial Action by Queensland Police Union Mr PREST: I ask the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations: further to the response from the Minister for Police to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, what is the Government's position regarding the recent actions of the Queensland Police Union of Employees? Does the Minister have any details regarding any application by the Queensland Police Union to the State Industrial Commission? Mr WARBURTON: Honourable members would be aware that the initial 3 per cent plus 3 per cent that was granted to all employees of the Queensland Government, operative from November 1989 and June 1990, flowed through to police as well as to other public servants. In addition, as the Minister for Education this morning pointed out in respect of teachers, in order to receive additional moneys, the representatives of employees, namely the unions, must apply to the State Industrial Commission in respect of special cases . That procedure has happened in respect of teachers and nurses, and the results are there to be seen. Teachers have been awarded particular increases under special-case provisions. I believe that today is the last hearing date in respect of the application by nurses. Without knowing what the commission will do, my assessment is that registered nurses in this State will receive increases before the end of this year. The police union most certainly has a responsibility to do exactly the same thing. I point out that in respect of those other groups to which I referred, namely, the teachers and the nurses, my department's advocates have bent over backwards to assist the commission with advice, in an effort to ensure that it is well armed, so that wage justice can prevail in respect of the employees of this Government. As far as the police union is concerned, the position would be identical. If an application is made, then the Government's advocates will do the same as they did in other cases, but the point is that I was informed on 23 October 1990, following a compulsory conference that was held the day before, that the police union would be lodging an application. I was pleased to hear that because, together with the industrial section of the police union, we had been working vigorously to bring about a fruitful result. Nothing occurred. I will quote quickly from a transcript of the commission on 22 October. When the hearing was about to conclude, the commissioner stated— "We will note that during the recess the parties have had private discussions." The parties were the police union and the Government. He stated further— "Those discussions have resulted in there being agreement with respect to a particular course to be pursued by the Police Union. Mr. Rogers will convey that Legislative Assembly 4827 20 November 1990

course to his executive and hopefully a process will be put in place so this Commission can deal expeditiously with the claim." The officer who attended that conference was very clear and precise in respect of his advice to me. The commission was talking about a strong recommendation and a decision by the person who was representing the police union that a claim would be lodged. As a Government, we have been waiting for that to occur, but it has not. I conclude by saying, as I said before, that we have been working, particularly with the industrial section of the Police Department, to put a package together, which will consist of a draft award, together with regulations and determinations, that will form the total code of employment conditions for all police officers. This Government fully appreciates the concerns expressed by police officers, but today I again urge the police executive to file urgently the required application with the State Industrial Commission, as was recommended on 22 October by the Industrial Commission itself, so that we can facilitate a very speedy resolution to the desire of police officers for increased wages and improved conditions of employment. In conclusion this morning, I have dispatched a very urgent message to the secretary of the police union, Mr Mahon, asking his advice regarding what I have said to the House today and seeking his urgent commitment to the filing of an application. As yet, I have not received a response, but if I do receive a positive response, I will be very pleased indeed. CJC Inquiry into Sergeant L. Saunders Mr BEANLAND: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the fact that the Criminal Justice Commission is now likely to hold a public inquiry into the issue of compensation for Sergeant Lorelle Saunders. I ask: will he give to this House an assurance that he will accept the recommendations of this CJC inquiry, even if it overturns his Government's decision not to pay her compensation? Mr W. K. GOSS: The leaders of the conservative parties are obsessed—when any inquiry is likely to occur, is actually under way or is about to report—— Mr Cooper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. I warn him. Mr W. K. GOSS: ——with demanding immediately an absolute, unequivocal, lock, stock and barrel, gilt-edged, Government-guaranteed guarantee that we will act on it when we do not know what is in it. We do not buy a pig in a poke. As somebody very eloquently said, the last Premier who promised to implement something lock, stock and barrel when he did not know what was in it got both barrels. We are not going to do that. We will be judged by the way in which we act on any set of recommendations. What has to be remembered about all these commissions, inquiries and the rest of it is that they make recommendations and that is all they get to do. We make the decisions. The Opposition should get that clear. They make the recommendations; we make the decisions. I understand that Sir Max Bingham is in contact with and is indeed negotiating with Mr Carew, the solicitor acting for Ms Saunders. I see nothing inappropriate about that at all. Both I and the Minister for Police have repeatedly said that they should go to the Criminal Justice Commission. It is a body that is well equipped to investigate corruption; it is a body that is funded with $20m of taxpayers' money to investigate corruption. Suggestions have been made by the solicitor and his client that they have this new evidence of corruption going back to the days, of course, of the National Party/Liberal Party administration. If they do have that evidence, I urge them to bring it forward and give it to Sir Max so that he can process it. I hope that, if we do see an inquiry, it has clear terms of reference, that it has a clear understanding of what it is on about and that it is not engaging in some Cook's tour. Legislative Assembly 4828 20 November 1990

Pay-out to Mr F. Maybury Mr BEANLAND: I refer the Treasurer to a pay-out made to Mr Fred Maybury following his resignation as the general manager of the Gold Coast Indy Car Grand Prix Company. As that company is 50 per cent owned by the Government and as public funds are involved, I ask: can the Treasurer tell the House the amount of money paid out in relation to Maybury's resignation, which is believed to be a sum far greater than the $100,000 reported in the press? Mr De LACY: I thank the honourable member for the question. The pay-out to which Mr Maybury was entitled is something between the Indy Car Company and Mr Maybury. I understand that he was paid everything to which he was entitled under the terms of his contract. I am not aware of the exact figure. However, I understand that there was no additional payment. EARC Recommendation on Members of Parliament Serving as Members of Local Authorities Mr PALASZCZUK: I refer the Premier to the fact that, recently, the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission recommended that State and Federal politicians should not also be serving as local authority members. That recommendation was accepted by the parliamentary committee and by the Government. I ask: will the Premier inform the House whether the Government is committed to that reform? Mr W. K. GOSS: This is an important question, because many members would not be aware of the recent disgraceful performance in Toowoomba by the Leader of the Opposition. Yesterday, in Toowoomba, we saw for ourselves very graphically his lack of leadership when it comes to the problems of the rural industry and his disappointment at the failure of others to do his job for him. However, in relation to the EARC recommendation, I must say that we saw a less-than-honest performance by him recently and evidence of the same old dangerous and corrupt attitude of the National Party; that is, while it pays lip-service to the Fitzgerald reform process, it runs around undermining it everywhere it can. The Leader of the Opposition has disclosed part of the National Party's real attitude. When one compares the statements that he makes in this place with the quotes one reads in the press, one will see that that indicates either his hypocrisy or, more likely, that he does not know whether he is coming or going. Mr Burns: He's going. Mr W. K. GOSS: He is going, is he? According to an article in a Toowoomba newspaper, Mr Cooper stated— "Frankly, Toowoomba is being cheated out of this service"— that is, the service of Mr Berghofer— "by the Labor Party, which apparently cannot accept that people of talent and ability can do both jobs." The Leader of the Opposition knows—or he should know—that this was a recommendation of the independent commission endorsed by a majority of members of the parliamentary committee. So is he being honest? In relation to this particular recommendation, let me—— Opposition members interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: I have all the time in the world. Let me tell honourable members what Mr Cooper next said. The article states— "He added that when the National Party was restored to Government"— this was obviously a long-term plan— "it would repeal the legislation . . ." Legislative Assembly 4829 20 November 1990

The question that the Leader of the Opposition should be answering is: what else will the Nationals repeal of the Fitzgerald recommendations? What else is on their list for repeal? How can this Parliament and why should the people of Toowoomba—or anywhere else for that matter—take this person seriously? Mr Cooper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I now warn the Leader of the Opposition under Standing Order 123A. I have been tolerant. Confrontation at Inala between Police and Aboriginal Community Mr PALASZCZUK: I refer the Minister for Police and Emergency Services to the recent problem experienced in the Inala area in relation to a confrontation between police and the Aboriginal community, and I ask: what action is he taking to overcome this problem? Mr Cooper interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: This is a change from a Dorothy Dixer, because the Leader of the Opposition asked the first one. Last Friday week, I met with representatives of the Aboriginal community from Inala and from the legal body for the Aboriginal community. As the member for Archerfield was in attendance at that meeting, he would be aware that agreement was reached that the Aboriginal community would supply to my office specific statements of complaint which the police could investigate. They were received only last Thursday. However, we also agreed that a further meeting would be held this morning at 11 o'clock. Contrary to some reports this morning that I would be in attendance at that meeting, it was never agreed that I would be there but that someone from my office would be in attendance, as would the Commissioner of Police. The meeting will be held at police headquarters. One of the agreements that were reached at the meeting was that, not only for Aboriginals at Inala but also for Aboriginals in the general community, the police would reinstitute the issuing of identification cards for representatives from the Aboriginal legal services so that when those representatives go to police stations to talk to people who are being held in watchhouses, they can show those particular identification cards and gain access to the people whom they want to see. The Aboriginal community is very happy about the reintroduction of those cards. We have also assured the Aboriginal community that all of the statements that are supplied to us will be investigated by the police and will also be handed on to the Criminal Justice Commission. I am certain that the liaison that we have started with the Aboriginal community will build to provide for better relations between both the police and the Aboriginal communities, not only in Inala but also right throughout the rest of Queensland. Ministerial Expenditure Guidelines Mr BORBIDGE: I direct to the Treasurer a question in respect of the ministerial expenditure review unit within his department. I refer to the Government's secret guidelines for ministerial expenditure, and I ask: when does he intend to honour the Premier's commitment of 6 March and publish those guidelines? Under what circumstances can ministerial expenditure be charged to Government departments? Mr De LACY: I am not aware of the Premier's commitment to table the ministerial guidelines. I will investigate the matter to ascertain whether they can be tabled. I do not understand the honourable member's interest in the guidelines. He is not a Minister, and will not be one for a long time. I have forgotten the second part of the honourable member's question. Mr BORBIDGE: To assist the Treasurer, I point out that my question related to assurances given on 6 March by the Premier to table the guidelines. I asked when that Legislative Assembly 4830 20 November 1990 was going to be done. Secondly, I asked: under what circumstances can ministerial expenditure be charged to Government departments? Mr De LACY: Ministerial expenditure can be charged to Government departments when it is legitimate departmental expenditure. Legitimate ministerial expenditure must be charged to the relevant ministerial office. Mr Borbidge: For example? Mr De LACY: An example would be if a department was putting on a function for visiting relevant dignitaries. That would be charged to the department. The honourable member is obviously leading to something else. I do not know what that is. The issue is quite clear in my mind. The Ministerial Expenditure Unit oversees all claims for reimbursement and makes a judgment about whether or not applications are valid under the terms of the ministerial guidelines. That is the essential difference between this system and the old system. Ministers themselves are not approving their own expenditure. That expenditure is being approved by the Ministerial Expenditure Unit on the basis of the ministerial guidelines. Cape York Spaceport Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to his recent overseas trip, and I ask: could the Premier outline to the House any discussions that he had in an attempt to facilitate a commercial space-launch facility at Cape York? When was the Premier made aware of Essington's plans to withdraw from the project? What action has the Premier taken to encourage new equity partners in the Cape York spaceport? Mr W. K. GOSS: None of the appointments that I had in the United States related to the space base. As the member well knows, that is a private-sector-led operation. As far as I am aware, when I was in the United States the statement of the sale of Essington's shares had not been made. It has certainly not been announced. I am not sure how I was supposed to foresee that. As to the space base—the Government is keeping in close contact with the people who are associated with the project. Cabinet has received briefings from them. Those people—and Essington, when it was involved in the project—have provided a detailed outline of what is happening. I understand that the project is operating quite smoothly. A couple of weeks prior to the Essington announcement, I received some advice from Senator Button to the effect that the Commonwealth Government was keen to see more substantial companies involved. Subsequent to that, Essington made a decision to place a particular amount of its interest on the market for that purpose. That was overtaken by the more recent statement that it was to sell all of its interest. I have spoken about the matter with some very prominent people in this State. I do not propose to disclose their names at this stage. However, I am sure that the honourable member will be very interested when he finds out who they are. Mr Cooper: Keep your tongue in your cheek. Mr W. K. GOSS: Does the Leader of the Opposition know who is involved? I am sure that he will join me in a vote of confidence when he finds out who some of the people involved are. Those people have kept me advised and are very optimistic about the progress in putting together a consortium—— Mr Borbidge: What are you doing to encourage new equity partners? Mr W. K. GOSS: All that is necessary. As I was saying, the people involved are optimistic about putting together a consortium of international and Australian partners. Beenleigh Pre-school Fire Mr SZCZERBANIK: I ask the Minister for Education: can he inform the House what steps are being taken to look after the children of Beenleigh who lost their pre-school in a fire on 31 October? Legislative Assembly 4831 20 November 1990

Mr BRADDY: The fire to which the honourable member refers was one of the unfortunate incidents involving vandalism and arson that sometimes occur in our State. Attention must be paid to school security across the State. As honourable members would be aware, that issue has been addressed by the provision of vastly increased electronic surveillance in schools in Townsville and various other parts of Queensland. As to the particular fire at Beenleigh—the department has the matter in hand. Appropriate arrangements are being made for those pre-school students at Beenleigh, and the building will be replaced at the first available opportunity. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired. MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Four-year Parliamentary Terms Mr COOPER (Roma—Leader of the Opposition) (10.59 a.m.): For several weeks, the issue of the proposed referendum on four-year terms for this Parliament has been before the people of Queensland. I do not believe that the Government has treated this debate with anywhere near the seriousness that it deserves. In particular, the Premier has seemed more intent on turning the matter into an attempt to make quite dishonest political point-scoring, not democratic or parliamentary reform. It is important that the people of Queensland have the opportunity to form a considered opinion on this very important matter. It is regrettable that that opportunity has been hampered by the stance taken by the Government. The position of the National Party on this matter of four-year terms for this Parliament, notwithstanding attempts by the Premier to score some doubtful political points, has been held with great consistency from the very beginning and I take this opportunity to put it to the people. We do recognise the potential—and I emphasise "the potential"—benefits of four-year parliamentary terms. They could—and I emphasise "could"—lead to more stable decision-making and better government. None of the potential benefits, however, will be realised unless guarantees are built into the system. What has been deliberately muddied by the Government in this debate is the significance of the issue of a three-year minimum term within the context of a maximum four-year term. Labor Party policy is for four-year terms, full stop. National Party policy is for a three-year minimum term within a maximum four- year term, full stop. The difference is not, as the Premier would have it, merely the fine print. The issue of a minimum term within the context of a maximum term goes to the very nub of the matter. History shows very clearly that parliamentary terms without a minimum do not help to create more stable, better government for the people. They simply create another year in which politicians can play the game of early elections timed for maximum political benefit. The public is sick of this political and cynical game. We have only to examine the record of Federal Governments since 1949 to see the constant abuse of the three-year term, which so cripples their claim for four-year terms. Australia has had more elections since the war than the national legislature of the United States of America, which has a fixed biennial system. The average life of the Federal Parliament since 1945 has been just over two years. There have been 24 Federal elections of one kind or another in that period. Bob Hawke has been taking the people to the polls on average every 27 months. What this tells us very clearly is that, unless there is a fixed minimum term, "maximum terms" means just extending the time Governments have to play the game of early elections, and nothing more. That would not serve the people. It would not provide better stability. It would not provide better government. It would be a con. It is very relevant to note that the National Party in Queensland, in taking the position that there must, therefore, be a minimum term under the four-year term proposal, is in line with the recommendation of the Constitutional Commission, which Legislative Assembly 4832 20 November 1990 reported to the Government in June 1988. That commission recommended the four-year term proposal carrying a minimum three-year term be put to the people in the 1988 Federal referendums. The members of that commission were: the former Commonwealth Solicitor-General, Sir Maurice Byers; Professor Enid Campbell from the faculty of law at Monash University; Professor Leslie Zines of the faculty of law at the Australian National University; the Honourable Rupert Hamer, KCMG, former Premier of Victoria; and the Honourable E.G. Whitlam, AC, QC, former Prime Minister. The commissioners said, and I quote directly from their report— "The extension of the maximum term to four years, without more, will not bring about stable government in Australia." That is a sign that the commissioners did not trust the politicians. They said, and again I quote from their report— "Another feature of our system of government which detracts from the stability and predictability is that the House of Representatives may be dissolved before its maximum term by the Governor General, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. In other words, a Government has the power to determine when an election will be held." The commissioners also said on this topic— "The possibility of an election before the end of a Government's maximum term often leads to a long period of speculation and rumour. The uncertainty generated by this can have harmful consequences for public administration, business, and the community generally." The National Party shared these concerns in 1988. It shares them today, and the people who shared them in 1988 will voice them again. If Governments are to get four years, that extension must not simply expand their options for calling early elections. They must be made to provide some guarantee to the people that they actually will get longer terms, more stability and better government in return for the concession. The National Party opposed the 1988 referendums because they did not provide these guarantees and it will do so again in the absence of such guarantees in a State referendum. We believe, along with the commission, that a four-year maximum term without a minimum term will not of itself lead to fewer elections. It will simply provide politicians with more time to play cynical games in the timing of elections. The Attorney-General maintained, during his early discussions with me on this topic, that this guarantee could not be achieved without compromising the reserve powers of the Governor which, I might add, certainly gained some credence in the media. The protection of the Governor's powers and the powers of the Parliament can and must apply in Queensland if this proposed referendum is to have the support of the National Party. Our proposal explicitly involves no restriction on the powers of the Governor. Our other precondition for support for the referendum is specifically and inextricably linked to the three-year minimum condition in both logic and as another mechanism to test the sincerity of the Government. The Government's reaction to our second condition—that it guarantees it will go its full term in this Parliament—has simply confirmed our suspicions that its motivations on this issue are just those raised by the Constitutional Commission, that is, concerns about opportunistic politicians abusing their privileges. The Government, to have our support, must enshrine in legislation that it will run its full term in this Parliament. If the Government truly believes in the benefits of a three-year minimum term—enough to compromise its only policy on the matter, as the Premier has hinted he is prepared to do—it can have absolutely no trouble in linking itself to three years this term. The Premier maintains that he has gone far enough with a highly qualified undertaking to go full term. That is not good enough for anybody who thinks the matter through. Everybody in this place knows what the Premier is on about with his politicking on this issue. He wants an unrestricted four-year term to apply to the life of the next Government, with no restriction on his current term so that he can move for an election before the Legislative Assembly 4833 20 November 1990 recognition of the failure of his Government reaches the inevitability of defeat; and that means a bid to try to grasp four years possibly as early as the end of next year. I would like him to deny that that is the scenario dominating his rhetoric on this matter. The cynical reasons that the Premier and his party want the four-year term are the very reasons they should be denied it. They are the reasons so clearly identified by the Constitutional Commission when it recognised the need for minimum terms within the four-year term so voters could be guaranteed a benefit. No other conclusion is possible given the Premier's reluctance to extend his very highly qualified suggestion of compromise on the three-year term minimum and his equally heavy qualifications on his undertaking to run the full term of this Parliament. His suggestion that the National Party seeks to fix the date of the next election is nonsense. We would accept that the Government had run its full term if the 1992 Budget were delivered at the usual time. The four-year term proposal is too important and too significant to become an exercise in cynical deceit by the Government or by anybody else for that matter. If it is to be undertaken by this State, then it must be for the right reasons, not the wrong reasons. The Government has given no firm undertaking that it is willing to commit itself to the guarantees that would overcome the understandable and legitimate concerns of voters about the trustworthiness of politicians. Indeed, the Government's attitude on yet another related issue merely adds to the Opposition's concerns about this point. Why the rush to have the legislation for the referendum passed through the House this year so that the referendum can be held in association with the local government elections in March next year? The Premier says that this would reduce inconvenience and cost. I do not know how he can possibly claim that, because the fact is that a great number of local government elections in Queensland are carried out by postal ballot. Clearly, it would be far less inconvenient and far less expensive if the referendum were held in conjunction with the next State election that is due at the end of 1992. Could it be that the true reason for the rush is to enable an early State election to be held in 1991, followed by a four-year term? Finally, I issue another word of warning to Government members on this most important issue: if they muck this one up, they will have ruined the chance of getting four-year parliamentary terms in this State for many years to come. Time expired. Government's Assistance to Rural Sector Mr McGRADY (Mount Isa) (11.10 a.m.): Today, I wish to bring to the attention of this Parliament and to Queenslanders in general the recent initiatives of the Goss Labor Government that will assist the people in the rural sector during the downturn in the rural economy. I refer to the two statements made by the Premier in recent days.The statements concerned the setting up of, firstly, a Premier's rural and northern task force and, secondly, a nine-point assistance package to help the rural sector. With reference to the establishment of the Premier's task force—I believe that this initiative will dispense once and for all the myth that is perpetrated by the Opposition that it—and only it—has a monopoly on the hearts and minds of country people. Under my chairmanship, this task force—consisting of Mr Bredhauer, Dr Clark, Mr Pitt, Mr Davies, Mr Smyth, Ms Bird, Mr Pearce and Dr Flynn—will travel around this State listening to the concerns of country people and encouraging them to articulate their problems concerning areas under the jurisdiction of the Queensland Government. The task force will meet at 2 p.m. today and will be on the road posthaste. It will present its report to the Premier early next year. One would expect any fair-minded person, especially a member of Parliament, and more especially the Leader of the State National Party, to support such a move; but the Leader of the Opposition said— "I am sceptical of Labor's will to tackle the rural crisis." Legislative Assembly 4834 20 November 1990

In addition, in relation to my appointment as chairman of the rural task force, the same gentleman said— "It is simply a move to boost Mr McGrady's political stocks." Surely a person who is a former Premier of this State—a man who has held the highest political office in Queensland—could be a little more original. Every time Mount Isa receives attention from this Government, the Leader of the Opposition comes out with the same cliches and comments, but what he is really saying is that I am doing my job for the people whom I represent and am putting the results on the board. In the interests of good government in Queensland, the Leader of the Opposition would be far better advised to adopt a more positive and constructive approach. Failing that, I believe that he has outlived his usefulness to his party and to this Parliament. I am sure that the honourable member for Surfers Paradise would certainly agree with that. Members of this Parliament should understand that this task force has been established in a genuine attempt by this Government to assist country people. The members of the task force will listen to any person who wishes to address us. We will be the ears and mouths of the people who live outside the metropolitan areas. I suggest to members opposite that if they have any genuine suggestions, they should come and address this task force. I will use this opportunity today to say to the members of the Opposition, "Forget your pathetic political bias and join with the Government in its genuine attempt to help the rural sector." I turn briefly to the nine-point package approved yesterday by Cabinet. This package has been welcomed by the rural community and includes the following— (1) expanded and better financial assistance to the industry; (2) a two-year moratorium on increases in pastoral and grazing leases, with the increases to be phased in over three years; (3) Government support for land-owners to continue to freehold grazing leases; and (4) submissions to the Federal Government for more Rural Adjustment Scheme funds for Queensland and outlining in detail the nature and extent of the rural downturn in Queensland. As the Premier has stated, the problems concerning the rural sector are real; however, many of them are beyond the control of State Governments. Therefore, there must be a concentrated effort by all levels of Government and by the industry to try to pull the industry out of this downturn. For the benefit of the Opposition, let me briefly go through some of the details of the package which was announced yesterday by the Premier and which has been so well received by the genuine—and I emphasise "genuine"—leaders of industry in Queensland. Firstly, there will be an immediate $5m injection into QIDC funding, with provision later on in the year for an additional $5m. Secondly, there is an increase in QIDC's loan-raising capacity in its commercial and concessional borrowing programs of $150m and, as a result, the Government will provide a further injection of funds for use in the Queensland Government's various assistance schemes for rural industry. The Government will also support the continued right of freeholding in relation to grazing homestead perpetual leases. In relation to the particular situation in my home city, Mount Isa, the Government will give further consideration to local circumstances that will have a bearing on appropriate and equitable leaseholding arrangements for Crown rental charges. There will also be an expansion and more effective targeting of Government assistance schemes in response to recommendations of the Polichronis assistance scheme, compared to those of the previous Government. In relation to the young farmers scheme, the loan ceiling will rise from $150,000 to $250,000 and will attract concessional rates. Rural housing loan ceilings will increase from $50,000 to $150,000. The small business debt assistance scheme and emergency industry assistance schemes will be targeted for emergency assistance to be provided to rural producers in specific areas. Representations will be made to the Federal Government, and the Treasurer will make a formal submission to the Commonwealth Government for an increase in Legislative Assembly 4835 20 November 1990 the total amount of rural assistance scheme funding distributed nationally, in addition to requesting a larger share for Queensland. In addition, there will be the maintenance of, and some expansion in, farm financial counselling. The Government will also consider further redirection of FFC resources to the most critically affected rural industry sectors. The Queensland Government will also request Commonwealth Government support for further expansion. The performance of the Opposition rabble proves beyond any shadow of doubt that, for many years to come, members of the National Party are destined to remain on the Opposition benches. While the people of rural Queensland are suffering, no leadership at all is coming from the National Party in spite of the fact that, in days gone by, its members were regarded as the champions of rural people. They are now yesterday's men. They have failed country people and they have neglected their traditional constituency. I feel sorry for the people who live in electorates represented by members of the National Party who have lost any will to look after the people who live outside metropolitan areas. I totally support the initiatives announced following yesterday's Cabinet meeting. Today, I am proud to stand in this Parliament and advocate acceptance of these initiatives presented by the State Labor Government. I have no doubt at all that they will be welcomed by the people who live in rural areas of the State and who, in two years' time, will again rise and reject the rabble on the Opposition side of the Chamber. Factions in Australian Labor Party; Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia (Queensland Branch) Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (11.19 a.m.): I wish to raise two matters that are of concern to the people of Queensland. The first matter relates to the most important and sensitive tribunal in the economy of this State and reflects the way in which appointments to that body have been used as trophies in factional power games within the ALP. It is important to note that, because of the structure and decision-making process within the Government, these matters cannot be treated as purely private affairs. This is no ordinary family feud or business take-over. These are outbreaks of conflict between the warring factions of the party that forms the administration and Government of this State. The ALP has perfected the art of what I might call "the twentieth century feudal style of Government". Every decision made represents a deal that has been made between factional power- brokers who resemble nothing less than rebellious barons who must be bought off by a hapless monarch with offers of position and favours. In his usual glib fashion, the Premier sneers at complaints of jobs for the boys and girls. Admittedly, the present Government has a much more sophisticated style of patronage than has been seen before. All of the rival interests and power blocs have their agents and lackeys at court, vying for influence and seeking revenge for past defeats. The second matter I wish to raise in more detail at a later stage opens up the issue of a possible conflict of interest on the part of four Ministers of the Crown and eight backbench Labor members. I will name them all, one by one. Unfortunately for the Premier, the veneer of unity so painstakingly manufactured for the duration of the State election is now wafer-thin. In many cases, it is in shreds. Queenslanders have witnessed the unedifying spectacle of bitter public brawling between Federal Labor MPs. Queenslanders should recognise that those rows have very little to do with events in Canberra but have everything to do with local factional wars. Indeed, Senator Richardson's ambassador at the court of "King" Wayne—Mr Sciacca, the Federal member for Bowman—has assured his master that the battles should not be seen to reflect on Federal issues. They are purely home-grown. Mr Gayler has done the same, and Mr Keith Wright has also strenuously fought to reinforce this claim. It is instructive to consider the matters raised recently by the Federal member for Leichhardt, Mr Gayler. He confessed as follows— "People who are elected representatives of the Labor Party aren't getting their say. They are being forced to make decisions that they really don't agree with, and Legislative Assembly 4836 20 November 1990

that all emanates from NSW . . . Members, or previous members of the Right, have had enough of domination of the Right . . . domination spreading through into Queensland through the AWU." Mr Gayler's reference to the AWU goes a long way towards putting this matter in perspective from a Queensland point of view. Obviously, his outburst was provoked by much more than the issue of who gets to go on the most desirable trips being offered in the Federal Parliament. The role of the AWU in Queensland branch affairs is pivotal in understanding the current state of play in the Queensland Labor split, revisited. Names that have become very familiar—for different reasons—keep cropping up in this saga of double-dealing and strongarm tactics that would make Rambo look subtle. Mr Gayler notes— "Ever since I was threatened by the AWU back in 1984 when I refused to join their faction and they threatened my preselection, I knew where my position was—out in the cold . . . I was shut out, locked out, by the strongarm, over-the-top tactics of the NSW Right, and as I say the extension of that in Queensland was through the AWU." One of the most contentious matters that has poisoned the atmosphere between the factions has been the role and influence of recent appointees of the Goss Government. The Premier has used important and sensitive positions as dumping-grounds for embattled, embittered or embarrassing ALP hacks in order to exile them from participation in further battles within the organisation. Mr Elder interjected. Mr SANTORO: The honourable member knows what I am talking about. It is depressing to see bodies in which this Government professes so much faith cynically manipulated in that fashion. It is even more disturbing when evidence comes to light requiring the Government to stand down one of its appointees while her fitness for office is determined by this Parliament on the basis of independent, expert advice. Without suggesting any impropriety against Commissioner Swan, it is clearly appropriate for the matters revealed before the Cooke inquiry to be fully investigated. Following the precedent set by the Fitzgerald inquiry, at the insistence of the Premier of today, among others, office-holders have been stood down while their fitness for office was being examined—for example, Police Commissioner Lewis and judges Vasta and Pratt. I wish now to turn to another matter which is potentially even more serious for the Government of this State. I have to advise the House that I have come into possession of documents which call into question the position and bona fides of 12 members of this Parliament. Queenslanders have been through the agony of the Fitzgerald inquiry process which led to a demand for high standards of propriety from their Government. That was the war cry of the Labor Party in Opposition, and that is what it solemnly promised the people of Queensland on so many occasions. However, regrettably, there appears to be a serious lapse of the standards of conduct expected from members of this House—a lapse which threatens the independence of certain members of this Government and which places them in a position of clear conflict of interest. I refer in particular to the activities of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia (Queensland Branch). At 30 June 1990, that union had 21 265 members in this State—the bulk of them Crown employees paying membership fees of $153 a year. The branch is affiliated with, amongst other organisations, the Trades and Labor Council of Queensland and the Australian Labor Party. Occupations covered include Government cleaners, school cleaners and teacher aides. The union has accumulated funds of $2.248m, and received income of $2.493m in the past year. It spends nearly $900,000 on salaries and allowances. Also on the union payroll are a number of persons described as public relations officers. Members can use their imaginations to decide what the duties of those officers would be—but would be astonished to learn that 12 out of the 18 public relations officers for that union are members of this House! I call upon Messrs Ardill, Bredhauer, Edmond, Hayward, Hollis, Pearce, Power and Szczerbanik to explain how they can Legislative Assembly 4837 20 November 1990 reconcile their duties as representatives of their electorates with the role of representing the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union as public relations officers. What do their duties involve? Do they receive meeting fees and/or allowances from the union? If so, they should consider recent advice about the need to disclose those payments on their income tax returns. Further questions need to be answered by four other members of this House. There are clear enough grounds for concern if backbench members are described as public relations officers for a union at the same time as they are occupying a position in this Parliament. Where the public relations officers are Ministers of the Crown, the potential for conflict of interest is only too apparent. I can inform the House that Bob Gibbs, MLA, has been a public relations officer for the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union since 4 January 1977; Ed Casey, MLA, since 1 December 1978; Dean Wells, MLA, since 14 May 1984; and Ann Warner, MLA, since 7 August 1984. There are some questions which demand an answer. Have those members disclosed to the Premier the office that they hold in the union? It would be material for the Premier to know that sitting around the Cabinet table are four individuals who represent a particular vested-interest group—just as, for example, he would expect to know if anyone was acting as a public relations officer for a company or venture dealing with or lobbying the Government. What do their duties involve? Presumably, the Ministers involved are meant to lobby on behalf of the union. How far are they expected to go in upholding the union point of view? Given that the bulk of the union's members are employed by the State Government, did the Ministers concerned disclose their relevant interest when Cabinet was making decisions which have a direct impact on the union and its operations? The Government has reintroduced compulsory unionism for State employees. That will directly benefit the union by adding membership dues and will benefit the State ALP with the receipt of affiliation fees. In its recent report, the union noted that it had experienced "a decline in membership in the traditional areas of State Government cleaning". The report went on to state— "However, we are looking for improvements in this area now that the State has returned a Labor Government for the first time in 32 years." The Government has reintroduced the system of payroll deductions for union membership as requested by the union. The report noted— "With the change in Government and the introduction of PRD's the branch's financial position should improve in 1991." The report went on to state that the Government must consider issues of contracting out and increasing the direct work force in the areas covered by the union's activities. The report stated— "Since the election there has been a steady progress by the unions and over a period of time we should be able to assist in the reshaping of this State . . . " The Government must consider issues of pay and conditions for its work force, and the impact of its public service restructuring. According to the union— "The trade union movement now has a great opportunity to enhance its position in this State by participating at all levels within the party in a constructive and decisive manner." Further questions suggest themselves. Are those officers paid an allowance, retainer or consultancy fee by the union? Do those officers receive meeting fees, expenses or other allowances from the union? If so, are those relevant interests noted in the pecuniary interests register? If the duties of the office held in the union do not involve payment, does that affect the fiduciary duty of the public relations officer in any event to regard the interests of the union when making decisions which impact upon those unions? What would be the response of the union if decisions were made by its public relations officers which were inimical to its interests? Could legal action follow for breach of duty? I seek an assurance from the Premier that the Government's practice has been, and will continue to be, to uphold standards of accountability and propriety around the Legislative Assembly 4838 20 November 1990

Cabinet table and within this Parliament. Otherwise, I ask the Premier to explain how he can reconcile sanctioning appointments smacking of conflict of interest for his Ministers with his forthright denunciation of the cronyism practised by the former Government. Senior Citizens; Liberal Party Approach to Social Security Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (11.30 a.m.): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will bear with me as, in common with Mr Speaker, I have the flu. While I was listening to that enlightened contribution by the member for Merthyr, I was reminded of a photograph in a recent newspaper of his colleague the member for Nerang in a railway tunnel, looking for Satan. A short time ago someone suggested to me that the contribution that honourable members just heard was a sort of cross- pollination with the contributions of the member for Nerang. Mr Hayward: A great team! Mr BEATTIE: An enlightened team—one that, with a bit of luck, honourable members will never see again. I wish to speak about seniors—some of the most important people in the community. As honourable members would be aware, my electorate of Brisbane Central has a large elderly population—in fact, it has a disproportionately high percentage of elderly people. Concern is always expressed when there is a vicious attack on a pensioner. I wish to refer to an article that appeared in the Bulletin of 30 October and the consequences that will flow for the Liberal Party. I believe that the Queensland Liberal Party needs to be called to account in relation to the approach of its Federal colleagues in the welfare area. Members of the Liberal Party should do some homework instead of coming into this Chamber and bagging the Labor Party. The article to which I refer was written by Laurie Oakes, who is not known as being a strong supporter of any political party. He begins with these words— "Picture this. A woman pensioner answers a knock on the door and is confronted by a man from Wormald or Mayne Nickless demanding to know whether she is living with anyone and, if so, who. What is his authority? His company has a government contract to check on the bona fides of welfare recipients." Mr Oakes goes on to say— "Most Australians, I suggest, would regard that scenario as unacceptable, but it is what the federal Opposition is seriously putting forward." Mr Oakes quotes Mr Richard Alston, the shadow Social Security Minister, as saying— " 'I think things such as review teams and rehabilitation exercises could all be done by the private sector much more efficiently.' " What honourable members are witnessing here is a vicious and unwarranted attack on people who receive social security benefits. If members of the Liberal Party think that this will win them any support in the community, they are sadly mistaken. Whom are we are talking about? We are talking about pensioners, the pioneers of this country, the people who are least able to defend themselves, the people who paid their taxes over a long period and who did their bit to ensure that members of the Liberal Party can sit in this Chamber and participate in this democratic process. If it had not been for these pioneers, these people who have paid their fair share of tax, members of the Liberal Party would not be sitting in this Chamber. Mr Hayward: Something like big accounting firms moving into suburban areas. Mr BEATTIE: That would be right. I want to refer in some detail to what Laurie Oakes said, because he is an objective commentator. He said— "No one should be under any illusions about the hard line the coalition is taking on the question of social welfare under John Hewson's leadership. The ideas Legislative Assembly 4839 20 November 1990

being tossed up by Hewson and Alston, including the possibility that the federal Department of Social Security could be abolished altogether"— they are talking about abolishing the department— "give the first real indication of how a coalition government would set about trying to achieve that $3 billion cut in federal spending that the Opposition's economic 'dries' have been talking about for several years now. The plan is to slash the welfare budget." That is what the dries in the Liberal Party are seeking to do. It is about time Mr Beanland gave some indication in this Chamber of where he stands on the issue of social welfare. Laurie Oakes goes on to say— "Unloading responsibility on to the states, getting welfare agencies to take over much of the Department of Social Security's work, privatising services even to the point of allowing accountancy firms to tender for the job of paying pensions—all these drastic proposals are on the table." Laurie Oakes gets it right when he says— "And despite claims that efficiency is the motivation, ideology seems to be a much more important driving force." Recently in our Parliament House a Special Premiers Conference was held, which was convened by the Prime Minister. That conference was designed to streamline the processes in Australia and to improve our internal efficiency and our balance of trade. That initiative will go a long way towards getting Australia on the road to economic recovery. However, these sorts of approaches adopted by the Liberal Party will create hardship in an area in which I believe it is totally unwarranted. Laurie Oakes goes on to deal with one of the most important issues in this debate, that is, the truth about the efficiency of the Social Security Department. I believe that it is important that honourable members consider that issue because the Liberals will say that the Social Security Department is inefficient. I will deal with the facts. Mr Oakes states— "The department's administrative costs represent only 3.5% of outlays. A lot of companies would like to be able to match that. Of the 140 million payments the department processes each year, 99.9% are made on time. Partly because of improved targeting of benefits and measures to combat fraud, Department of Social Security outlays as a proportion of the budget have fallen from 6.9% to 6% since 1983-84." As Oakes says, it is not a bad story. It points out the lies that have been heard from conservative politicians in this country in regard to the efficiency of this department. I turn to international comparisons, which is another area in which lies are told by members of the Liberal Party. Laurie Oakes states— "International comparisons show that Australia spends less on social welfare than most other member-countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The most recent OECD figures—for 1985—show Australia spending 18.4% of gross domestic product on health, education, welfare services and income support payments. Only Portugal (15.2%), Japan (16.2%) and the US (18.2%) were lower. Despite the inspiration that Hewson and his 'dry' colleagues derive from Margaret Thatcher, the figure for Britain was 20.9%." I think it is about time that honourable members heard some truth from members of the Liberal Party and Mr Beanland gave some indication in this Chamber of where he stands on this important issue. Like many other honourable members, I attend regular meetings of senior citizens in my electorate. Recently, I attended a meeting of the Kelvin Grove/Newmarket senior citizens. They are concerned about this approach by the Liberal Party. However, they are pleased with the approach that is being adopted by this Government with the advent of the seniors card, and they are pleased with the approach adopted by Anne Warner, the relevant Minister, who recognises the rapidly ageing population and that by the year Legislative Assembly 4840 20 November 1990

2025, 16 per cent or more of Queensland's population will be 65 or older. In fact, I think it is quite important to point out that tomorrow, 21 November, will be the first day on which the application forms for the seniors card will be available. Tomorrow, the card will be formally launched by the Premier and the Minister. Those concessions in the seniors card will mean that 120 000 extra Queensland seniors will be eligible for the following concessions: 50 per cent off motor vehicle registration; 50 per cent off long distance train travel; 50 per cent off local consumer bus and rail services; 50 per cent off boat registration; a $96 per annum rebate on electricity charges; free prescription, supply and repair of spectacles through public hospitals; free dental services; free transport and accommodation costs for patients of private practitioners; and a wide range of medical aids and equipment. Mr Elder interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I take the interjection. It is a courageous initiative by this Government to help those senior citizens who pioneered this State. On the one hand, the Labor Party is introducing the seniors card and, on the other hand, the Liberal Party is attacking pensioners and those people least able to defend themselves. Still dealing with the issue of efficiency, cost and so on—I conclude by saying that, seven years ago, 84 per cent of Australians of pensionable age were receiving the age pension. The figure now is only 76 per cent, and it is falling because more Australians are joining superannuation schemes. That practice, which is specifically supported by the Federal Government, is again designed to make sure that we are looking after senior citizens. Unless those people in the Liberal Party are prepared to change direction when it comes to dealing with those senior citizens who provided the strength and fabric for this society, at the next election they will be roundly condemned and, indeed, they will be kicked to death by those people in the electorate because they will be seen for what they are—opportunists who are misrepresenting the social welfare position. As I said earlier, a large percentage of the people in my electorate are senior citizens and I am happy to support them here today. Rural Crisis Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (11.40 a.m.): I rise today to speak about the rural crisis and to reply to the vast amount of rhetoric that has been emanating from the City of Toowoomba since the Cabinet met there yesterday. To say that anything has been done to ease the rural crisis would be quite wrong. The real story is that the Labor Party did some research out in the country and found out that its stocks were down, down, down. In fact, it is said that its rating was less than 8 per cent. So, members of the Labor Party decided to do something about that. What they have done about it is mostly to put on hold some of the things that they suggested they would do themselves. For instance, one of the main things decided yesterday was that recommendations—— Mr Palaszczuk: You're a knocker. Mr BOOTH: No. I am reading from Mr Wayne Goss' press statement, which states— "Recommendations have been received from the Justice Department that legislation should be changed to impose civil liability on stock owners whose stock are involved in traffic accidents." This is the reply. Who suggested that initiative? Those members opposite. The statement continues— "The Government, mindful of the present rural downturn, has decided to defer its decision on this recommendation pending further consultation within the Government and with the insurance industry and with relevant rural industry organisations with a view to developing an acceptable code of conduct in this area in addition to other measures." Legislative Assembly 4841 20 November 1990

This was a crazy initiative right from the start and it took Mr Goss, who knows so little about rural affairs, about six months to decide to get rid of it. I do not think he has deferred it. I think he has thrown it in the wastepaper basket, as he should have. I want to refer to the short memories of some farm leaders. I say that with respect to those people who were in Toowoomba yesterday, because I believe that their memories are short. If honourable members look at the list of Australia's export industries, they will discover that the nine top industries are coal, wool, iron ore, wheat, alumina, beef, aluminium, oil and sugar. That list does not include the dairy industry, coarse grains or horticulture. I am not knocking the mining industries because they have earned Queensland a lot of income and provided many jobs. I do not care where the mine is, whether the resource is oil or something else, there will come a day when those companies turn the last shovelful. The only sustainable industries in this State and nation are those in agriculture that can be retained. I do not include secondary industries and I am not saying that I do not believe that secondary industries should be encouraged. I believe that something has to be done to encourage both primary and secondary industries right across the board. I cite the footwear industry. Australia had an excellent footwear industry, but it has practically gone. It has been scaled down to the point that it hardly exists. I want to cite some of the programs that the previous National Party Government had implemented to remind farmers and their leaders that it was not remiss in its dealings with the rural community. I challenge the Premier or any other Government member to deny that one of the greatest achievements of the previous National Party Government was the removal of death duties. Opposition members: Hear, hear! Mr Elliott: It used to destroy the family farm. Mr BOOTH: It destroyed the family farm and what should have been comfortable accommodation for those people to whom it was passed. When I was young, and right up until death duties were abolished, people attending funerals held the same conversation—will we be able to survive or will the farm or the house have to be sold? One of the greatest things achieved by the previous National Party Government was the abolition of death duties. I want to refer also to the exemption from land tax of properties worked by the owners. The previous National Party Government was proud of that achievement, which has been a great benefit to those people working their properties. However, it is only an exemption. If people such as the honourable member for Archerfield had their way, I am sure that that exemption would be taken away. I now want to refer to concessional rates of interest. The previous National Party Government, through the Agricultural Bank and the QIDC, tried to give farmers concessional rates of interest until they became established. That was an excellent idea that did the job. However, what happened? The QIDC, which took over from the Agricultural Bank, then got Polichronis disease and many people had the scheme abolished. I am aware that Mr Polichronis is now a member of the Bread Industry Authority. So he is in the dough now. That is another example of jobs for the boys. Anybody who said that the Labor Government would not persevere with jobs for the boys has only to look at instances such as that. I have heard it said by people in the country that farmers and producers could live with, perhaps, one Labor Government but they could not live with two. That is exactly what is happening right now. The farming and producing communities have been smashed by two Labor Governments—Federal and State. But, thank goodness, there is good news. The popularity of the Hawke Government is falling so rapidly that, according to the Bulletin, before long it will probably drop right through the floor. Legislative Assembly 4842 20 November 1990

I turn now to the establishment of the rural task force, which is to be chaired by Mr Tony McGrady. He has no knowledge of agricultural matters, nor does he live in a rural area; he lives in Mount Isa. Mr FitzGerald: A union stronghold. Mr BOOTH: Yes, a union stronghold. Nevertheless, he does live in the country. However, he does not know anything about the people with whom he will be dealing. I cannot see that he will do anything about some of the problems that are facing rural people. But let us look at some of the things that Cabinet, when it was in Toowoomba yesterday, could have decided to do. It could have agreed to do away with the massive hikes in farm vehicle registrations. One would have thought that that would have been the first thing Cabinet would have done. Cabinet should have said, "Right, we will go back to taws. We will reduce the registrations to the level at which they were originally, because we know that people are suffering as a result of them." I turn now to land rents. I am glad that the Minister for Land Management is in the Chamber. The recommendation in the Wolfe report that there be massive escalations in land rents has been deferred by the Minister. I do not know for how long, but perhaps it will not be for very long. Mr Veivers: He said that rural land had never had it so good. Mr BOOTH: Yes, he is the one who said that only a few months ago. The Minister for Primary Industries said that there were a lot of people who were mugs on the back of trucks. I think he is a little bit sorry that he said that. Mr Stephan: I don't think he remembered he said it. Mr BOOTH: No, he did not remember that he said it. It just slipped out. It was one of the things that he was thinking, and it popped out. Yesterday, in Toowoomba, Cabinet could also have given consideration to reducing the rail freight increases that were implemented on 1 November. Because the increases are greater on small packages, they will have a massive effect on the cost of spare parts, even out in Mr McGrady's area. That is a matter that should not be forgotten. Fuel prices were also responsible for putting farmers in real trouble. In common with the transport industry, most of the agricultural industries in Queensland and Australia rely on diesel fuel. In recent times, the cost of diesel has increased by more than 72 per cent. It is apparent that such an increase in one year will have a serious effect on the budgets of those in the rural sector. An article in today's Australian Financial Review states— "The president of the Queensland Graingrowers Association, Mr Don McKechnie said: 'I can never recall, in 30 years in the industry, having received such a good hearing across such a wide spectrum of issues.' " I cannot believe that Mr McKechnie's memory is so bad. I think that, when he meets his farmer colleagues, he will have something to answer for. As a result of what happened yesterday, the farmers will not be any better off. The only thing on which I would congratulate the Cabinet is its attempt to get more funds to help the QIDC. Mr Springborg: They have given back what they took away from them. Mr BOOTH: That is right. Farmers throughout Australia are unimpressed. What happened yesterday at Yass? The farm crisis rallies have not gone away. They will get worse. The people who are giving the farmers rhetoric will not get away with it. The Goss Government has been one of the most heartless of all Governments in dealing with country people. It has shown absolute disregard for those people. It is about time that the public was made aware of that disregard. Time expired. Legislative Assembly 4843 20 November 1990

Pollution in Gladstone Area Mr PREST (Port Curtis) (11.50 a.m.): Today, I wish to draw to the attention of four Government Ministers, namely, Messrs Hamill, Comben, Vaughan and Smith, a matter about which I ask that they give serious consideration and take positive action to eliminate. It relates to pollution problems that, at times, have made life in the Gladstone area unbearable. It is unbelievable that for the past 32 years the previous Government should have chosen to ignore the problems and, by its attitude, made the pollution control department a paper tiger and, in fact, a department that failed in its responsibility in every way. It is only now that the Department of the Environment has been allowed to monitor, in even a minor way, the pollution problems that have existed for years. That monitoring shows that coal dust is a major source of pollution in the Gladstone area. For years, Gladstone residents have been told that there was no known method of controlling coal-dust pollution. This has always been the case after each delegation of various authorities, such as the Gladstone Port Authority, or companies has returned from its respective fact-finding inspections and visits to other coal ports throughout the world. Yet, when I was a member of a Queensland State parliamentary delegation, which in October this year visited Japan, we were shown a coal-handling facility which is pollution free. That was the Idemitsu bulk terminal at Chiba. We were very impressed and, in fact, surprised to see how clean that operation was. We believe that this is a model operation that all coal-handling facilities should follow by implementing Idemitsu's research techniques and technology. When I told my story of this Idemitsu bulk-handling operation in the Gladstone Observer on 11 October 1990, I was surprised at the comments made by those people who have, in many ways, been responsible for this coal-dust nuisance. Bob Elliott, from BHP/Utah operations, Barney Point, said— ". . . the computerised Chiba operations represented the Taj Mahal of anti-pollution coal facilities and would cost an 'astronomical' amount to establish a similar set-up in Gladstone . . . we are aware of these terminals in Japan where cleanliness is a high priority—but they have the money to spend . . ." I ask: is Mr Elliott really saying that BHP/Utah companies in Australia, which are selling coal to Japan, are not making a dollar out of those coal contracts, but that Japan can afford to buy the coal, put in a Taj Mahal of anti-pollution coal facilities and not complain about the cost? Is he saying that he is aware of those terminals in Japan where cleanliness is a high priority, but that Queenslanders should not have or expect cleanliness in operations here? I ask: what about some form of cleanliness being given a high priority in Gladstone? That is why I am appealing to those four Ministers who are in control of the departments and authorities that are causing the pollution. Surely the Government will take some action against those companies, which have no consideration for the community. The motto of Idemitsu in Japan is: share prosperity with the local community. Why can BHP/Utah Barney Point not have a motto like that? For at least 22 years, those companies have been exporting coal from the terminal. Now they are saying that, when water is available and the winds are blowing at 30 to 40 knots, they will put on the garden sprinklers. That is not good enough. On Sunday, the whole of Gladstone was covered in coal dust, and on Monday the situation was almost as bad. Where was Mr Elliott's sprinkler system over the weekend? The Government, especially Mr Comben, must make that company comply with pollution standards. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr PREST: The Gregory cow-cocky or sheep-cocky asks whether this Government wants to close them down. He is not listening to what I am saying. Those companies, which export 20 million- odd tonnes of coal to Japan annually through the port, are making plenty of money. The Japanese companies can buy the coal from BHP/Utah, establish a Taj Mahal of anti-pollution coal facilities and install facilities that provide cleanliness and benefit to the people of Japan. However, the National Party says that Legislative Assembly 4844 20 November 1990

Australia should not expect that from its coal-producers. Unfortunately, that was the attitude of the National Party Government during the past 32 years. That is why the people of Gladstone have had to tolerate unclean living conditions. Their curtains and fittings are being ruined while multinational companies make millions of dollars per year. That is the attitude of the member for Gregory. The former chairman of the then Gladstone Harbour Board, Mr Fenton, also wrote to the newspapers about what I said about the Chiba and Idemitsu bulk handling facilities. He said— "Mr Prest could have saved Queenslanders quite a few dollars if he had gone to Auckland Point and had a look at the efforts the GPA had made to control the coal dust problem." They have also installed a garden sprinkler and planted some trees. I am not sure whether the water was to be used to eliminate the coal dust or water the trees. Either way, it is not effective. Mr Fenton could be excused for his comments, because he is a bitter man. He lost his generous unlimited expense account, chairman's allowance, unlimited overseas travel and a big car. That could explain his feelings of bitterness. Mr Fenton says that the Auckland Point facility uses water to combat the dust problem. Big deal! What about Idemitsu? At its terminal it has a bucket elevator continuous unloader; a large magnet that separates iron and other metallic contaminants from the coal; enclosed pipe conveyors for unloading coal, which reduce noise, provide greater flexibility of movement and eliminate the risk of coal overflowing and coal dust and pollution; a tunnel through which the coal is carried from the conveyor to the coalyard; and a 10-metre-tall retaining wall topped by another 5-metre- high fence to prevent coal dust from escaping from the yard. It is said that the only things that know that coal is stored there are the birds that fly over it. Supposedly, Australian companies cannot afford those measures, but the Japanese can. They are only too willing to eliminate pollution problems. However, the National Party believes that Australians should not expect that. I do. I ask the relevant Ministers to take action against those companies that are polluting the Gladstone region. Idemitsu's terminal also has a truck transportation system for land deliveries. All trucks loaded with coal are thoroughly washed and automatically weighed before delivery. It has a remote control system in which all equipment is operated from a control centre where weather conditions are carefully monitored for automatic control of sprinklers. It has a facility that, in the near future, will be capable of storing one to two million tonnes of coal pollution free. Why cannot Australia? I believe in the old saying: where there is a will, there is a way. The Gladstone Power Station, QAL, Comalco and the railways in particular could all gain immensely from the Japanese techniques and research, save much in relation to their products and receive more support from the citizens of Gladstone. Last Monday, I met with heads of departments from relevant companies and authorities. After addressing them about the Chiba operation, no-one questioned that it was not a good thing. Everyone agreed with it. Mr Marten Whitton from Wickham Gensol of Dubbo, who attended to demonstrate a sprinkler system for that company's trucks, assured me that what he had seen at Chiba was something to be proud of and that a similar system should be installed in Queensland. Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for the debate on Matters of Public Interest has now expired. At 12 noon, In accordance with the Sessional Order, the House went into Committee of Supply. Legislative Assembly 4845 20 November 1990

SUPPLY Estimates—Thirteenth and Fourteenth Allotted Days Estimates-in-Chief, 1990-91 Legislative Assembly Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (12.01 p.m.): I move— "That there be granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year 1990-90, a sum not exceeding $32,273,000 for General Public Services, Legislative Assembly (Consolidated Revenue)." Mr Chairman, in moving this motion I point out to the Committee several key points. Firstly, in the Westminster tradition, I am joined on the front bench by the Speaker of Parliament, the Honourable Jim Fouras. This is the only occasion during parliamentary sittings when the Speaker is able to play such a role in parliamentary debates, and he does so in an advisory capacity as the person responsible for the Parliament. Secondly, members who have sat in this House for some years may recognise the significance of this debate in that it is 17 years since Estimates for the Legislative Assembly have been debated at all. The debate this year comes about by the commitment of the new Government to be accountable to the Parliament and in turn to the people of Queensland. This year we see for the first time in the Parliament the full 19 Estimates being debated, that is, those for the 18 Government departments and the Legislative Assembly Estimates. However, given the tremendous growth in the parliamentary service over the past decade, expenditure in the various areas of the service should be of interest to all members, whose needs are accommodated by the service and its various committees. It also is an important debate in that it is the first time the Estimates have been debated since the formation of the Parliamentary Service Commission in 1988. In brief, the commission is constituted pursuant to section 6 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1988 and consists of the Speaker, who is the chairman, the Chairman of Committees, the Leader of the House, one other Government member, the Leader of the Opposition or his nominee and two other non-Government members. The Queensland Parliament is the first Parliament in Australia to have such a commission, which is modelled on successful commissions operating in the House of Commons and the New Zealand Parliament. The commission's functions are enumerated in the Parliamentary Service Act 1988 as follows— to determine major policies to guide the operation and management of the parliamentary service; to prepare budgets for the Legislative Assembly, the commission and the parliamentary service; to determine the size and organisation of the parliamentary service and the services to be provided by the parliamentary service; to be the employing authority for officers of and employees in the parliamentary service and determining their remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment; and to supervise the management and delivery of the services to be performed by the parliamentary service. I would also point out that the estimated expenditure for the Legislative Assembly (Parliamentary Service Commission) for the 1990-91 financial year represents an estimated increase, over the actual expenditure of last financial year, of $4,398,000 or 15.8 per cent. This increase is attributable to a number of factors. The budget for 1989-90 was Legislative Assembly 4846 20 November 1990 not fully spent, as provision had been made for special accommodation for parliamentary committees and it was anticipated that those committees would operate for a greater proportion of that financial year. Savings in the budget on the provision of special accommodation were made earlier this year when a decision was made to build extra committee rooms in the Parliamentary Annexe instead of renting accommodation in a nearby building. Savings were made in lower establishment costs, and ongoing savings will be made in not having to pay rent. In addition, the Parliamentary Service Commission funds all capital expenditure, including building projects, maintenance and upkeep, which were formerly included in the general budget of the Department of Works, now the Administrative Services Department. Provision has been made in this year's Estimates for the upgrading of members' electorate office equipment and contributions to superannuation funds. The forward provision for award increases has also been included this year. The upgrading of electorate office equipment will see the provision for the first time of standardised computers and printers in all 89 offices. When members were provided with computers some years ago, members were able to nominate the system and brand of computer they wanted. This has caused considerable difficulties for the back-up staff at Parliament House. The provision of standard computers will assist the back-up staff and will also allow the commission to obtain better service contracts. The computers which are now to be replaced have reached the end of their economic life and will be auctioned to the public by the Public Trustee. Superannuation contributions were previously provided for in Treasury Estimates. Forward award increases are now required by Treasury to be included in the Estimates. In addition, an amount is included to cover annual adjustments to members' entitlements and for general inflation. The other point to note is that the parliamentary budget consists of two main programs—the Legislative Assembly program and the parliamentary service program. Firstly, the goal of the Legislative Assembly program is to ensure that the 89 members of the Assembly are provided with appropriate support facilities and services to enable them to adequately represent their constituencies during their term in office. This includes salaries, allowances and transport of members. The Parliamentary Service Commission administers the members' entitlements handbook, which prescribes the administrative arrangements and allowances for members of Parliament. These entitlements are approved by the Executive Council. Included in the entitlements are provisions for electorate offices, equipment and electorate secretaries. As a result of the December 1989 State election, 39 new members were provided with appropriate facilities. An amount of $16,613,000 is being sought for this program, which consists of two subprograms: members' entitlements and secretarial support. Included in the first are provisions for members' salaries ($8,527,300), members' entitlements ($4,077,000) and members' transport ($734,000). The second, covering secretarial support, relates mainly to provisions for electorate offices ($1,896,000). As mentioned previously, the current range of computing equipment will be replaced, providing a more reliable, efficient and standardised system. General telephone facilities for members are also being reviewed for better public access. Provision is also included in the budget for general administration costs of $42,700 and miscellaneous expenses with respect to the offices of the Chairman of Committees and whips. The goal of the second program, the parliamentary service program, is to ensure that appropriate support services and infrastructure are available to allow members of Parliament to enact legislation to promote effective government, to ensure the maintenance of a safe physical environment for the operation of the Parliament, its employees and visitors, and to ensure that members and staff are adequately accommodated. The program provides for procedural advice, research and reference facilities, the reporting and editing of parliamentary debates, catering facilities, security, maintenance of buildings and other support services for members of Parliament in the parliamentary precinct. Legislative Assembly 4847 20 November 1990

The Parliamentary Service Act 1988-1990 provides the statutory basis for the Parliamentary Service Commission and the parliamentary service. The parliamentary service also includes an extensive committee system which provides in-depth reviews of issues of public and parliamentary concern for report to the Legislature. In 1989-90, certain committees, including the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice, the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review, the Travelsafe Committee and the Select Committee of Inquiry into Ambulance Services, were established to assist members to research and review matters of public concern and interest. The establishment of such committees provides for greater parliamentary scrutiny of issues. Included in this program are the subprograms of parliamentary procedure, Hansard editing and reporting, maintenance of the parliamentary complex, research, catering and committee activities. A total amount of $15,660,000 is sought. Principal costs in the parliamentary service program include: staff salaries, $4,332,700; buildings and services, $4,911,000; computer services, $1,153,500; general administration, $1,952,300; production of Hansard, $1,085,000; and the cost of parliamentary committees, $1,457,000. The balance of the amount of $15,660,000 relates to other smaller but important specialised areas of activity including the Table Office, parliamentary attendants, upkeep of gardens and grounds, Speaker's office, correspondence section, the committee secretariat and the operations of the select committees of the Parliament, catering and the Parliamentary Library. The annual overseas parliamentary mission is also catered for in this program and also included are contributions to superannuation funds. Budgeting is difficult in those areas of activity which relate directly to parliamentary and committee sittings, as the costs are closely related to sitting hours and the number of sitting days. In the Table Office and in parliamentary reporting, major costs incurred relate to the printing and binding of journals, parliamentary papers and Hansard. However, in close cooperation with the Government Printer, significant cost-savings have been achieved in these areas. The possibility of achieving further savings in these areas and elsewhere is under active review. Although provision has been included in this program for the expenses of various parliamentary committees, including the Public Accounts Committee, the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice, the Public Works Committee, the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review, the Select Committee of Inquiry into Ambulances Services and the Travelsafe Committee, most of these committees have not yet operated for a full financial year and it has not been possible to estimate their anticipated costs accurately. Costs of other committees, such as the Standing Orders Committee, the Privileges Committee, the Printing Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee, and the Parliamentary Service Commission are quite low as they are staffed by officers who support such committees as part of their everyday duties. In a debate such as this, I believe it is appropriate to place on record our appreciation to all the staff of the Parliamentary Service Commission for the support and assistance that they give to us as members of Parliament, and in particular record a special thankyou to our electorate secretaries who perform a very difficult job, often under extreme pressure and with very little assistance. Undoubtedly, today's debate will give members the opportunity to highlight the different sections of the parliamentary service and to outline areas which they believe could be improved and to mention where facilities and staffing for members could be improved. However, I should point out to members making these pleas that, when providing any facilities, a balance needs to be struck between what one would like and what the community can afford. This year's State Budget has seen an average increase of slightly over 7 per cent. The Parliamentary Service Commission budget has been increased by 15.8 per cent over last year's actual expenditure. Much of this increase above normal inflation increases will go towards providing new computer facilities and in funding the new select committees which were recommended in the Legislative Assembly 4848 20 November 1990

Fitzgerald report. In these tight economic times, I do not believe it would be possible to expand this budget any further. Mr Chairman, in conclusion, the growth that has occurred in the parliamentary service over the past decade has seen members provided with enhanced services commensurate within the limits of budgetary constraints. Facilities have been improved immensely for members in the parliamentary complex. It would be fair to say that these improvements in assistance to members have been made possible by the staff of the parliamentary service who have worked hard to ensure that the needs of all members are met within the limits of budget and resources. I commend the Estimates to the Committee. 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). For the information of honourable members, I point out that the administrative acts of the department are open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. Mr LINGARD (Fassifern) (12.14 p.m.): The Opposition appreciates this opportunity to debate these Estimates and pass on its thanks and congratulations to the many people who work in Parliament House. Not many people would appreciate the large number of people who work in Parliament House and the Parliamentary Annexe and are covered by these Estimates. There is the staff of the administration section, who deal with members' entitlements and pay, the staff of the computer section and the Hansard staff who work long hours—especially some nights—and receive very little in the way of congratulations from members of Parliament. The library is a rapidly expanding department located on level 6 and its staff work very hard and accede to most members' requests. The security staff at Parliament House work 24 hours a day maintaining security and have to be 100 per cent perfect all the time, because they never know what will happen. The cleaning staff keep Parliament House meticulously clean. The catering section is open to many demands made on the spur of the moment, depending on the number of functions taking place, yet its staff always seem to treat members extremely well. Under the control of Don Duncanson, Administrative Services Department personnel carry out all the repairs and maintain the standards that are favourably remarked upon by many visitors. The grounds staff keep the gardens and lawns in meticulous order. Special mention should be made this year of the very high standard of the roses and gardens cared for by the grounds staff. The attendants who look after this Chamber also look after the parking facilities and tours of the Parliament made by students. The Speaker's staff is also part of the Parliamentary Service Commission. All staff comes under the control of either the Clerk of the Parliament or the Speaker of Parliament. Perhaps it is ironic that it falls to me to reply on behalf of the Opposition to the Estimates of expenditure for the Parliamentary Service Commission. I say that because I adamantly believe that the Parliamentary Service Commission is one of the most impractical and ridiculous examples in Queensland's parliamentary process of the committee system gone mad. The system is open to criticism by me because I am a member of that commission, and I offer my criticism based on the very special circumstances of my two periods as Speaker of this Parliament. During my first period as Speaker, there was no Parliamentary Service Commission. Decisions relating to the Parliament were made by the Speaker, by the Clerk of Parliament and by the heads of sections within the parliamentary organisation. These decisions were made by reference to reports from special committees, such as the Parliamentary Buildings Committee and the Library Committee, to which the Leader of the House has referred. During my second term as Speaker, I was faced with a Parliamentary Service Commission consisting of four Government members and three Opposition members. The Speaker was chairman, the Leader of the House—obviously a very significant Cabinet member—was a member, Legislative Assembly 4849 20 November 1990 and the Chairman of Committees was another member. One of the most ridiculous features of the arrangement was that the Clerk of the Parliament was the secretary and took the notes—and he still does. Let me examine how ridiculous this situation is. In common with Ministers, the Speaker has a very important role in running a department. The Clerk of Parliament is really a director-general of his department. The Speaker is paid an amount similar to that paid to Ministers, yet he occupies the position on this commission of chairman. Even more ridiculous is the fact that the Clerk of Parliament, who is paid more than a Minister—and there is only one man in this Parliament who receives more than the Clerk of the Parliament—has to take the notes of the meetings. Would it not be ridiculous if, in the Department of Education, the Minister for Education and the director-general were respectively the chairman and the person who takes the notes at a meeting attended also by seven parliamentarians? It would be ridiculous to run the Department of Education in that way, yet that is the way in which this Parliament is being run and that is the position in which the Clerk of the Parliament and the Speaker are being placed, simply because someone wanted to create another committee. Honourable members should bear in mind the history of this commission. It was set up by a Speaker who was at loggerheads with Cabinet and wanted to create a completely separate group, independent of Executive power. The Parliamentary Service Commission made idealistic decisions reflecting the need of parliamentarians for more assistance in their electorate offices. What did the Parliamentary Service Commission do with that fine resolution? It sent the decision to Cabinet to seek approval, which shows that the decision-making of this Parliament is absolutely ludicrous. I hope that, before I finish my time in Parliament, I will either see the end of the PSC or have it completely re- formed. The Leader of the House has already stated that the Parliamentary Service Commission has no counterpart in Australia. There are only two other similar systems—one in New Zealand, which I have not seen, and one in the House of Commons, which is completely different from the one that exists in this Parliament. Of all the committees that have been established in this Parliament, the Parliamentary Service Commission is the most ridiculous. I am not against the concept of committees, but I am against members of Parliament having to spend all their time on committees. The only objective achieved by the setting up of parliamentary committees is that a parliamentary bureaucracy is being created that generates plenty of work for backbenchers, provides some responsible, chairman-type positions for upwardly mobile members on the Government's back bench, and attempts to pacify others. The only relevant philosophy I can suggest for some of the appointments that are being made to committees of this Parliament is that if the Government cannot control its backbenchers, it gives them a job. This Government inherited the Parliamentary Service Commission from the previous Government, and I have no qualms about recognising that fact. However, under the present Government, there can be no doubt that the role of the PSC has changed completely. The PSC is now the Right Wing of Cabinet and has been used to impose decisions on Cabinet. In relation to any matters of significance, the PSC must refer the matter to Cabinet for a final decision. The PSC has been used to impose a decision of Cabinet upon a member of Parliament—a fact into which I will not delve in detail during this particular discussion. Surely, that is not the intended role of the Parliamentary Service Commission. Under the previous Government, the PSC was initiated by a Speaker who had an axe to grind with Cabinet. He wanted a parliamentary organisation that was completely separate from Cabinet. That assertion can be borne out by the legislation that relates to the Parliamentary Service Commission. Section 23 of the Parliamentary Service Act states quite clearly— "The Parliamentary Service is not an instrument of the Executive Government of Queensland." Legislative Assembly 4850 20 November 1990

The former Minister who introduced the Act stated during the second reading stage that the intention of the PSC is— "to enhance the role of Parliament and provide greater recognition of its independence from the executive arm of government . . . The executive arm of the government will have no control over the commission." The intention was to set up the commission and give Cabinet no control over its functions, but honourable members should pay close attention to what is happening now. I ask honourable members: do you honestly believe that these Estimates show how members are not being controlled by decisions of Cabinet? Do you honestly believe that Cabinet is not controlling the fact that you do not have research assistants in your offices? When the Government's parliamentary catering committee recommends the price for meals in this Parliament and the ALP caucus and the Cabinet decide on another price, I ask: who is running this Parliament? It certainly is not the Parliamentary Service Commission. In his second-reading speech to the Parliamentary Service Bill in 1988, the Minister stated that the reforms would make Parliament more independent, stronger and better prepared to support all parliamentarians in undertaking their parliamentary duties. Under the new Act, the Parliamentary Service Commission could commission any person who, in its opinion, possessed expert knowledge or was otherwise able to assist in connection with the exercise of its functions, to make such inquiries or to conduct such research or to make such reports as may be necessary for the efficient carrying-out of any of its functions. That was done previously when Cullen Egan Dell was commissioned to look at the salaries of people working at Parliament House, but this commission has not done that during its present term. Rather than that, it has taken its advice from Cabinet and has truly become the Right Wing of the Executive. The PSC can be dominated by the Leader of the House, who is a senior member of the Cabinet. If the chairman of the Parliamentary Service Commission does not take a completely impartial role, the commission can be dominated by him. The commission is dominated by Government members who, in all reality, are not likely to depart from Government policy in their decision-making. Clearly, because the commission depends on its resources from the Executive, its proper functioning has been curtailed. It does not have direct access to funding from the Treasury without control or the right of veto by the Executive. When that happens, we see the failings of the Westminster system of committees where the Executive regards the committee as its own creation. It knows that it commands the Legislature and the purse-strings and it believes that the committees are there to do its bidding. I will make a quick comment about the costs of meals provided in Parliament in both the cafeteria and the dining room. I have always been of the very firm opinion that all food and drink served in those facilities must be covered by the charges imposed on those who avail themselves of that service. The taxpayer certainly should not have to supplement those costs. However, the cost of providing facilities and labour is a cost which should be covered by the employing authority, which in this case is the Government. Previously, Speakers and administrators of Parliament House encouraged the use of the dining rooms and function rooms for official functions. Ministers were encouraged to use those facilities, and the profits from those functions were used to decrease the costs imposed on members for meals. Following previous recommendations to the PSC—I might add that those recommendations were proposed by the present Leader of the House when he was chairman of the catering committee—more than $300,000 was spent on improvements to kitchen material for Parliament House. It is quite obvious that the present Government is not encouraging Ministers and the Speaker to use the parliamentary facilities for functions. Ministers are using outside venues for those functions. I know that figures have been prepared comparing costs of functions by previous Ministers and costs of functions by present Ministers. Clearly, that will be selectively leaked to gain political mileage. But the long-term effect is that, more and more, the costs of providing those catering facilities will be imposed upon the ordinary member of Parliament, as well as those people of the media and staff of Parliament House who use them. Legislative Assembly 4851 20 November 1990

The Parliamentary Service Commission must clearly define the ground rules for occupancy of offices and bedrooms in Parliament House during the interim period following general elections. On the night of 2 December last year, members of the ALP were entitled to celebrate, but senior members, including present senior Ministers, were not entitled, within hours of that election, to move into bedrooms and offices previously occupied by Ministers, the Speaker and the Premier. The fact that that occurred, with cupboards containing personal effects being opened, was a complete disgrace. It was even more disgraceful when it should have been known that the previous Premier and Cabinet Ministers retained their positions for several days until officially resigning to the Governor. What occurred with the Speaker's rooms was even more disgusting, because the Speaker is elected by Parliament and is not automatically replaced on the fall of a Government. However, the greatest disgrace was for members of the previous Government to return within a few days and find their personal material in boxes outside their offices. On the night of 2 December, the new Government was entitled to celebrate, but senior members of that Government were not entitled to return within hours of that election result and do what they did. Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. I point out that no Ministers moved into offices themselves. They were moved in by the parliamentary staff, who told them when they could move into offices. The Speaker did not move into the office in Parliament House until after he was elected by the Assembly. The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. Mr LINGARD: The Leader of the House is playing with the word "Ministers". Of course there were no new Ministers within hours of the election, which is the time about which I am speaking. When he talks about that, he is merely playing with words. The Parliamentary Service Commission should lay down clear guidelines on the procedure to be adopted in future. Within hours of the election result on 2 December, senior members of the ALP and senior members of Parliament came to this Parliament and went through all the offices. The Leader of the House knows that. He can play with all the words he wants to play with. I make another plea for the allocation of finance to cover the costs of the erection of the small dwelling which was removed during the restoration of this Parliament House in 1979. I believe that all the sandstone blocks from that original small dwelling are still at Kangaroo Point. I believe also that replacement blocks are available at the same place. The erection of that building would be on the grass lawn to the right-hand side as one enters the gates to the Parliamentary Annexe. The cost of the building should either be a one-off grant or incorporated into the cost of the new parliamentary building to be constructed on the corner of William and Alice Streets. I believe that building would fit in aesthetically with the Alice Street wing of Parliament House and it would soften the view of the annexe from the expressway. I ask the Government to consider a one-off grant to restore that building. Unless it is built quickly, the costs in future will be prohibitive. Surely that cost could be incorporated in funding allocations for the new building to be erected at the corner of William and Alice Streets. Finally, I cannot help commenting on the declining standards of dress in this Chamber and its surrounds. I do not believe that this Chamber is the place for sports coats or for slacks and jeans. More importantly, I do not believe that the verandas, passageways and dining rooms are places where sporting gear and joggers should be worn. I think it is an absolute disgrace to see what is happening around this parliamentary complex. It is very disconcerting to be showing overseas visitors through Parliament House only to see members of Parliament running around the verandas in singlets and shorts. During my overseas CPA tour at the beginning of this year, I spent a considerable amount of time discussing the televising of Parliament with the Speaker of the House of Commons, officers of the Parliament and members of the public. I must admit that the general concerns that I have always had about televising Parliament were not apparent Legislative Assembly 4852 20 November 1990 in England or in any of the other countries that I visited. First of all, there was no apparent bias in the reporting of the media. There certainly was not the bias in the television coverage that we see in the print media coverage. There was not the amount of grandstanding by members of Parliament that I thought might be obvious. In fact, there seemed to be a public contempt of the politician who might try to grandstand for the media. Attendance in the House certainly improved as a result of the televising of Parliament. However, obviously when the proceedings were not being televised, attendance was down. One of the obvious difficulties in providing television coverage in a Chamber such as the one in the Queensland Parliament is the limit to facilities for media cameras. To me, it is completely unprofessional to have tripods, leads and attendants with cameras in the Chamber. However, countries such as Singapore with restored, modern Chambers have built-in rooms so that the cameras can be hidden. Clearly, there is a case for televising Parliament. It should be investigated as soon as possible. Another matter that has been mentioned on many occasions is the extension of members' travel entitlements to allow members of Parliament to use the existing travel allowance to travel to Commonwealth countries in the Pacific region. There is a need for members of Parliament to travel to these countries not only for their own parliamentary experience but also to provide assistance and advice to members of Parliament in countries that have not had this assistance in the history of their own Parliaments. At present, this is done by members who travel on CPA trips, but much more needs to be done by all members of Parliament. Such a decision would not involve funds additional to those already provided. As I have said, the Opposition supports the Estimates that have been provided for the Parliamentary Service Commission and associated organisations of this Parliament, and it wishes to pass on its sincere thanks and congratulations to the many people who work in Parliament House. Ms POWER (Mansfield) (12.33 p.m.): I welcome the opportunity to speak in this Estimates debate. It is my intention to concentrate on matters that relate to support facilities for members of Parliament. All honourable members will welcome the provision of approximately $16.6m for distribution to the Legislative Assembly Program. Naturally, the Legislative Assembly Program exists to ensure that all members of Parliament are provided with appropriate support facilities and services to enable them to adequately represent their constituency during their term in office. As honourable members know, the Queensland Parliament is comprised of 89 electorates, with each electorate serviced by one member of Parliament and one electorate secretary. The administration of support facilities is placed in the hands of the Parliamentary Service Commission, which administers the handbook on members' entitlements. The role of the Parliamentary Service Commission is to oversee the program that provides the salaries, allowances, transportation and secretarial services which enable members to represent their respective electorates. I am pleased to say that during my time as a member of this Parliament the dealings that I have had with the staff of the Parliamentary Service Commission have always been congenial and any requests that I have made have been carried out efficiently. I therefore place on record my thanks for the assistance that the staff have provided over the past year. I am sure that all honourable members realise the importance of their electorate offices and their electorate secretaries in communicating and liaising with their constituents. In this regard, the administration of the electorate office—certainly in my case and I believe in the majority of cases—is handled by the electorate secretary. This is in part out of necessity, with members being unable to be present in their electorates at all times because of parliamentary commitments, committee meetings, functions and engagements within their electorates. Like any other office, but I believe more so in the case of an electorate office, this requires responsible office management. It is particularly true that in our role of representing the public, the electorate office should be run smoothly and efficiently. It is the focal point of our interaction with the constituency that we represent. If either I or my secretary fail to provide reasonable service, we will be judged Legislative Assembly 4853 20 November 1990 by the electorate as being uncaring and unhelpful. This is a fact that I can accept because I realise that members of Parliament are in a service industry—helping and providing assistance to our constituents. The electors judge us on our ability to deliver such a service, and the electorate office is our shopfront to the constituents. To fully carry out our obligations to the community requires not only good service but also the necessary facilities to allow for optimal delivery and provision of these services. This is a particularly pertinent point when one considers that members of Parliament are only entitled to one staff member. Any assistance that can be given with regard to facilities is therefore most welcome and can only assist members in servicing their electorates more thoroughly. I know that following my election I was dismayed by the office equipment that I inherited from the previous member. This should not be misconstrued as reflecting poorly on the previous member but is rather a reflection on the method of allocating resources that was previously in place. In the past, members purchased various pieces of electronic and computer equipment from their allowance or out of their own money. Naturally, in the latter case, the equipment was owned by the member and if and when the member was defeated at an election, that member had every right to take that equipment. I have no objection to this, but it does come as a shock to incoming members to find that they have no equipment on hand to begin work. That system meant that members could purchase any brand of equipment and it resulted in electorate offices being equipped with many different brands of computers and printers. When breakdowns occurred—as they inevitably do—it proved difficult and time-consuming to have repairs carried out because uniform and standardised equipment was not being used. I am therefore very pleased that new computers and printers are in the pipeline and that every electorate office will have the same brand, model and make of computer. I know that this will definitely ease the pressure on my electorate secretary, who is at present using outdated computer technology, and it should facilitate the more efficient delivery of services to constituents of all electorates. It will also make the servicing of machines a much simpler task. Similarly, the computing staff of the Parliamentary Service Commission will welcome the change because they will be able to advise electorate secretaries in a more efficient manner, sure in the knowledge that the advice that they give will apply to every office. It is also reassuring that the equipment will become the property of the electorate office, which means that any new member who takes up office in the future can do so with the assurance that he will be moving into an office that is fully equipped. At this stage, I place on record the admiration that I have for my electorate secretary, Detlef Jumpertz, and electorate secretaries in general. They are normally the first contact that constituents have with an electorate office, either when they physically enter the office or when they ring up with queries. Their role is a daunting one, for not only do they represent the member but also they reflect on the competency of the respective parties. In a lot of cases, they must act as a counsellor, mediator and adviser to the public, as well as disseminating information to the electorate. They often receive little public praise and, more often than not, when they have endeavoured to assist a constituent, and the outcome is not to the constituent's liking, they are subject to much unwarranted criticism and verbal abuse. I for one will support any moves to have their conditions upgraded and am particularly concerned that their fates are directly linked to the political fortunes of the member for whom they work. Moves should be made to give them the chance to transfer across to the public service, for they are too valuable a resource not to be absorbed into it. Similarly, I know from personal experience that the provision of an extra staff member would also be of assistance. Constituents are quite dismayed when I tell them that I am only entitled to one staff member. However, they are amazed that an office can be run so efficiently with the aid of only one staff member. This is a direct reflection on the standard and competency of electorate secretaries, and I sincerely hope that, in the near future, their lot will be improved. It is interesting to hear Opposition members calling for all these great innovations, but I remind them that they had 32 years to get some of this right. It is all very well Legislative Assembly 4854 20 November 1990 for the member for Fassifern to now pass comment on what needs to be done or what should be done. Ms Robson: He didn't do it when he was the Speaker. Ms POWER: I take that interjection from the member for Springwood. He certainly did not do it while he was the Speaker. As most members in this House know, I am very keen to see the commission investigate ways to establish a child-care centre in the George Street precinct for the use of parliamentarians, staff and public servants, both for men and women. Unlike the Opposition, I know that it cannot all be delivered in one year, but it would be remiss of me if I did not take this opportunity to place on record at least my ideas about the child-care centre. This step will be a landmark in Queensland's history. It will lead the way for all employers to follow in the setting up of child-care arrangements. It will give parliamentarians direct experience with the problems of establishing child-care centres. I believe that this initiative is long overdue, but it will be a recognition that both parents have responsibility for child-care. It will also recognise that all people should have equal opportunity to pursue their careers as they choose. A child- care centre in George Street will be a monument to good, responsible government for all. I, too, place on record my appreciation of the work done by the many employees in this House. In December, everything was very new to me and, having been in the teaching service for many years, I felt like an apprentice starting work all over again. . Mr Schwarten: And doing a good job, I might add. Ms POWER: Thank you. I have found the attendants throughout to be polite and helpful. From the minute I drive in, I always find that I am greeted with smiles. I would like to actually highlight some areas for special attention. Firstly, I place on record my appreciation to the Speaker and his staff. In this year alone, I have already brought through this House a number of visiting Japanese teachers, a Russian visitor and some interstate visitors. No matter what the Speaker's commitments are, he takes time out to meet the people coming through and welcome them, and he does it with friendliness. I know from the people that I have brought through this House that they have certainly appreciated that formality from him. I again place on record my thanks to him and his staff for all that they do to assist members. With respect to catering, I note the comments made by the member for Fassifern. I admit that at times I have been critical of the catering in this House, but I have actually made a bit of a turn around in the time that I have been in this place. Members do not often get a choice of where they will eat, and it is pleasant to think that one can go downstairs knowing that a reasonable meal can be obtained without one's pocket being ripped off. A number of people from my electorate have visited the House and have eaten in the Strangers' Dining Room and they have been very impressed with the service and with the renovations to that part of the House. I believe that honourable members play an important part in the history of Queensland by having the House on show and inviting people in to see it. I do not believe that the House is denigrated in any way if it is sold in the proper manner. I pay particular tribute to the library and its staff. As an avid reader from way back, I have really enjoyed my access to the library. I have found the staff to be ever helpful. They are only ever just a phone call away. The only criticism that I can make is that sometimes they find me too much information and I have a problem with actually sifting through the material that they supply to me. I have no complaint about the access to and the service from the library. I, too, wish to mention the parliamentary committees, as did the member for Fassifern. I suggest that perhaps the member for Fassifern and others have very little idea about the processes of democracy, and that in fact committees are a good learning Legislative Assembly 4855 20 November 1990 process. I particularly mention my work on the Select Committee of Privileges. I have found that the information that I have gathered from the reading I did in order to be able to properly participate in the deliberations of that committee is information that I do not feel I would otherwise have learnt. It is probably true for most new members that their committee work has actually given them a learning experience that they would not otherwise have had. I support the Estimates before the Committee. Dr WATSON (Moggill—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (12.45 p.m.): I join with the Leader of the House, the member for Fassifern and others in expressing appreciation of the support and help that is given by members of the parliamentary staff, the Speaker and the staff of the Speaker's office. To all of the people working within the parliamentary precincts, we in the Liberal Party express our gratitude and thanks. In common with everyone else, we also recognise the importance of the role of electorate secretaries. I agree with what the member for Mansfield said about electorate secretaries. In my own case, I have not only a very efficient and attractive secretary but also one who makes a great contribution to the workings of the Parliament and the parliamentary system within this State. Because the Leader of the Liberal Party, Denver Beanland, will go into the Estimates in more detail, I will concentrate on only three very brief areas. The first relates to the standardisation of equipment in electorate offices. I support the move by the Government and by the Parliamentary Service Commission to standardise the computer equipment. I believe that the way in which that standardisation has been undertaken has been quite successful. From the reports of my electorate secretary, who was one of the electorate secretaries chosen to come to Parliament House to test the equipment from time to time, I can say that the process that has been adopted has been very good. I congratulate the Leader of the House and his staff on accepting the feedback from the electorate secretaries and altering the equipment that will be provided. That process was carried out on a bipartisan basis. From what I can see, it has been an excellent process. I am interested to see exactly what the outcome will be. In paragraph 9.47 of the report of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission entitled Report on Queensland Legislative Assembly Electoral System, the commission recommended "that a telephone answering machine be installed in the electorate office of each MLA". Although I applaud the commission on that recommendation, I think it is pretty unfortunate that a major review committee such as EARC has to make a recommendation such as that. If electorate offices are to be run efficiently, they are the standard sorts of facilities that ought to be provided through the Parliamentary Service Commission. I understand, as the Leader of the House said, that there will be restrictions on the amount of money that is available. However, in the running of any office, be it a business office or an electorate office, the provision of certain facilities is important. I think that, in this day and age, a telephone answering machine is critical. I suggest that, perhaps, dictating and transcribing machines are also quite fundamental. They are not large-expense items, but they ought to be a part of a standard electronic package that is provided for each electorate office. I would encourage the Leader of the House and the Parliamentary Service Commission to look at it more broadly than just the computerisation aspect to ensure that a total package of electronic services is available in the electorate offices. Mr Mackenroth: We are looking to do it for next year. Dr WATSON: I look forward to the Leader of the House bringing it forward. Mr Mackenroth: I said,"We are looking to do it for next year." I didn't say that we would give it to you. Don't get too carried away. Dr WATSON: I would have thought that they are the kinds of things that would benefit the efficient running of all electorate offices. Mr Mackenroth: I agree with you. One of the first things that I bought was a dictating machine for my office. Legislative Assembly 4856 20 November 1990

Mr Schwarten: Yes, I bought one, too. He's too miserable. Dr WATSON: I already owned some of these things. I did not have to go and buy them. However, I think that, in the future, they should be a part of a standard package for all members of Parliament. That is something to think about. My second point relates to library facilities. I think all of us probably understand the necessity for a first-rate parliamentary library. I encourage the Parliamentary Service Commission to ensure that it maintains a very high standard of library, library facilities and staff. The member for Mansfield indicated that each of us has only one electorate staff member—an electorate secretary. Therefore, because we have no other research support, I think it is important, when we debate Bills before the Parliament, that a strong research support staff is provided within the library. I ask that, in the allocation of funds under difficult circumstances, at no time should the research facilities in the parliamentary process be sacrificed. If those research facilities are sacrificed, members of Parliament will have a reduced ability to contribute to the debate before the Parliament. As the member for Mansfield also mentioned, I think it is important that appropriate research facilities be provided, not only for the Privileges Committee but also for other parliamentary committees, such as the Public Accounts Committee. Members of such committees need good research staff. If that staff is not provided to the committee, it must be provided somewhere centrally, and the library research staff can help to provide that research. My last point concerns the report of the proceedings of this Chamber. I refer to the need to provide privilege for the Hansard proofs. One of the things that I can recall during the short time that I was a member of the Federal Parliament is that, in the morning when members received on their desks proofs of the debates of the previous day and night, those proofs were protected under privilege. I understand that, in relation to the report of the proceedings of this Chamber, there may be some question of whether or not that is privileged. I encourage the Government and, obviously, the Chairman of Committees and the Speaker to investigate that matter thoroughly so that perhaps at some time in the future we do not have to be concerned about the prohibition that attaches to the proofs, namely, that they are proof only and are not to be copied. In today's environment, it is particularly important to be able to transmit information quickly. If the report of those proceedings was printed and gained the privilege of this Parliament, that would facilitate the processes of this Parliament. I hope that my comments will be considered at some time in the future. Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (12.53 p.m.): I support the motion before the Committee that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $32.273m for the purpose outlined in the motion. This approach of debating each of the Estimates is very welcome. However, it is important to recognise that in some other Legislatures there is specific provision for the expenditure on the Legislature to be dealt with separately from the normal Budget process handled by the Executive. I refer in this respect to the New Zealand Parliament and make mention of it because it is part of the process of ensuring the separation of powers between the Executive and the Legislature, which is particularly important when one operates under the doctrine of responsible Government whereby Ministers of the Crown are selected from within the Legislature. It is pleasing that this debate on expenditure for the Legislature is being accorded its due place. However, one might hope that in the fullness of time the Parliament itself might seize control of the Budget process for the Parliament and for the Parliamentary Service Commission rather than simply being part of the overall Budget process handled through the Treasury. I welcome the expenditure for which provision has been made and the indication from the Leader of the House when introducing the motion that the Budget has been increased by 15.8 per cent over last year's actual expenditure. There is a need for real resources to be applied to parliamentary committees if they are to achieve the goals which Mr Fitzgerald, QC, contemplated for them. Throughout the course of this year, parliamentary committees have been quite active. This year, as chairman, I have already written six parliamentary committee reports—three from the Select Committee of Legislative Assembly 4857 20 November 1990

Privileges and three from the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review. I am mindful that the need for resources to those parliamentary committees is very real indeed. The savings that have been made in accommodating those committees within the parliamentary complex itself are welcome. I note from the speech made by the Leader of the House that the savings in the Budget in respect of building extra committee rooms within the Parliamentary Annexe rather than renting accommodation were substantial and should represent a substantial saving of ongoing rent. Moreover, they should be more appropriately located within the parliamentary complex itself, although one must look carefully to ensure that adequate accommodation is made available for those committees. At the moment, they sit in modest and frugal circumstances. The need for them to be accommodated less frugally should not go without comment. In this regard, it is important to note the recommendations of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission in respect of the possibility of extra allowances for members of the Legislative Assembly, which are set out in Chapter 9 of the report of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission on the Queensland Legislative Assembly electoral system. At page 93, the commission sets out a number of recommendations for additional resources in the case of members representing electoral districts of 100 000 square kilometres or more in area. It recommends that such members be provided with four-wheel-drive vehicles with a corresponding reduction of $5,000 per annum from their electorate allowance; the members concerned to be responsible for fuel and oil, but otherwise for the vehicles to be maintained at Government expense; an additional staff member in their electorate offices; the ability to convert unused air travel warrants and the installation of 008 telephone numbers—that being a recommendation in respect of all members of Parliament whose electorates include more than one STD zone. I join with the honourable member for Moggill in commending the suggestion as to a dictaphone and answering machine. Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2.30 p.m. Mr FOLEY: I turn to the provision made for the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and note the contents of the report of the Parliamentary Service Commission for the year ended 30 June 1990. Honourable members are aware of the very fine work done by the Parliamentary Reporting Staff in this place. In terms of saving expenditure from the public purse, I welcome the introduction of the computerised word-processing facilities. I note from page 18 of the report that this has resulted in a reduction of 46 per cent in the cost of the printing of Hansard by Goprint. That is to be welcomed by all honourable members of the Parliament. The matter alluded to at page 18 of the report was referred to by the honourable member for Moggill and again I respectfully concur with the honourable member's views. The annual report notes that the existing facilities enable the Parliamentary Reporting Staff to provide Ministers and other members of Parliament with a clean copy of their questions, answers or speeches within an hour and a half of the questions being asked, the answers being given and the speeches being made. However, because privilege is thought to attach only to the weekly blue pamphlet copy of Hansard and the bound volumes, inquirers outside the Parliament are required to wait approximately two to three weeks before they are able to obtain a copy of the material in question. This does seem to be an odd anachronism in a system which is otherwise so sophisticated. It is a matter that has been addressed in other jurisdictions. The annual report of the Parliamentary Service Commission makes the comment that, if privilege were to be extended to the daily unrevised proofs provided to members of Parliament, ministerial offices and Government departments, outside organisations and members of the general public would be able to obtain, on the following day, copies of speeches made in Parliament. That is a matter which perhaps warrants attention in order to ensure that the public has as much access as possible to the proceedings of this House. It is curious that many journalists find themselves obliged to take their own notes or to make tape-recordings of the broadcasts communicated through the internal television system when, at the same time, we have a very sophisticated and excellent Parliamentary Reporting Staff recording the proceedings of this House. Legislative Assembly 4858 20 November 1990

I turn to the provision of facilities in the Parliamentary Library. I join with other honourable members in expressing my thanks for the assistance and cooperation of the library staff. Several matters are worthy of attention in this respect. The first is the access by members to the Parliamentary Library out of hours. Having been in private practice as a barrister for some years—— Mr Welford: And a very good one; an outstanding member of the Queensland bar. Mr FOLEY: That really is an interjection that I am obliged to accept. The Supreme Court library is accessible to counsel and to solicitors of the Supreme Court on a very liberal basis and it is of considerable assistance to legal practitioners to be able to get access to a law library. Consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility of access to the library out of sitting hours and out of the 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. slot on non-sitting days. I understand that that may give rise to costs. It is perhaps a matter to which attention should be given in order to ensure that members may avail themselves of the resources of the library with a view to presenting the highest possible standard of speeches in this House. I need to make one other comment with respect to the expenditure of money on the library. Just as the use of computer facilities has assisted Hansard to offer a better service, so have the computer facilities in the library assisted library staff to offer a computer indexing system. It is, however, accessible only by the staff and I respectfully urge that consideration be given to a system which is sufficiently user friendly to enable those of us who are computer illiterate to gain access, of our own devices, to the indexing system rather than have to be dependent upon the library staff, particularly when that library staff has much important work to do in the nature of research. I support the motion before the Committee. I note with great pleasure the opportunity that this Parliament has to debate, for the first time in its history, expenditure of this nature. Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (2.37 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I join in the debate and support the motion before the Committee. I note the comments from both sides of the Committee, particularly with regard to the facilities provided for members to assist them with the duties they have to perform in representing their constituents and the overall running of this part of the Government. I refer particularly to the Parliament, which is separate from the Government, no doubt as honourable members have had pointed out to them before. We are debating a substantial Vote. The citizens of Queensland should consider, in an overall context, what it costs them to run this parliamentary system. Many consider that the cost is considerable, but I believe that it is a very small price to pay for democracy in this State. When the cost is compared with overall Government expenditure, other forms of expenditure and the number of people employed, this is a relatively small amount of money. There are 89 members in this Chamber and at times we play politics about the number of members there should be in this Parliament. Some members believe that there should be fewer members and others believe that there should be more. However, relatively speaking, compared with the number of public servants and other people who serve the people of Queensland, this is a very small number of people. This debate refers to the Vote that is to be approved for the performance of the duties relating to Parliament itself. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, there has been a growth in the committee system, which has resulted in a not inconsiderable cost to the people of Queensland. The previous Government started the ball rolling. The Parliamentary Service Commission was set up under legislation that was introduced in this Chamber on 7 September 1988 by Brian Austin, who was then Leader of the House. At that time there was considerable debate on the legislation and all parties supported it. I was privileged to be a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission right from the start and was part of the inaugural committee that looked at the New Zealand system and at some of the problems associated with setting up this Parliamentary Service Commission, which Legislative Assembly 4859 20 November 1990 was the first of its kind in Australia. Some of the speeches made at the time the Parliamentary Service Bill was introduced are worth noting. In his second-reading speech, Brian Austin stated— "In May 1985, the Government announced its intention to prepare legislation to enhance the role of Parliament and provide greater recognition of its independence from the executive arm of government. This Parliamentary Service Bill, together with legislation to establish a public accounts committee, which will be introduced later in this session, will effectively achieve these objectives. This Bill provides for Parliament to determine its own budget and manage its own affairs through a seven-member Parliamentary Service Commission. Ministers, except for the Minister who is also the Leader of the House, are specifically excluded from membership of the commission. The executive arm of government will have no control over the commission. The all-party commission will be chaired by the Speaker and will act, in effect, as a board of directors for the management of the services provided to members and to this House." I wonder if members really believe that the Parliamentary Service Commission is completely separate from the executive arm of Government. At some of the early meetings of the Parliamentary Service Commission members discussed ways in which it could truly become independent. One way was to give it the right to set its own budget. One concept floated at the time was that the Parliamentary Service Commission would determine its own budget, advise the Treasurer of how much money was required and would then be forced to live within that budget. Unfortunately that has not happened because, as I understand it, any expenditure by the Parliamentary Service Commission still requires Executive approval before money can be spent. This is very regrettable and was not set out in the original legislation. The commission should gain its independence as soon as possible. If it continues to be an arm of the Executive Government—which is what I believe it to be at this stage—the charade must end and the Parliamentary Service Commission should be called for what it is. It is incorrect for this commission to go back to the Treasurer and Cabinet in order to get approval for expenditure. During the debate on the Parliamentary Service Bill on 12 October 1988 Mr De Lacy, who was then Opposition spokesman, stated— "We in the Opposition see this as a genuine attempt to give members of Parliament control over their own destiny. It is very important for Parliament to possess this power—the power over its own resources—because that sort of power is fundamental to its legislative actions. . . . Unfortunately, during the twentieth century Executive dominance of the Legislature has become the reality in Westminster systems." The honourable member also quoted from an article written in 1983 by Kenneth Wiltshire titled Parliament & Bureaucracy. Part of the quote states— "One outcome of this situation has been the unhealthy practice of leaders of the house (i.e. a government minister), becoming the spokesman for the parliament's administration." I wonder if things have really changed, because it is a fact of life that the Leader of the House plays a very active part in the Parliamentary Service Commission. That is not healthy. I know it is important that the Executive has a member on the Parliamentary Service Commission for liaison purposes, but I do not believe that member should dominate and attempt to get matters approved or not approved by Cabinet. I spoke in the same debate and was later corrected by Sir William Knox, who spoke after me. He stated— "This legislation is very welcome. A number of members in the House, including me, have been talking about this for some time in several of the previous Budget debates. It is very interesting that one of the earlier speakers, the member for Lockyer, referred to the Estimates being under the control of the Parliament. Legislative Assembly 4860 20 November 1990

There have been Estimates for the Parliament. There has never been a situation in which there have not been Estimates for the Parliament of Queensland. Of course, on occasions, when the parliamentary Estimates were debated, Mr Speaker was seated on the floor of the House and debated the Estimates of the Parliament, or the Legislative Assembly. There has never been a situation in which there have not been Estimates for the Parliament." It is wrong to say that this is the first time that the Estimates of Parliament have been debated. However, it is certainly the first time that the Estimates of the Parliamentary Service Commission have been debated, because the legislation was introduced only in 1988. During its first year of operation the commission continued without a budget of its own because the Budget for that year had already been passed so that the Budget handed down the following year was the first to include the Estimates of the Parliamentary Service Commission. It should also be pointed out to the people of Queensland that they have to decide which way they want this Parliament to work. So that the general public can be informed of the way in which the parliamentary process works, the media liaise with the general public by reporting activities of members of this Parliament. Those of us who, as members of committees, have had the privilege of travelling to New Zealand would have observed the system whereby legislation goes from the Chamber to standing committees of the Parliament for examination and report. Although on occasions this process can be time-consuming, I understand that delays are not lengthy and that the process ensures that members of the Opposition as well as backbench members of the Government are informed of the views expressed to the standing committee. I understand that on occasions the standing committee will meet for only a couple of days to make inquiries only, and may not call for public submissions. Over the years, the costs associated with members' entitlements have increased. I do not think that members of the public realise exactly what a member of Parliament does with his time. Mr Mackenroth: Don't tell me. Mr FITZGERALD: The Minister knows. All honourable members would appreciate how busy the life of a parliamentarian is. It is unfortunate that members of the public think that parliamentarians meet for only a couple of days during the year or for relatively short periods and that, for the rest of the time, they are lazing around and eating sumptuous meals at taxpayers' expense. Mr Mackenroth: How many of them say to you, "When are you going to Canberra?" Mr FITZGERALD: There is an element of pitiful ignorance on the part of the general public, but I invite those people to observe the itinerary of members of Parliament and ask themselves, with so few hours at the disposal of parliamentarians for personal matters, how parliamentarians keep their sanity. Complaints have been made about the cost of meals provided at Parliament House. I believe that the cost of meals should be kept at a very low rate and that members should not have to receive a meal allowance. It would be easy for parliamentarians to fiddle the books and change the procedure so that they pay the usual restaurant prices for meals and then claim the amounts as an allowance, which would amount to a great deal of completely unnecessary paperwork. All that a parliamentarian needs to do is explain to people that he or she is performing duties as a member of Parliament and that it is really up to the taxpayer to provide meals on the same basis as meals are provided for any good organiser. If people want members of Parliament to receive a full reimbursement for the price of meals, so be it; but I think it is a waste of time. It can be equated to the provision of sleeping accommodation for parliamentarians who are fortunate enough to live outside the metropolitan area. Those facilities are provided for members' benefit and they are a privilege. Legislative Assembly 4861 20 November 1990

Very often, members of Parliament undersell themselves. They try to equate their position with what they consider somebody else to be worth. I think parliamentarians should say that it is a privilege to be a member of Parliament and a privilege to serve people; that they recognise that they hold their office only because of the wish of the people; and that, while they are members of Parliament, they will perform their duties and tasks to represent their constituents to the best of their ability. I do not believe that members of Parliament should apologise for the privileges and the trappings of office in any way whatsoever. After all, those privileges are not provided for the individual, but attach to the office or position. I believe that members of Parliament should not be ashamed to say that the privileges are appropriate for the position. I think that the faster that explanation is given to people, the faster people will understand. Members of Parliament should say to people who complain, "You can defeat me and put someone else in my place, but I believe that they, too, should have the same privileges as I have." I wish to draw the attention of the Chamber to the inconvenience of having committee rooms jammed into the Parliamentary Annexe. Although previous speakers have referred to the advantage of having committee rooms contained in one building, I point out that the Parliamentary Annexe is becoming too small for the functions it is required to fulfil. I know that present Government members who occupied Opposition offices for a number of years in the past would appreciate that they are not the greatest offices one could have. Mr Mackenroth: They served us well and they will serve you well for a long time. Mr FITZGERALD: I note the Minister's threat; but I notice also that he is smiling, so he must have said those words in jest. I do not think he believes what he has just said. Plans should be made for additional accommodation, and I ask the Minister to indicate his intentions in relation to the area between Alice Street and William Street, bordered by the river. I would be interested to know what the next stage will be in relation to that site because, taking into account the committee system that has been set up, reasonable conditions should be provided for the staff. I take up the point raised by the member for Yeronga in relation to all stages of the publication of Hansard. I am sure that, as a member of the Privileges Committee, the honourable member would have read the report of a previous Privileges Committee that was presented to Parliament. I notice that the member for Archerfield is nodding his head because he was a member of that previous committee and knows the report to which I am referring. At the moment, considerable doubt surrounds the publication of Hansard and the status of the proof pulls. The recommendation of the previous Privileges Committee was that legislation should be presented to the Parliament to remove any doubt about whether Hansard is a privileged document. It would be unfortunate if a court case arose over whether a document was privileged or not. I can well remember a previous Leader of the House tabling a blue pamphlet copy of Hansard to prove that it was privileged when action had been threatened against a member who had referred to material contained in a blue pamphlet copy. In conclusion, I wish to thank all the staff who provide members of Parliament with services and assist them in the performance of their duties—the Hansard staff, the library staff, the catering staff and attendants. I look forward to their assistance being provided to me for quite a number of years to come. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (2.51 p.m.): With a 1990-91 total budgetary outlay of $65,164,000, the program area of Executive and Legislative Services represents a sizeable investment in democratic government by the people of Queensland. The corresponding figure for 1989-90 was $59,188,000, with only $56,553,000 actually being expended. The increase represents to some extent the impact of inflation, but additional rises in cost may be put down to a greater demand on services brought about by a change in Government. I turn to the office of Governor. To provide for the constitutional functions of the Governor is a right and proper area of expenditure for the Government in a western Legislative Assembly 4862 20 November 1990 parliamentary democracy such as ours. The figure of $1,054,000 represents only a $2,000 increase over the last financial year. As the Queen's representative in this State, the office of Governor plays an important role in providing Executive stability for the process of government. The viceregal establishment and the normal activities pertaining to Government House are obviously funded from consolidated revenue, and, of course, they generate no income of their own. All 89 members, as detailed in the members' entitlements handbook, are provided as indicated by the program goal with "appropriate support facilities and services to enable them to adequately represent their constituency during their term in office". The administration of that and other important programs is in the hands of the Parliamentary Service Commission. Current members of Parliament on that commission are the Speaker of the House, the Honourable Jim Fouras; the Chairman of Committees, Clem Campbell; the Leader of the House, the Honourable Terry Mackenroth; and other members, Messrs Lingard, Beanland and Smyth, and Mrs McCauley. We should be appreciative of the efforts put in on our behalf by that group in addition to their already heavy individual workload. As indicated in the commission's report recently tabled in the House, in the past year a number of important matters were dealt with by the commission. Those included a review of staff salaries by Cullen Egan Dell and a reorganisation of the catering staff. Recommendations to the Government were also made relating to parliamentary accommodation, various members' entitlements, a review of electorate assistance and salaries, replacement of major computing equipment for the service, and the upgrading of computer facilities to members' electorate offices. That matter was canvassed at length this morning by the member for Mansfield. I acknowledge the valuable points made by her. Further recommendations were made in respect of the second training seminar for electorate secretaries and the upgrading of the conference room for better use by parliamentary committees. As well, recommendations were made for the approval of financial guidelines for the office of Speaker and the necessary construction of rooms to cater for committee staff. I note that $16,613,000 has been set aside this financial year to meet the cost of salaries, allowances, transportation, secretarial services, equipment and stationery requirements. As a result of the 1989 State election, more than 40 per cent of electorate secretaries were new appointees of the 39 first-term members, of which I am one. As outlined earlier, training in the use of the word processor was undertaken in June, when all electorate secretaries were given the opportunity of attending a seminar conducted in Brisbane. I convey my thanks to officers of the Legislative Assembly who organised and conducted the seminar. Besides conducting a course on the use of the word processor, the opportunity was taken to familiarise electorate secretaries with the services provided within the parliamentary precinct. I know that my secretary appreciated the opportunity greatly. Most, if not all, members welcome the decision to substantially enhance the quality of computing equipment in electorate offices. Current equipment is, generally speaking, out of date and far from reliable. Page 22 of the program statements booklet also offers the encouraging news that— "A review is currently being undertaken of the need for enhanced telephone facilities in electorate offices to allow for better public access to members and greater capacity for members to access parliamentary services." According to the report of the Parliamentary Service Commission— "Future initiatives by the unit include the provision of a more reliable and cost effective link to the State Government's central computing facility the Centre for Information and Technology and Communications. Electronic links to the electorate offices which would provide the electorate office staff with electronic mail to Government offices in Brisbane as well as to one another are under investigation." It would be remiss of me at this point not to acknowledge the excellent services provided by travel officer Ted Newton. I rely heavily on Mr Newton's expertise in that Legislative Assembly 4863 20 November 1990 area, as do other country members. As the commission's report points out, a lot of the bookings are quite complex and frequently subject to change. The recent report by EARC highlights certain deficiencies in what is provided for members to adequately represent their constituents. EARC makes recommendations which I am sure will in due course be considered by the Parliamentary Service Commission. Included in those recommendations is the provision of a telephone answering machine in all electorate offices. I have provided one for myself and find it to be an invaluable aid. Another recommendation is for the installation of a 008 telephone facility where the electorate encompasses more than one STD zone. In electorates of 100 000 or more square kilometres, EARC recommended such things as the option to be provided with a four-wheel- drive vehicle under certain conditions, an additional staff member in electorate offices, the conversion of unused return air travel warrants to Brisbane to internal electorate air travel, and a 008 telephone number. I note that EARC specifically mentions the current electorates of Cook, Warrego, Flinders, Gregory and Mount Isa. There is no doubt in my mind that honourable members representing those electorates could offer an improved service to their constituents should some or all of those recommendations be taken up. I refer now to Budget Paper No. 3, page 24, which outlines the subprograms associated with the support services provided under the parliamentary service program. In 1990-91, a sum of $15,660,000 is available to provide those valuable services. Let me deal firstly with the extensive committee system which is now in place. New committees established during the life of this Parliament include the Travelsafe and Ambulance Committees. I am proud to serve on the Ambulance Committee. Those committees are additional to those which already existed, including the Privileges Committee, the Subordinate Legislation Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Works Committee. I mention also the two new committees that were established last year, the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice and the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review. The work of all-party committees is a sign that democracy is in a healthy condition. That system works to good effect overseas, and initial impressions gained by me would indicate its future in this State is equally bright and should be continued and expanded. Offices were constructed within the annexe to accommodate the operations of some of the standing committees. Those facilities will, no doubt, enable the committees to better discharge their duties. I note the comment by the member for Lockyer that the rooms are rather cramped. I agree with that comment. We will have to investigate that matter. A staff of 39, which includes three apprentices, forms the catering division. The member for Bowen, Mr Ken Smyth, heads the building and catering advisory committee, which makes recommendations to the Parliamentary Service Commission. As with all staff, the catering division provides a service second to none. The staff's efficiency and courteous interaction with honourable members is worthy of praise. In our busy schedules as members, it would be quite easy to not recognise the extent to which others put themselves out to enable us to most effectively fulfil our duties. It has been my observation that the courtesies granted members by staff is reciprocated. A small army of security officers, cleaners and building tradesmen work year round to ensure the parliamentary working environment is both safe and well maintained. Page 27 of the Parliamentary Service Commission report states— ". . . renovation of kitchens, alterations to Annexe bedrooms, provision of offices for newly formed Committees and extensions to the Administration Office. Maintenance matters received prompt attention as required." I am appreciative of the efforts put in by those people. Money spent in this area is important to the efficient operation of the Parliament. The existing arrangements with the Department of Administrative Services would appear to be satisfactory. I note that the commission actually recommends their continuation. Legislative Assembly 4864 20 November 1990

I turn now to the workings of the Parliamentary Library. As a new member of Parliament, I have made extensive use of the Parliamentary Library—no doubt adding considerably to the already heavy workload of library staff. In all honesty, my ability to operate effectively in this place would be most seriously curtailed were it not for the support of the library. On page 22 of its report, the Parliamentary Service Commission offers an interesting comment about the composition of library clientele, namely that the figures show a reversal of the longstanding trend of greater usage by Opposition parliamentarians. No doubt that can be partially explained by the size of the Goss Government's majority in this Parliament. However, that does not tell the full story, because in the past majorities have been equally large. I suggest that this increased usage of the library by Government members is reflective of the desire by members on the Government side to mount logical arguments, soundly based on fact, with supporting statistical detail. It is a shallow art indeed to stand in this Chamber and embark on a mind-numbing wordfest, lacking in substance. Surely the mere utilisation of the available time should not be taken as the benchmark for active participation in the activities of the Parliament. Although I have great admiration for those who are entertaining speakers, I am also mindful that the purpose of Parliament must be on a higher plane than superficial entertainment. The Parliamentary Library has continued to provide all members with the support necessary to express themselves adequately on matters of legislation. Of particular benefit have been the information kits produced throughout the year. Thus far, members have been able to avail themselves of easy-to-digest data on issues such as the multifunction polis—a hot topic earlier this year; Queensland's heritage; Australia's foreign debt; aerial spraying—a matter of particular interest in rural areas; community justice centres; storage of hazardous chemicals; very fast trains; occupational health and safety in rural industry; defamation law reform; and small business. The list goes on and on. The value of this process is obvious when one considers the fact that the majority of members order the kits after reading the synopsis on these subjects of current interest. The stated goal of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff is to produce high-quality transcripts of the debates of the Parliament, ministerial conferences and evidence given before parliamentary committees and parliamentary commissions of inquiry in as timely and cost-effective a manner as possible. That is a mammoth task, and it never ceases to amaze me that it can be achieved with the minimum of fuss and the lack—outwardly, at least—of chaos and frenetic activity. Several advances made this year have enhanced the production of daily record, weekly record and bound volumes of Hansard. Computerisation introduced during the first half of 1989 has had the desired effect of reducing the cost of printing the blue pamphlet copy of Hansard. This is amply illustrated by comparing 1987- 88—the last full year under the old system—with 1989-90, which is the first full year of computerisation. The number of pages in both of those periods is relatively similar. In 1987-88, the number of pages was 4 757; in 1989-90, it was 4 625. However, the average cost per page has dropped dramatically. In 1987-88 it was $118.45 per page, and in 1989-90 that has been reduced to $91.10. This no doubt represents a huge cost-saving to the people of Queensland. In conclusion, I place on record my sincere appreciation to those within the precincts of Parliament whose efforts contribute to the effective delivery of the legislative aspects of government. I commend the Estimates to the Committee. Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (3.03 p.m.): Because of the very nature of the Estimates being debated today, a lot of discussion has taken place about the various committees. The committee system, which includes the Parliamentary Service Commission, the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Works Committee, was, of course, set up by the previous National Party Government in 1988. At home I have a plaque that sits on my office desk which says, "God so loved the world that he did not send a committee." No matter whose sentiments they were, I tend to echo them. It is interesting to read in Hansard the debate on the Parliamentary Service Bill, which the member for Lockyer mentioned, in which members expressed a wide range Legislative Assembly 4865 20 November 1990 of concerns and hopes. As a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission, I have certain misgivings about it. I was rather amused to hear the comments of the member for Fassifern because, although he and I did not discuss what we were going to say in this debate, our comments are probably fairly similar. I agree with many of the points that he made. I have already acquainted the Speaker with some of my misgivings about the Parliamentary Service Commission. I think it is quite true to say that it really is a toothless tiger. In the debate on the Parliamentary Service Bill, some members stressed their concern that this commission would be overseen by the Executive. That is exactly what has happened. When he introduced the Parliamentary Service Bill, the Finance Minister said— "The executive arm of government will have no control over the commission. The all- party commission will be chaired by the Speaker and will act, in effect, as a board of directors for the management of the services provided to members and to this House." That sounds great. He went on to say— "This process will greatly reduce the financial control of the executive Government over Parliament, which has been one of the legacies of history." Everybody applauded that. That was a tremendous ideal. Unfortunately, it just has not been attained. In his second-reading speech Mr Austin said— "From now on, the Parliament will determine how much it wishes to appropriate to itself to operate this Parliament." That was the original idea and it was welcomed by all three parties. However, of course, some members were sceptical and dubious—probably with good reason, in view of the way things have turned out. At the time Mr Innes said— "It would be absolutely wrong to suggest that the passage of this Bill will improve the independence and accountability of the functioning of this Parliament." In hindsight, I have to agree with him. Mr Scott, the previous Labor member for Cook, said that the passage of the Parliamentary Service Bill would not really change what happens in this House. Some other members expressed their concern about executive involvement, one of whom was Mr De Lacy, who said— "I am concerned that in Queensland the changes have been initiated—and will continue to a certain extent to be directed—by the Executive in the person of the Leader of the House." I agree with him. He is quite right. That is exactly what has happened. It is rather interesting that Mr Mackenroth is the Leader of the House and also serves on the Parliamentary Service Commission. Without wishing to offend anyone, I would have to say from my perspective on the Parliamentary Service Commission that he would be by far the most powerful person on that commission. He is the only one who has any clout at all because he has a direct line to the Cabinet and the Premier, and it rather makes a mockery of the rest of us being there at all. It was very interesting to read what Mr Mackenroth said about this legislation when it was first introduced. He stated— " . . . the commission itself will set the budget; the commission will bring that budget before the House; the House will approve the budget and it will be sent to the Executive arm of Government whose responsibility it is to find the money." That sounds great, but it does not happen that way. In fact, everything that the Parliamentary Service Commission does has to be given the nod of Cabinet. I cite the example of a submission that stated— "This matter will be put before the Parliamentary Service Commission for an approach to Cabinet for the above changes." The minutes of the last meeting of the Parliamentary Service Commission state— "Agreed that the Chairman write to the Premier seeking clarification by Cabinet." Legislative Assembly 4866 20 November 1990

Everything that the Parliamentary Service Commission does is overseen by Cabinet, so the commission is really a toothless tiger. I actually find it rather frustrating being a member of that commission. I am very keen to see it work in the way that I feel it should, but at present I find being a member very frustrating. It is also very interesting that when the Government and Opposition members changed sides after the last election that suddenly the tune stayed the same, and now that the then Opposition members are in Government, they are saying what Opposition members said when they were in Government and we are saying what they said when they were in Opposition. For example, Mr Mackenroth was very keen that members of Parliament have research staff and in that debate in 1988 he stated—— Mr Mackenroth: I am still keen on that, too. Mrs McCAULEY: Very good. I am very pleased to hear that. Having made the point that Mr Mackenroth is the member who has the yea and nay, I hope he follows that through. In 1988, Mr Mackenroth stated— "The point was made earlier that the commission will employ research staff for members of Parliament. I certainly hope that that happens." He went on to further state that, when the Parliamentary Service Commission was established, it should look at members' entitlements and at their staffing. The commission is doing that but honourable members should not kid themselves. If the Cabinet does not approve it, it is not going anywhere. It was also very interesting to read that Mr Mackenroth was not keen that members should pay for extra staff in their electorate offices out of their own pockets. He thought that if honourable members did that, more fool them. Quite a few members do that already. Members desperately need more staff. They do need research staff; there is no two ways about that. I strongly support that submission, as does the member for Mansfield. Mr Mackenroth was not the only member who supported the call for more staff. Mr De Lacy stated— "The single most important requirement of all members . . . is more electorate staff. Members need research assistants." Mr Randell: They have got short memories, this crowd. Mrs McCAULEY: That is right. Mr Casey stated— "The ability to be able to get computer services to one's desk in the offices of this House have to be considered seriously." He also felt that it was most important. Mr Randell: What did he say? Mrs McCAULEY: He was after computer equipment in members' offices in Parliament. I agree that that is most important as well, but those programs cost money and the commission has to watch very carefully where the dollars go. That is not to say that those programs are not much needed; they are. Those are some of the pluses and minuses of being on the Parliamentary Service Commission. I think that the idea of the commission is a good one. I just do not think it is working as well as it should. Its success is really up to the Government members who, when they were in Opposition, expressed their concern about the dominance of the Executive. Only they can change that and it is up to them to do so. Members' entitlements are something that all honourable members are vitally interested in, and I have cited some statements about them by various members who were then part of the Opposition. It is important that all honourable members think about the job that they have to do and how best they can do it. It is all very well for Legislative Assembly 4867 20 November 1990 the commission to say that it will supply members with answering machines, but when people ring up they do not want to talk to answering machines; they want to talk to the member. The problem faced by members in rural areas is that if they travel for three hours to get to a function, that is three hours dead time. Because six hours are spent travelling to and from the function, the member can only do one thing in that day, whereas a city member could probably attend four or five functions in that time, which is much more productive. Mr Beattie: And do. Mrs McCAULEY: I am sure the honourable member does, and I would also if I had a speedier means of getting around the place. Members must never forget that all travel entitlements for members must go to the Cabinet for its approval. I urge those back-bench members opposite to lobby their Ministers so that Cabinet does see things the way members would like it to see them. It is most important. In recent times, other committees that have been established, apart from the Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts, Parliamentary Committee of Public Works, Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review and Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice, are the Travelsafe Committee and the Parliamentary Select Committee of Inquiry into Ambulance Services. I have already voiced my concern about the amount of money that it costs to run those committees. Some months back, I was at a public meeting in Brisbane and I expressed my concern at the amount of money that those committees are costing because every meeting of the Parliamentary Service Commission deals with more requests for extra staff and extra equipment. It is just a vicious circle. If they receive extra equipment, they want extra staff to work it. Each of those committees is doing its own little bit of empire building. One particular public servant stood up and said, very pompously, that he did not agree with me, that money should not come into it and that a cost cannot be put on those committees; one cannot put a cost on justice and truth, which sounded very self-righteous, but that money is coming out of his, the taxpayers' pocket. We have to look very closely at how the money is spent by those committees. For example, do they have to go to all the capital cities? Do they have to go to New Zealand? Can we really learn something from those places? Mr Beattie: Yes. Mrs McCAULEY: Okay, a certain amount of travel has to be undertaken, and I would agree with that, because there is no better way of learning about things. However, there is a fine line of separation. If that fine line is crossed, it could be thought that a trip is undertaken simply to soothe the minds of members and make them happy and not as a fact-finding tour and a necessary item of expenditure. I heard that two of the Labor members of the Select Committee of Inquiry into Ambulance Services had applied for and received a car and a driver for one of that committee's western trips. When I asked the Speaker about this matter, he told me, "Yes, that is correct. I gave approval for that." He said that they were travelling a terribly long way out west and all the rest of it. Although I did not think that was very good, I let it go. But then I heard where those two Labor members went. They had a chauffeur-driven car. They could not get themselves around the State to look into ambulance services. Mr Mackenroth: This is the parliamentary select committee. I think you should be a little bit fair and say it was two members of the committee, and any members of the committee could have gone on that trip. The decision would have been made by the committee as to who went. Legislative Assembly 4868 20 November 1990

Mrs McCAULEY: I inform the Leader of the House that I am making this speech. That trip was undertaken by two Labor members, not members from the Opposition side. Opposition members undertake such travel all the time. Those two members travelled from Rockhampton to Emerald and back to Biloela. My gosh, when I am home, I do that sort of travelling every day of the week! Yet, because it was just too much for them, they had to have a driver. I know that they come from small electorates and that they do not understand—— Mr Schwarten: It was cheaper. Mrs McCAULEY: Rubbish! What nonsense! Absolute nonsense! That is an indication of the priorities of members opposite. I think that it was a very strange thing to do. I still voice my concerns about the cost of these committees. I believe that that cost has to be watched very, very closely. Mr Randell: Those members would have got lost if they hadn't had a driver. Mrs McCAULEY: I am sure they would have got lost. Finally, I wish to mention the staff of Parliament House, because in Parliament House there are not just members but also an excellent staff. I refer in particular to the library staff. I am chairman of the library advisory subcommittee. I am very proud of the facilities that the library provides. With the facilities available to it, the library does an excellent job. Without the assistance that it gives to members, we would be lost. I for one use the library a great deal. I know that some members do not. However, the library provides an excellent service. There are no lengths to which the library will not go to provide a member with the information he or she needs, as quickly as it is needed. I feel that, often, the library staff are the unsung heroes. We often do not recognise them as much as we should, so I would like to give them an extra pat on the back. On the whole, all the other people who work at Parliament House provide a cheerful and willing service, in some cases for long hours. Members of Parliament have no choice but to sit very foolish hours for a very long time. I must admit that, after the last week of sitting, I went home feeling a bit like the laboratory animals who are kept awake all night to see how they react. After a while, one does not react very well. I think it is unfortunate that the staff members have to endure that as well. It is very nice to find that, in the middle of the night, they are still cheerful and happy and are prepared to provide members with coffee, toasted sandwiches or whatever. They do an excellent job. I could not let this opportunity pass without making mentioning them. Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (3.19 p.m.): This is an interesting area of debate. In common with other members, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate, because we are dealing basically with the section of the Budget which is designed to allow us, the members of this Chamber, to do our jobs effectively and to provide the services expected of us by our constituents. It remains something of an anomaly to me that, at a time when there is heightened public expectation of elected representatives at all levels of government, our entitlements and the resources which we have are coming under greater scrutiny. That greater public awareness is generated particularly by committees of inquiry and processes which occur before the courts. Those sorts of things place enormous pressure on the establishment—the Parliamentary Service Commission—to justify the resource levels which it makes available to its members. I guess it just goes to show that, in times of economic stringency, no-one is immune from the pressures to do more with less or, if you like, to increase productivity. In common with all other members of the community, we are being constantly called upon by the public to justify the level of resources which is put into the organisation to enable us to do our job. Clearly, we have considerable responsibility to play a leadership role in such circumstances to satisfy an increasingly sceptical consumer that he is receiving value for his dollar. In my relatively short experience as a member of Parliament, I would say that few people would question the fact that most members of Parliament are extremely hard working and diligent, although debate no doubt rages over their efficacy. Legislative Assembly 4869 20 November 1990

I could allude to the remarks of previous speakers in the debate who have spoken about the lack of understanding, sometimes, by many of our constituents of what precisely our role is, even down to whether we represent our constituents in this Chamber here, in Canberra or somewhere else—perhaps even in another country. Some people do not seem to appreciate exactly what we do. However, my experience has been that the vast majority of people with whom I have come into contact appreciate that members of Parliament of whatever political persuasion work hard to try to fulfil the expectations of their constituents. However, I suspect that the esteem in which individual members are held by their own constituents is probably a little bit different from the esteem in which the class of politicians, if you like, is held by the community generally. Once again, it is something of an anomalous situation and one with which I have had experience previously. I will relate briefly to the Chamber that experience. In late 1985, just before the 1986 State election, the Queensland Teachers Union carried out well-commissioned and well-conducted research into the public's perceptions of the public education system. Some of the results were a little surprising. It was found that parents' approval rating of their children's teachers in State schools was about 84 per cent. In other words, approximately 84 per cent of parents felt that their children's teachers were doing a good job. However, when asked about their opinion of the State education system and State school teachers generally, the approval rating dropped to about 65 per cent. Although most parents believed that their children's teachers worked hard, they were less certain about how hard all State school teachers work. I believe that contains an analogy for members of Parliament. Most of our constituents would probably believe that individually we work hard. Members work amongst people in the community and have a high profile in their electorates. However, if people were asked generally about their perception of members of Parliament or elected representatives at whatever level, their approval rating would probably decline. That that occurs is something of an anomaly. As to a point made by the member for Lockyer—I make no excuse about the level of resources required for members to do their job effectively. Members of Parliament individually and collectively perform a very demanding, responsible job. That is the price of democracy that one must pay to provide the wherewithal for members to provide the necessary services to the general community. Probably more than any other State, Queensland has suffered from a declining public opinion of members of Parliament. A major contributing factor to restoring some of Queensland's lost prestige has been the formalisation of the committee system, which was long overdue but is now fully operational. I do not agree with the claims made by the member for Callide about committee systems and how people who do not want to make decisions refer matters to committees. The fact is that the committee system is the mechanism by which we are publicly accountable to a constituency. This involves all people in Queensland and throughout the nation who expect higher and higher ideals of their elected representatives. It is not simply a matter of members being accountable through the committee system. That system provides an important mechanism by which members of the public can participate in the processes of government. I am aware that committees have travelled interstate. Claims have been made about extravagance in that regard. I do not support those claims. The committee system in Queensland is quite new. The Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review, the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice, the Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts and the Parliamentary Committee of Public Works are quite new to this Parliament. It behoves us well to learn from the experience of similar interstate committees so that we are not reinventing the wheel when ensuring that committees operate efficiently. As well as travelling interstate during the early stages of this Parliament, those committees have travelled to other parts of the State. They have called for and reviewed submissions. That process is very important to the perception of the Parliament providing a service and opportunities to members of the public to have a say in, and some influence over, the day-to-day operation of the State and, indeed, their own future. Legislative Assembly 4870 20 November 1990

The operation of the committee system is extremely important. All honourable members should support it 100 per cent. Most members would understand that such efforts at accountability do not come cheaply; that we are going to be required to outlay considerable resources to ensure that committees function efficiently. I believe that the vast majority of people will not be sceptical and will accept the resource levels required to make sure that committees function efficiently. However, they will not be prepared to tolerate excess. I note that a sum in excess of $3.5m appears as lapsed appropriation in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Legislative and Executive Services. The Minister referred to that amount earlier. That lapsed revenue is mainly the result of bringing the committees back to this parliamentary complex rather than locating them in rented premises downtown. That represents an important saving. Although not all of that $3.5m has been saved in that way, a considerable portion has been. That helps to improve the community's perception that we are doing our bit to try to restrain costs. It may not always be physically possible to continue to house all committees within these precincts. However, while that is possible it is important that we use the available space here to optimum efficiency. As to a point made by the member for Callide—it is understandable that at this stage the various committees will continue to come before the Parliamentary Service Commission with requests for additional resources, additional personnel or whatever it happens to be. Some of those requests will have to be evaluated by the Parliamentary Service Commission. No doubt some will be acceded to and others will be rejected. Nevertheless, because the committee system is in its infancy, it is important that those matters be brought forward, debated and evaluated on their merits. I turn now to other sectors where expenditure will be made in the forthcoming financial year. Most speakers in this debate have mentioned the upgrading of computer facilities in electorate offices. I endorse the move to upgrade and standardise those facilities. It is absolutely ludicrous to have potentially 89 different computer systems in electorate offices. The move to upgrade and standardise those computer facilities will result in the provision of a much better service by individual members to their constituents and, ultimately, save on costs for the Parliamentary Service Commission. Although it will represent a significant initial outlay, I believe that it will be worth while. I refer to the conference for electorate secretaries that was held earlier this year. It was only the second such conference that has been held to acquaint secretaries with computer processes and to educate them about the services that are available through the Parliament and the Parliamentary Service Commission. The Government should remain strongly committed to the in-service education of electorate secretaries who, in common with most honourable members, operate in isolation in their electorate offices. They do a very good job. I will not elaborate on points made by previous speakers in the debate, but my electorate secretary is no exception, being very efficient and running my office very effectively when I am either in this place or elsewhere in my electorate. The Government's commitment to in-service training for electorate secretaries should be ongoing. The member for Mulgrave referred to the recommendations of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission on electorates that are greater than 100 000 square kilometres in area, of which my electorate is one. I have always argued that, in a sparsely populated State such as Queensland, the way in which the disadvantages of distance and isolation can be overcome is by providing the resources for members to service adequately those large electorates. Although Queensland has a zonal system of electoral boundaries, it is ironic that two electorates are still in excess of 350 000 square kilometres in area. That goes to show that, no matter how the boundaries are drawn and how many zones are created, a State such as Queensland will always have some large electorates. It is important that the members who represent those electorates are provided with the wherewithal to provide those services. I refer to the resources that were provided in last year's Budget for the 39 new members. To enable those members to take up their duties as quickly as possible, the Legislative Assembly 4871 20 November 1990

Department of Administrative Services went to considerable effort to provide electorate offices and facilities. I was one of those who benefited from the very efficient service provided by the Cairns regional office of the Department of Administrative Services, and I put my appreciation on record. Finally, in common with all other members who spoke in this debate, I make brief mention of the people who work in Parliament House. I mention them briefly, not because I regard that as an indication of their status or importance to the organisation, but because it is something that goes without saying. Without the people who work in sections such as Hansard, catering, cleaning, the library and security, and the attendants, this organisation would not operate nearly as efficiently as it does; it would probably not operate at all. I put on record my appreciation of the efforts of all of the people who work in this establishment and who, in their own way, contribute to the smooth operation of democracy in Queensland. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong—Leader of the Liberal Party) (3.33 p.m.): I am pleased to speak in this debate. I congratulate the Speaker on the way in which he has handled the Parliament since taking over his role. It is very good to see. I am pleased that the Speaker is in the Chamber whilst the Parliamentary Service Commission Estimates are being debated—which is a little unusual. I congratulate also the staff from the various sections that make this place function, whether that be Hansard, the library, the maintenance section, the catering section or whatever section it might be. I notice that, in the Budget documents, the sections are referred to as subprograms. In this Estimates debate, perhaps I also should refer to them as subprograms. It is appropriate, however, to congratulate those people for the work that they do. It is not always easy to operate in this place, when 89 members want to do things very quickly and at a moment's notice, all of whom have matters of top priority, whether it be the Premier down to the lowest backbencher. People have their wants, and they all seem to happen at the same time. Honourable members have a tight program to get through, and a heck of a lot of work needs to be done in a short space of time. The way in which those people handle that work under the responsibility of the Clerk of the Parliament is to be congratulated. I congratulate also the Clerk for the role that he plays in this place. That leads me to the electorate secretaries, who are so often forgotten when honourable members debate issues. However, they play a very significant role in all of our lives. They are at the shopfront. This year, I was pleased to see that, once again, a training program was put in place to upgrade their skills. I hope that programs will continue to be provided to improve the skills of the electorate secretaries. In the electorate offices, it is often difficult for them to cope with the wide range of issues that arise. A Government will always introduce reforms; it does not matter whether it is this Government or any other Government. Changes always occur, and secretaries must have a general knowledge of the issues involved. The training and the additional skills that we can provide to enable them to carry out their work not only makes life easier for honourable members but also provides a better service to the people of Queensland, which is surely what we are about today. I believe that the resources of members should be upgraded. As Ministers take over departments and changes occur—one cannot help noticing that restraints are not placed on the growth of various Government departments—some restraint is always placed on anything that backbenchers ask for. Whether they represent small or large electorates, either in terms of area or population, and although problems facing backbenchers vary, a number of problems are similar. A previous speaker referred to a need for members to use mobile phones, which should be investigated not only for the benefit of country members but also for city members. I understand that the reason why members representing country electorates would like to have mobile phones is the amount of time that they spend in their motor vehicles and away from their electorate offices. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr BEANLAND: Of course, the honourable member for Brisbane Central knows all about listening in to other people's conversations. He would be the expert on that. Legislative Assembly 4872 20 November 1990

Mr BEATTIE: I rise to a point of order. I ask that that remark be withdrawn. I can appreciate a little levity in the Chamber but, with all due respect, that is a bit rough. Mr BEANLAND: I withdraw that and trust that I will not have any more interjections from the honourable member for Brisbane Central. The provision of mobile phones is important to all honourable members, particularly if the electoral boundaries are changed and larger electorates are created in some areas. The result will be pressure for the provision of mobile phones not only in the larger electorates but in all electorates throughout the State. I notice that the range of mobile phones is being increased and that, over the next two or three years, the range will be increased to such an extent that they will be able to be used all over the State. The Electoral and Administrative Review Commission has proposed that there be two electorate offices in larger electorates, but with only one secretary. If larger electorates are created, the members representing them and their constituents will consider that they are being disadvantaged. To overcome that disadvantage and the problems of distance and isolation, the Government should consider the provision of a second, effective, active electorate office, and that will mean the provision of a second electorate secretary. It is farcical to have a second electorate office without there being a secretary in it. That begs the question. It is my hope that, in the near future, members representing the larger electorates will be provided with a second electorate office and secretary. An honourable member referred to research assistants. That brings me to the issue of committees. There is an active committee system in this place and the committees certainly geared up very quickly and were provided with research staff, yet members of this Parliament do not have research assistants. The Government needs to have a close look at this problem. I cannot help but go to the Fitzgerald recommendations. In his report, Mr Fitzgerald said— "No Government will have all the ideas, expertise and insight on any particular topic. As well, Governments are not the only bodies which have these attributes. Whatever the expertise required, the solution to any problem is something about which people can and do reasonably differ. The best result will be produced from rational debate by those with opposing views . . . Parliament is a forum for those differing views." It is one thing to have debate in this place; it is essential, as part of that debate, to ensure that adequate resources are available to ensure that honourable members are appropriately equipped to take part in that debate. The Government needs to look at the provision of assistants. They do not need to be full-time assistants; they could be part-time assistants funded from Crown resources. I suggest that that matter should be looked at in the future—and the not-too-distant future. The second matter I wish to raise is question-time. Proposals were afoot to make changes to question-time. Unfortunately, they were not forthcoming. I believe that those changes would have allowed backbench members to ask more questions. We must be concerned about that, not about Ministers being served up Dorothy Dix questions. This Parliament is still operating under the old National Party Government rules which did not allow for a proper examination of the Government. Under those rules, 50 per cent of the questions were Dorothy Dixers, some of which were fairly outrageous. It seems, judging by some of the questions that were asked, that members were no longer able to write letters. The proposals put before the Standing Orders Committee were worth while. Unfortunately, they were not brought forward because of the opposition from the National Party, especially one senior member of it. Had those changes been introduced, thousands more questions would have been able to be asked and answered. That is the important thing. It would have allowed backbench members to put the Government of the day under greater examination and questioning. Because of the failure to introduce those changes, the large proportion of members are denied the opportunity to take part in question-time. Ministers are getting far too easy a ride, because it is quite often the Legislative Assembly 4873 20 November 1990 apparently simple, tame question from a backbencher that proves awkward for the Minister or the Government of the day to get around. Some backbench members go for weeks without having the opportunity to ask a question, and in some cases it is months. I notice also that this Government is going down the previous National Party Government's track and using the old trick of the making of ministerial statements to clog up question-time, particularly on allotted days and on Tuesdays. That is all very well and is something that has been traditionally done by Governments. However, it does not allow backbench members to ask questions. It is very disappointing that the proposed changes to question-time were not forthcoming. Apart from allowing the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party two questions each day, those changes would have allowed each other member one question without notice and one question to be placed on notice. Had any member been unable to ask a question, he or she would have then had the ability within the 30-minute period to place a question on the notice paper. The enormous change that measure would have brought to this place cannot be glossed over idly. Members would have been able to ask additional, penetrating and worthwhile questions in order to gather more information. Ministers would have been kept more on their toes because of the increase in the number and range of questions that could be asked. Finally, I wish to touch briefly on parliamentary sitting days. To date this year, there have been 45 sitting days, and I understand that there will be approximately another 11 sitting days, making a total of 56 sitting days this year. This figure does not compare favourably with 61 sitting days in 1981, 54 sitting days in 1982, 54 sitting days in 1984, 49 sitting days in 1985 and 49 sitting days in 1987. The ALP Government prides itself in its reformist approach and goals, but, after being in opposition for some 32 years, one would have expected the Labor Party, upon taking office, to have more sitting days a year. Fifteen of the 56 sitting days that this Parliament is expected to sit this year—that is 27 per cent of the total sitting days—will have occurred in the six weeks from early November. This reflects on the Government's poor legislative program and, despite its claims throughout 1989 when in Opposition that it was ready for Government, the ALP was unprepared for office. This has shown up in the jamming up of the legislative process. A number of Bills have been introduced into this Chamber and I understand that there are still some more to be introduced before the Parliament rises this year. This year, Parliament has not sat for more days than in previous years, and generally there have been fewer sitting days than in recent years. I see that one Minister is paying close attention to this fact, and I am pleased that I have taken out the figures to assist him. I congratulate the Speaker once again for the way in which he is conducting this Parliament and the reforms that he has introduced. These reforms encourage and allow more discussion and debate, particularly on the part of the backbenchers. Over recent weeks, a number of changes have been made to speaking times to allow more members to participate in debate, which has been an improvement. In addition, the Estimates of all the Government departments, and not just a selected few, are being debated. Mr SMYTH (Bowen) (3.48 p.m.): I rise to address the Legislative and Executive Services Estimates in this 1990 Budget and support the Government in its aim to cut expenditure whilst maintaining a standard that will assist members of this Parliament in serving their constituents. Over past years, expenditure for the operation of Parliament and electorate offices has been increased. However, costs have largely been based on what the electorate will accept, and this has been taken to the extreme. Expenditure must be allocated on a needs basis. For many years, members who had the ear of the Government acquired more facilities in their electorate offices and others have been hindered by the increased workloads on members and staff. When inflation is taken into account, the budget for 1990-91 represents a reduction over last year of approximately 4 per cent in real terms. This is a responsible reduction in the current economic climate. More restraint will need to be shown this year than in past years, because Labor Government Ministers have Legislative Assembly 4874 20 November 1990 been discouraged from holding functions in the parliamentary complex. These functions were profit- making and assisted in providing extra cash for the catering division. However, this privilege was abused by National Party Ministers and cost the Queensland taxpayer dearly. This abuse only served to promote National Party Ministers and their Government. The Parliamentary Service Act 1988-1990 provides the statutory basis for the Parliamentary Service Commission. The parliamentary service program provides procedural advice, research and reference facilities, the reporting and editing of parliamentary debates, catering facilities, security, maintenance of buildings and other support services for members of Parliament whilst in the parliamentary precinct. The parliamentary service also comprises an extensive committee system which provides in-depth reviews on issues of public and parliamentary concern. These committees, including the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice, the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review, the Travelsafe Committee and the Select Committee of Inquiry into Ambulance Services, were established to assist members to research and review matters of public interest and allow for greater parliamentary scrutiny. Work practices, accommodation requirements for committees and other parliamentary services will be investigated to ensure the optimum utilisation of parliamentary facilities. Until the Labor Government gained government, the strong arm of the National Party Cabinet had a major influence on the decisions of the Parliamentary Service Commission. This influence filtered through to the facilities supplied to members' electorate offices and staff. It is interesting to note that at the time of the change of Government many National Party members—although not all—had more facilities in their electorate offices than did members of the Labor Party. Electorate secretaries must have an adequate wage structure and office space and equipment to ensure that they are able to perform their duties and service our constituents. While electorate secretaries have to be appointed to the position by a MLA, their appointment is subject to conditions laid down by the Parliamentary Service Commission. Some examples of these conditions concern the rate of salary and a member's spouse not being eligible for employment. Other conditions need to be explored and these are very difficult for the commission to determine. With 89 electorate secretaries giving their opinions on what is needed to enhance this parliamentary service, it is impossible to determine which need is the greatest. All facts and figures have to be collected and a decision made on the conditions which can be applied in accordance with the amount of money available. The only way in which this can be accomplished successfully is by allowing the appropriate workers' representatives—the appropriate union—to gather the information and present it to the Parliamentary Service Commission for its comments. It would then be reviewed by the Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations and a date would be set for the claim to be heard in the Industrial Court. Past National Party/Liberal Party Governments pressured the Parliamentary Service Commission and influenced its decision on the needs of members' offices. The position of electorate secretary is one that requires a great deal of performance and carries with it high expectations. In some cases, Saturdays and Sundays are worked but no overtime is paid. Secretaries should be required to work a set number of hours between set hours of the day from Monday to Friday. After these hours are worked, overtime should be paid. This would not only give staff a better understanding of their work demands, but also enable the Parliamentary Service Commission to determine whether more staff are required in electorate offices. Severance or redundancy pay is an added security that should apply to the position of electorate secretary. Members of Parliament realise when they take up their positions that job security may end at the following election. However, workers occupying the position of electorate secretary should not be expected to finish their careers without compensation. It would be encouraging if an award included a payment for the number of years of service, because this would assist in supporting the worker until another position could be found or until a transfer to an equivalent position in the public service Legislative Assembly 4875 20 November 1990 was achieved. Within the next few months, the Parliamentary Service Commission should determine the status of electorate secretary positions, the demands associated with the positions, and the level of payment that is appropriate. I believe that the present level of remuneration should be increased. When those matters are determined, all wages and conditions for electorate secretaries should be the subject of a claim presented to the Industrial Commission by the relevant union, which is the Federated Clerks Union. When this process is completed, all secretaries in electorate offices will receive wages and conditions that are appropriate to the position. A point that should be made is that most secretaries are members of the Federated Clerks Union and pay membership fees to the union to ensure that proper wages are paid and security of employment exists. It is my view that, when people are prepared to invest time and money to help pay for the costs involved in maintaining their wages and conditions, it should be those people only who benefit from any improvements achieved by those arguing their case in the Industrial Court. In the case of electorate secretaries, they are members of the Federated Clerks Union. This financial year, a program to establish a child-care facility to benefit workers within Parliament House and also workers in the public service will be studied. Within society, there is an ever- increasing demand for both men and women to participate in the job market. However, a large number of women workers are hindered in their endeavours to achieve a successful career because of the lack of child-care facilities provided by Government and businesses. A survey has been conducted. The result is that the majority of workers and members of Parliament would use the facility. The study to which I have referred includes members of women's caucus, and the Departments of Family Services and Administrative Services. Some concern has been shown by conservative members of this Parliament that the facility would impose a cost on Queensland taxpayers. I can assure the people of Queensland that, before any child-care facility is established, this Labor Government will make sure that it is cost-effective. It may be built within the parliamentary complex, or it may be built nearby; but I can assure honourable members that it is a much-needed facility and that the idea behind the provision of child-care facilities for members and for workers within this complex and in surrounding areas is to encourage departments to provide the same facilities for their workers. With a bit of luck, the example set by this Parliament might also encourage companies in this State to look after their employees in a similar manner, which would allow those people who wish to work to do so freely, allowing them to concentrate on their jobs. In conclusion, I take this opportunity to thank the people who have assisted me during the four years I have been a member of this Parliament. I mention the Hansard reporters, the catering staff, the security staff and others who are too numerous to thank individually. During my period as a member of Parliament, I have noticed that the staff within this complex are very friendly and very courteous. They are to be commended. I also congratulate the Speaker for conducting this Parliament in a very responsible and outstanding manner. Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn) (3.57 p.m.): Figures showing the estimated expenditure for 1990-91 indicate that $32,273,000 has been set as against a figure for 1989-90 of $33,150,000, which represents a reduction of almost $1m in estimated expenditure for the Legislative Assembly during the current financial year. During the last financial year, approximately $5m that was allocated for administration and capital expenditure was not actually expended. Because it would seem that this year planned expenditure has been deleted from the current Budget Estimates that provide an additional $5m for salaries, wages and related payments above the amount actually expended in that category during 1989-90, the reduction must be related to facilities or support structures for members. The program goal for the Legislative Assembly (Parliamentary Service Commission) which is set out in the 1990-91 Budget papers states— "To ensure that Members are provided with appropriate support facilities and services to enable them to adequately represent their constituency during their term in office." Legislative Assembly 4876 20 November 1990

The program description, which also appears in the Budget papers, includes the following— "The Parliamentary Service Commission administers the Members' Entitlements Handbook which prescribes the administrative arrangements and allowances for Members of Parliament. This program provides the salaries, allowances, transportation and secretarial services to enable Members to represent their respective Electorates." The subprograms include members' entitlements. I intend to address that aspect of the Parliamentary Service Commission Estimates in some detail. I am concerned that a ruling given by a former Premier has led to a widening of disadvantages suffered by some members of the Parliament. I doubt that any members of this Committee would dispute that there should be equality in the provision of transport to and from a member's home when travelling to Parliament on parliamentary business, although it would seem that the Cabinet, or some of the Cabinet's advisers, have difficulty in recognising that concept. The fact is that such equality does not presently exist for a small number of country members who do not have a commercial air service to their place of residence. Apparently a ruling was made in 1987—again in the time of the former Government—it would seem not by the then Honourable the Speaker but by the Premier of the day, which dictated that "alternative travel was to allow the Speaker to approve methods of transport in special circumstances e.g. airline strikes or cancellation of flights" and that "air warrant travel should only be available to Members who have access to scheduled air services and actually use those services". That was a gratuitous, or rather an "ingratuitous" and ill- considered ruling made without an understanding of either the Members' Entitlements Handbook, which I believe ostensibly forms part of a member's contract of employment, or the facts surrounding the entitlement for alternative travel arrangements clearly spelled out in the Members' Entitlements Handbook. As I said, that document is part of our contract of employment. Nowhere in it is there any reference to the interpretation given by staff through the former Premier. To clarify the matter for those who have an interest and for future record purposes, I will read the members' entitlements which have been widely circulated amongst members of Parliament. Clause 3 refers to air travel for members and states that that excludes Ministers of the Crown and the Speaker. Clause 3 (2) provides— "Alternative travel— (i) Subject to the approval of the Honourable the Speaker, in lieu of the use of an air warrant, Members can travel by car or charter flight from their home in their Electorate to Brisbane or return. The Honourable the Speaker shall keep a record of all such approvals granted. Where such alternative travel arrangements are approved, car mileage at Public Service rates or charter flight expenses up to the value of the commercial air fare will be allowed. A claim for the reimbursement of these expenses is to be made to the Deputy Clerk of the Parliament (Administration) accompanied by the unused air warrant. (ii) The Member is required to lodge the claim within the first week of each month for the value of the travel undertaken during the previous month. (iii) A claim is to contain the following:- (a) Date of alternative transport; (b) Mode of travel (if by car, make and model to assess rate per kilometre); (c) Distance from home to Brisbane and/or return; (d) Amount claimed for each trip (not to exceed value of unused air warrant); (e) An attached cancelled unused air warrant for each trip claimed; (f) The certification of the whole claim by the Member." All 89 members of this Parliament presently receive a special car allowance. Legislative Assembly 4877 20 November 1990

Mr Mackenroth: No. Mr HARPER: Well, that is a change. Every one of the non-ministerial members of the Parliament, excluding the Speaker, receive a special car allowance. I stand corrected on that point. The Leader of the House has drawn my attention to a change that has been instituted. However, every other backbench member of the Parliament receives a special car allowance. This might be an appropriate point to compare very briefly members' car allowances with entitlements in that area granted to Federal members of Parliament. When one considers what Federal backbench members and Brisbane City Council aldermen receive, one realises that the allowance to our members certainly is not excessive. When one considers those other matters, I do not believe anyone could claim that the special car allowance is excessive. Mr Szczerbanik: Ask Mr Blunt about his stamp allowance. Mr HARPER: I do not believe that that interjection is worthy of comment. A member receives a special car allowance to assist in maintaining a private motor vehicle for his electorate duties. Additionally—it is important to recognise that it is additionally—those members who are fortunate to have commercial air services to their place of residence travel by taxi and aircraft free of any personal financial contribution. It is important to understand that every member, including those who have commercial air services available, receives a special car allowance. It is not provided merely to some; all members receive it, apart from Ministers, who have ministerial vehicles and drivers, and the Speaker. In my own case, the closest comparable air service to my place of residence would probably be that from Brisbane to Rockhampton, a distance of 550 kilometres, as against a road distance which I presently drive of 440 kilometres, for which the combined air fare and taxi fare are presently approximately $270 per single movement—of which each member able to use that service is entitled to 60 per year. Accordingly, on the basis which had previously been honoured—and it was always previously honoured—whereby members were reimbursed at public service rates up to the value of the commercial air fare, a saving to the Parliamentary Service Commission of almost $100 would accrue for each of those 60 movements to which I should be entitled. I am arguing in this Estimates debate that the policy—the entitlement listed in the member's handbook—should be available to members. The ruling given by the previous Premier—"ingratuitously", without an understanding of the facts—should not continue. The member for Condamine, whose electorate adjoins mine, is presently entitled to a special allowance in the amount of $1,041 per year to compensate him for using his car to travel to Brisbane to attend parliamentary sittings. That honourable member lives about 150 kilometres closer to Brisbane than do I, but the injustice to him when one compares his situation with that of members who have access to commercial air services is equally valid. Such an allowance simply does not equate in any way to the entitlement afforded to those members who are able to use commercial air services. Indeed, the allowance that is paid to the member for Condamine only equates—and I appreciate that the Leader of the House as well as the Speaker have some sympathy with what I am saying—to the cost of taxi fares to and from the airport—and I would like the Speaker to note these two points—for those members who are able to take a commercial air flight and exercise their right to 60 air travel entitlements annually. That, of course, is a cost borne by the Parliament. The allowance paid to the member for Condamine equates only to the cost to the Parliamentary Service Commission of taxi fares for those members who are able to take advantage of commercial air services. In every respect other than travel to and from a member's place of residence, it would seem that presently backbench members of Parliament receive equal treatment, except that those who suffer the disadvantage of not having a commercial air service are denied the transportation support to which they are clearly entitled and which they received in the years preceding 1987. That support was received when I became a member of this Parliament. It was simply understood. I was told, "That is what is in Legislative Assembly 4878 20 November 1990 the handbook on members' entitlements. The Speaker will automatically approve that form of alternative transport." It was not until I returned to the back bench that I found that a decision had been made to the disadvantage of those few country members who are not able to avail themselves of commercial air services. I have referred these matters to the Honourable the Speaker, who is a key member of the Parliamentary Service Commission, and who, I must say, has been understanding about the disadvantage suffered by country members in this regard. However, almost 12 months of the Parliament's term has now passed, and I take this opportunity to place on the public record an injustice which surely must be righted without further delay by the Premier's Department which, it seems, brought about the inequity in 1987. It was the Premier's Department, albeit under a different regime, which brought about this injustice by abolishing on false premises an entitlement previously accepted as being fair and reasonable. I must say that, thanks to the understanding of the present Speaker, I am not presently being disadvantaged. However, this is something that has to be clarified. It has to be made quite clear. Of course, it was the intention of the National Party Government, which set up the Parliamentary Service Commission, that such decisions would be taken out of the hands of the Cabinet. However, that has not happened, so it is important to make clear to the Government the Opposition's thinking in relation to these matters. I take this opportunity to compliment members of the Parliamentary Service Commission on the dedication and understanding that they apply in carrying out their responsibilities. As a previous Leader of the House, I enjoyed a short time as a member of the commission, during which I gained an understanding of a number of matters and, I might add, of some of my parliamentary colleagues, including the present Leader of the House, which I had not previously appreciated—and I mean "appreciated". I also take this opportunity to join those members who have acknowledged the dedication of our parliamentary staff. I certainly appreciate their efforts, which are made both efficiently and pleasantly, in all of those many areas covered by the Parliamentary Service Commission. Mr PALASZCZUK (Archerfield) (4.11 p.m.): I believe it is imperative that we, as politicians and members of this Parliament, be as positive as possible about our Parliamentary Service Commission. It must be borne in mind that it has been in operation only for the past two years. As the Leader of the House has said today, ours is the only Parliament in Australia to introduce this reform. This is the first such Estimates debate that honourable members have been able to engage in for the past 17 years. Unfortunately, the majority of the Opposition members—with the exception of the member for Auburn—and in particular the member for Fassifern attacked the commission in such a manner as to bring it into disrepute. It must be a petty or a vindictive man who would launch into an attack such as the one honourable members witnessed today in this Chamber. Unfortunately for the member for Fassifern, I believe that his attack on the commission today is a portent of things to come. If the member for Fassifern is so critical of the commission, I suggest that he step aside and allow a more positive-thinking person in his party to take his place. Two people come to mind. I refer to you, Mr Deputy Chairman—the member for Gregory—and the member for Carnarvon. I am quite sure that those two honourable members would adopt a far more positive approach to the commission than does the member for Fassifern. I am reminded of another attack about four years ago in this place by the member for Fassifern on a public servant—— Mr Lingard: And you. Mr PALASZCZUK: All right, and me—and John Mickel. I will throw his name in as well. That public servant had no recourse at all. He could not defend himself. I am quite sure that the member for Fassifern now expresses his regrets about that attack, and I Legislative Assembly 4879 20 November 1990 am also quite sure that in years to come the member for Fassifern will regret his actions today. Mr Prest: He mightn't be here. Mr PALASZCZUK: That is a distinct possibility. I thank the member for Port Curtis for that interjection. I turn now to a matter that is of great importance to members and Ministers alike, that is, the role of electorate secretaries. Many members on both sides of the Chamber have extolled the virtues of their secretaries and the magnificent supportive role that they play. What I am going to say about my secretary is in the same vein. Since the 1986 election, Mike Tandy has worked extremely hard in my electorate, bearing in mind that my office would probably be one of the busiest offices of any member of this Parliament. To prove that point, I can advise honourable members that the daily log in my office indicates that over the past year I have handled an average of 47 transactions a day, whether by phone, appointment or walk-ins. That corresponds to 235 transactions a week, totalling 11 985 a year. In anyone's language, that is a very large volume of work coming through an office, bearing in mind also that each person who has phoned, walked in or made an appointment has to be treated seriously and the complaints followed up. Mr Barber: That is more transactions than electors in Mr Cooper's electorate. Mr PALASZCZUK: A very good point, and I thank the honourable member for his interjection. Electorate officers work diligently, especially when members are not there and, as Parliament is beginning to sit a lot longer than it has over previous years and on many more days, their role is going to be even more important. At this time, I will comment on the Parliament itself, and especially on the roles of the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees. I believe that those two positions are the most important in this Parliament. I believe also that the present Speaker, Mr Fouras, has added a new dimension in this Parliament. He has brought dignity, tolerance and also a sense of fair play to his position. He certainly is a cut above previous Speakers, such as the maverick Lin Powell, the dour Kev Lingard and the nervous John Warner. It is not difficult to establish that a Parliament is functioning well if the Speaker can maintain control of the Parliament, by the use of a quick wit when necessary. Unfortunately, I can cite a previous Speaker who referred to this Parliament as a cesspool. Mr Harper: That is going back many years. Mr PALASZCZUK: It is going back quite a while. I believe that many of those problems were of that Speaker's own making. A Government member: Jim Houghton! Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the honourable member for the interjection. I might keep going about Jim Houghton. He adopted some double standards, because as soon as he got out of the Parliament, he worked hard to get his son elected. One only has to look at Hansard of 60 years ago to discover that this House today is no different to what it was then. Fortunately, our Parliament—that is, the Forty-sixth Parliament—is one that does reflect the people. In saying that, one can look at the fact that it has lawyers, teachers, businesspeople, farmers, graziers, accountants, even a Rhodes scholar, timber-workers—— Mrs Woodgate: Housewives. Mr PALASZCZUK: Housewives, coal-miners and coal-owners. All those people make up this Parliament. Mr Mackenroth: A doctor. Legislative Assembly 4880 20 November 1990

Mr PALASZCZUK: And a doctor. I shall refer to my own profession, that being of a schoolteacher, and put on my schoolteacher's hat and lecture the member for Fassifern and also other members of this Chamber who continually refer to the Parliamentary Service Commission as the Parliamentary Services Commission. For goodness sake, it is the Parliamentary Service Commission. I strongly suggest to all members following who do refer to the Parliamentary Service Commission to refer to it as that and not as the Parliamentary Services Commission. Unfortunately, it is still the case that all parties, including the Labor Party, still show a chauvinistic streak in this place. I believe that there are not enough women in this Parliament, especially on the National Party side. It is about time that the National Party arrested that problem. Mr Harper: It is about time you did something about it. Mr PALASZCZUK: I am quite sure that the National Party can try to do something about that problem. It can look at the member for Toowoomba South. Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the member for Rockhampton North for his interjection. At this stage, I turn to the importance of members travelling within Queensland to gain a knowledge of their State and the way that it operates. I refer back to the second time I spoke in this Parliament in 1984. When I was speaking on primary industries, the then Minister for Primary Industries, Neil Turner, said that my feet had never left the concrete footpath. Because he was right, I took those comments on board. After that, I went out into the country to gauge the feeling of the people and to get an understanding of how the country operates. Mr Milliner: You are known as the farmer's friend. Mr PALASZCZUK: Of course. The reason for that, which many members cannot or will not understand, is that the Brisbane markets, the hub of primary industries in south-east Queensland, forms part of my electorate. If the Committee can bear with me for a little while, I will detail some of the things that I have learnt on my trips out west. Mr Lingard: You were the dairy spokesman at one time. Mr PALASZCZUK: Yes. I have gone off the dairy industry now. I am quite sure that that is being sorted out, but I can go on to drought assistance. I found that the feeling of graziers is that the lack of assistance will lead to land degradation and that an economic incentive is needed for graziers to destock. Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: I am finding that out. Recently, the Federal Government released the findings of a task force into drought. For the benefit of the member for Burdekin, I point out that Queensland has a submission to make to the Federal Government, and in that submission the foremost issue will be the survival of industry in towns that rely heavily on primary production for their viability. In recognition of land degradation—— Mr Lingard: What's this got to do with the Parliamentary Service Commission? Mr PALASZCZUK: It has everything to do with the Parliamentary Service Commission because, as a result of my travel entitlements, I am able to gain a far better understanding of Queensland, particularly country Queensland. Queensland is also pushing for extra funding for research and extensions. I could then go on to refer to lice control, the lack of an agronomist in Charleville; BTEC and fees for service and, if time allowed, I could go on about the Quilpie rail link, vehicle registration, road-funding and the proposed new Act in relation to straying stock. Legislative Assembly 4881 20 November 1990

At this stage, I turn to parliamentary missions. Page 32 of the report of the Parliamentary Service Commission states— "The Parliament normally undertakes an annual Overseas Parliamentary Mission comprising members of each party and led by a Minister of the Crown. . . . No mission was held in the 1989/90 financial year." I find that hard to understand. However, we were very fortunate that, this year, a parliamentary mission was sent to South East Asia—to Japan, Korea and Hong Kong, and to Jakarta. I found that I benefited to such an extent that when I returned I was able to prepare for delivery in this Chamber three speeches on the results of my participation in that trade delegation. I spoke about external trade and tariffs, about the need for our State to export education and about the need for our manufacturing, commerce and small business to become involved in South East Asia. I strongly suggest to the Leader of the House and to all other members that the parliamentary delegation be a must for future years in this Parliament. In the short time remaining for me to speak, I turn to the matter of question-time. According to the report of the Parliamentary Service Commission, from 1969-70 to 1988-89 the emphasis was on questions on notice, not on questions without notice. Since then, things have certainly changed a great deal. But having said that, I remind all members that it was most unfortunate that one member of this Chamber, a person who is not present at the moment, a person whom I will not name—but the person is the member for Surfers Paradise—did not accede to the recommendation of most members of the Standing Orders Committee that question-time be changed so that back-bench members of Parliament would have a far greater opportunity to have input into it. Mr Stoneman: Write a letter. There is no difference. Mr PALASZCZUK: Quite obviously, there are times when members will write a letter to a Minister and there are times when members will want their answer recorded in Hansard. That facility has been denied all members of this Chamber by the selfish attitude of that member whom I will not name. I congratulate the Leader of the House on a job well done. I also congratulate the Speaker, the Chairman of Committees and members of the commission on looking after the interests of all members of Parliament. Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (4.27 p.m.): I rise briefly in this debate to endorse some of the comments that have been made by my colleagues and, in fact, some that have been made by members opposite. I do not intend to undertake a witch-hunt, nor do I intend, except in a small way, to cover ground that has been covered previously. However, firstly I endorse the comments of my colleague the member for Auburn and plead with the members of the Parliamentary Service Commission, particularly its chairman, to recognise the special case that exists and the circumstances surrounding the matters raised in the speech made by the member for Auburn. No member of Parliament should be disadvantaged in the way in which he or the member for Condamine—and, indeed, a number of other members—are disadvantaged, regardless of the side of the Chamber on which they sit and regardless of the circumstances in which they find themselves. The fact of the matter is that a part of the democratic process about which so much is heard nowadays is that members should have available to them not only greatest possible access to travel between their electorates and Parliament but also equal access. Under those terms, that means equal financial support. Obviously, as was detailed by my colleague the member for Auburn, those members who are affected have to dip not only into their own allowances, which are required to cover many other expenses, but also into a great deal of their own time and, further down the line, their own resources. I think that is a travesty of justice. I know that the Leader of the House will undoubtedly Legislative Assembly 4882 20 November 1990 take that on board. I think he heard very loudly and clearly the very positive evidence given by Mr Harper today. I certainly endorse his comments. In relation to such travel, I am one of the fortunate ones. I have a service car access to the local airport and I have available a jet service to Brisbane, where I collect a taxi and am delivered to the annexe steps. That entire trip takes four hours. But at least it is all provided for by way of voucher and service facilities. Again, I note that the member for Auburn made the very valid point that, simply because of the lack of existence of services, none of those facilities or compensation is provided to him.Those situations should be more than adequately compensated for. As to the time that members spend travelling between their electorates and Parliament House—it takes me more than four hours to travel from Parliament House to my electorate. That is a fairly average travelling-time for many members. I am aware that members who live further north, in the Cairns region, undertake somewhat longer flights. In some instances, members who live in the far west and north west have longer travelling times. The member for Auburn indicated that his electorate is four or five hours away from this Chamber. Members' entitlements cover 60 one-way journeys. Multiplied by the four hours to which I referred, that represents 240 working hours, or six weeks' worth of working hours, that a majority of members—including me—spend travelling each year between their electorates and this Chamber. Regardless of their political persuasions, that places a strain on the time available for members to access research and other facilities and to work in their electorates. I am sure that all members would agree that free time in this vocation is very rare, and time with families often must be foregone. Travelling-time limits the free time of members. Those six working weeks that are lost must be recognised and compared with the travelling of other members who have fairly ready access to this Chamber—members who live only 15, 20 or 30 minutes away. We must understand that that places a great strain on the representative capacities of some members, who must undertake more duties in less time. I turn now to the time members spend travelling within their electorates. My electorate is not very large. It is about 20 000 square kilometres. Mr Harper: It will be larger soon. Mr STONEMAN: It certainly will. In future, some electorates in this State will encompass up to one-third or perhaps more of the total area of the State. The member for Gregory would be aware that his electorate already covers one-quarter of this State. When one compares travelling-time within electorates, honourable members must consider the situation that applies in larger electorates such as that of the member for Gregory or the member for Auburn, whose electorate covers 50 000 or 60 000 square kilometres. I acknowledge that the member for Cook probably has one of the more difficult—if not the most difficult—electorates to service in this State. I am sure that all honourable members understand the very difficult circumstances under which the member for Cook must operate. Quite frankly, members such as the member for Cook should be allowed far more air travel within their electorates. There is no other way that they can service islands or isolated communities. There are no traditional land links that are reasonable. Whilst I note and commend the recommendations of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission in respect of the provision of four-wheel-drive vehicles, I do not know how members such as the members for Cook and Gregory and others will have time to use the vehicles. I am not suggesting that they should not have them. I travel approximately 50 000 kilometres annually within my electorate. That involves up to 600 hours' travelling-time or a total of 15 weeks' worth of working hours. Added to the six or seven weeks to which I referred earlier, that means I spend 15 or 20 working weeks' worth of working hours annually in a car or an aircraft during the normal course of my duty. That must be recognised by the community, the Parliamentary Legislative Assembly 4883 20 November 1990

Service Commission and those members of the commission who provide the facilities. I believe that the Leader of the Liberal Party mentioned the use of mobile telephones, which would be a wonderful advantage in my electorate because I could communicate with people while travelling for those several weeks a year. Because those facilities are available, mobile telephones would be a marvellous assistance. I acknowledge that those facilities might never be available in the electorates of Cook and Gregory. However, with the next generation of satellites, mobile communication facilities might be more readily available. I urge the Speaker and the members of the Parliamentary Service Commission to reconsider the situation and acknowledge the fact that, although the facilities that might be available in the Parliament are all very well and good, many members do not realistically have the opportunity to utilise them. External compensatory facilities are required. Although I agree with other members that it would be good to spend more time in the gymnasium and on the squash court—which certainly would improve one's figure—the fact of the matter is that I do not have time to do that. I need other service facilities such as mobile phones and air travel warrants to assist me. During the normal course of duty, a member in an electorate such as mine can spend between three and five months' worth of working hours just travelling. I do not believe that fact is appreciated. In many instances the time involved would be much more than that. Members spend virtually all of their time away from this place driving or travelling by other means solely to service their constituents. Queensland now has a proliferation of committees. Although I support the committee structure in broad terms, quite frankly I question the degree of proliferation, because it is intruding on the time that members can spend representing their constituents and researching the processes of the operation of Parliament rather than the facilities and structures of Parliament. That is very important. It is important also to realise that members who wish to play a normal role in committees—for example, I am on the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review—do not receive any travel entitlements to attend a meeting that is held when Parliament is not sitting. It is not reasonable that I do not receive a travel entitlement to represent the committee at other places. Admittedly, a small additional payment is made, which would pay for one and a half trips between my electorate and Brisbane. I know that some Government members are experiencing similar problems whereby their normal parliamentary travel entitlements will have to be extended if they are to play their rightful part not only as members of Parliament but also as members of those parliamentary committees. During the parliamentary session, it is not possible for those committees to sit fruitfully; a token meeting can be held. At this moment, I am supposed to be at one such meeting. Honourable members must prepare for debates, and we often receive criticism for not being present in the Chamber. Members of the public who view the debates think that honourable members are not interested. Taking into account all the normal processes of evaluation associated with drafting new Bills and amendments to Acts, it seems that the committees cannot gainfully, in the positive sense, sit during the parliamentary session. On some occasions, it may be necessary to hold a quick meeting to deal with correspondence, etc. However, to really get their teeth into particular problems, committees must sit outside the parliamentary sitting times. I say to the members of the Parliamentary Service Commission that it is unreasonable that an additional allowance is not provided for travel. Members such the member for Auburn, the member for Rockhampton North, the member for Callide and myself, whose electorates are not located within a comfortable few minutes' drive of the city, must either use their parliamentary entitlements or not travel to Brisbane. On a number of occasions, we have held telephone meetings, which are acceptable in some circumstances but are not a positive way of addressing the problems that the committees have to consider. I plead with the members of the Parliamentary Service Commission to recognise that the matter is not as simple as it looks. I pay tribute to the members of the staff who support honourable members—the Hansard reporters, the table staff, the parliamentary catering staff, the ladies who service Legislative Assembly 4884 20 November 1990 our rooms, the attendants, the gardeners and all of those people who make this place something of which we can all be proud and who make it as close as possible to a place like home, particularly for those of us who live here during sitting weeks. Previous speakers in the debate have paid tribute to their electorate secretaries for supporting them, and I pay tribute to my electorate secretary, Mrs Gloria Meloni, for the work that she does. On many occasions, in our absence, the electorate secretaries act as the member and, in many cases, I guess that they are looked upon as the member. I know that all honourable members join with me in acknowledging that the work that their electorate secretaries do is largely unsung. Finally, all honourable members—not only members of the Opposition—must have further research support. If that is to be a part of the review and reform process, as suggested by people before me and by Mr Fitzgerald, it is ludicrous that research has not been given a higher priority in the assessment of the Parliamentary Service Commission. Mr PREST (Port Curtis) (4.42 p.m.): I thank the Government for allowing the debate on the Estimates for the Parliament for the first time since I came to this place approximately 14 and a half years ago. The views expressed in the debate have been many and varied and conflicting. One honourable member says that Parliament does not sit for enough days in the year, but another member says that, because of the number of sitting days, members do not have time to attend to other business and that we must leave the Chamber to attend meetings. If Parliament sits for 60 or 70 days in each year, that leaves approximately 290 days to attend to all of the other business. Mr Stoneman: What about travelling to and from? Mr PREST: The honourable member referred to travelling time. Good heavens! It would take three hours at the most to travel from his electorate to Brisbane. Mr Stoneman: I said four hours each way. Mr PREST: Well, four hours. I suppose the honourable member wants to include sleeping time. A lot of rubbish has been spoken during the debate. It is obvious that the findings of the Fitzgerald inquiry have not cleared the air at all. Some members of Parliament still want to put their hands into the public purse; they are not getting enough out of it now. What does the public see? The public sees parliamentarians as being overpaid. Yet we hear members wanting the use of mobile phones and access to more research people. They do not need research assistants; they need speech-writers. After all, they need someone to do their work for them. Mr Santoro: Come on. Mr PREST: I do not have to come on at all. I know what is going on and the public know what is going on. The people on the other side of the Chamber knew what they were entitled to when they came into this place. As soon as they get in here, they want more. In my time, 125 members have left this Chamber and they did not do so voluntarily; they were put out. They would be only too pleased to come back here and work under the present conditions and pay. I assure honourable members opposite that those people left here because their constituents said, "You are not doing your job. Get out." That will happen again if we continue to say that we should be getting more from the public purse. I join in the congratulations being offered to electorate secretaries. My electorate secretary as worked for me for fourteen and a half years and, prior to that, she worked for the late Marty Hanson. She has been in the service since day one. I certainly hope there will be no repercussions from the claims that are to be made—— Opposition members interjected. Mr PREST: Shut up, you idiots. I hope there will be no repercussions from the claims that are to be made by the Federated Clerks Union to the Industrial Relations Commission for pay rises and Legislative Assembly 4885 20 November 1990 increased entitlements for electorate secretaries. I cannot see how the commission would grant the same pay to a new electorate secretary without taking into consideration the years of service given by, for instance, my own electorate secretary who has been doing this work for some 17 years. She should receive a higher rate of pay and enjoy better conditions than those coming in today. The union should be very careful because, instead of making a gain, it could be making a loss for new electorate secretaries. My electorate secretary is entitled to every cent she is paid. She has been a wonderful electorate secretary. I am not one of those who has been changing my electorate secretary every two or three years. This secretary has done a marvellous job and looks after my constituents very well. The public already see members as being overpaid. One matter I wish to raise today is our entitlements, such as the free room for country members and the amount we pay for meals. From time to time the press reports on the price of meals. It takes great delight in writing about the amount we pay for our meals. The media forgets to tell the public that we do not receive the generous living away from home allowances paid to Government employees and every other unionist or executive person who leaves his home because of the nature—— Mr Mackenroth: And journalists. Mr PREST: And journalists who leave their homes for two, three, or four days because of the requirements of their employment. They receive a living away from home allowance, which is not paid to members of Parliament. To offset that, members are given a room free of charge and meals for which we pay approximately $3. I repeat that those benefits are in lieu of receiving a living away from home allowance. As I represent a provincial city area, I would be more than pleased if I were paid a living away from home allowance because, like Federal members of Parliament, at the end of my term of 16 or 17 years I would own a unit or a flat which I could sell and thus leave Parliament with something. State members of Parliament go away with nothing because they are provided with free accommodation and meals at a reduced cost. The people who report on the cost of meals in this place enjoy that benefit. The media people, who are being paid a meal allowance, can eat in our cafeteria at a reduced cost and drink the same spirits and beer we do at the same price we pay. They say we are reaping a benefit; so are they. We are not the hypocrites; the people who write those stories and give misleading information to the public are the ones who should be criticised. If they do not appreciate what this Parliament is providing for them, they should go up the street for their meals or make other arrangements. They are not living away from home. Unlike us, they go home each night, and they are enjoying the same benefits that we enjoy. One or two other members would like to speak in this debate. Mr Speaker is doing a wonderful job. I have served under many Speakers. I do not intend to condemn any one of them but some certainly had some queer ideas. I have been ordered to withdraw from the Chamber for making too much noise. When I asked why, the Speaker told me, "I don't know. I couldn't hear you. You were talking under your breath." It was a National Party Speaker. As I have said, many former members would be only too willing to return here under the present conditions. We all knew what we were coming into. I am honoured to have been able to serve the electorate of Port Curtis for so long. During the remainder of my time in Parliament, I will be pleased to work under the harsh conditions I have put up with over the past fourteen and a half years. I say to those members who do not spend much time in the Chamber that this is their opportunity to participate in this debate and make a contribution. By doing so, their constituents will appreciate the work they are doing. They will not simply be holding out their hands for more benefits for themselves, but will be doing something for the people whom they represent. That is what being a member of Parliament is all about. Members do not come here to make a fortune or to be looked after. Labor members were not born with silver spoons in their mouths, as some members were, and the Labor Government has come here to do a job on behalf of the people. Legislative Assembly 4886 20 November 1990

Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (4.52 p.m.): Basically, I rise this afternoon to express appreciation—— Mr Sullivan: I hope it's better than this morning's effort. Mr SANTORO: Obviously, this morning's effort tickled Government members; I am waiting for the answers to be forthcoming. This afternoon I wish to express my appreciation to the staff of Parliament House and make a few comments about the running of this place. I wish to acknowledge the great assistance that has been given to members on this side of the Chamber by the library staff. I am told that I am one who is more prolific in requesting information from the library and I appreciate the prompt, courteous and sensitive treatment of my requests and the requests made by all members of the library staff. I thank the staff who conduct the tours for the most efficient and informative manner in which they take the schoolchildren from my electorate around the building. I also thank the night staff. It does not matter what time my barbecues finish, the staff is always there and courteous. They watch over the property of this Parliament and deserve our appreciation. One group of people who have not been mentioned during this debate so far is the floor secretaries. I am sure that members appreciate that often those secretaries work under conflicting demands of members from different parties and they always perform admirably and efficiently, which is certainly the case with Mrs O'Donnell. I show a lot of people through Parliament House. I have tried to work out how many people I have shown through the building since I was elected, and at the last count it was over 1 200 people. One of my biggest disappointments is when many people tell me not only that they have never been through Parliament House, but also that they do not know where it is. It seems to me that the claim members often make that this is the House of the people is not reflected in people's knowledge of this place. I always say that a Parliament is good if it looks like a dignified seat of government and if it acts in a dignified way. I heard the interjection made by the honourable member who spoke previously and I deliberately did not ask for it to be withdrawn. When honourable members on the Government side have a go and act in a personal way, I invariably take a copy of their speech from Hansard. When people ask me how debates are conducted in Parliament, I take the opportunity to point out some of the good contributions made by Government members. However, from the first moment I got up to speak in this Chamber the honourable member for Port Curtis has indulged in cheap personality shots. I was not afforded the courtesies that are normally afforded to members who speak for the first time. I knew what my rights were as a member and I will undoubtedly use that as another example of the undignified way that some Government members conduct themselves and of the personal abuse that they are wont to inflict on members on this side of the House. Mr Elder interjected. Mr SANTORO: I am a fair man. Those are the truest words the honourable member will ever utter. I support calls made by previous speakers on this side of the Chamber for more resources to be allocated to members of Parliament—not just members of the Opposition, but all members. When I hear Mr Prest say that we are bleeding hearts and that we should be happy with what we have—which is in effect what he said—I remind Government members that the resources enjoyed by backbenchers on both sides of this Chamber are no greater than the resources enjoyed by backbenchers under the previous Government. Right up until the last day of the election campaign last year, members of the then Opposition who are now in Government said how underresourced they were. Apart from the honourable member for Port Curtis—who has just walked into the Chamber—being personally abusive, he also had a convenient lapse in memory, because when he says that we should be grateful for what we have, he forgets the whingeing and whining indulged in by the members of his party when they were afforded the same Legislative Assembly 4887 20 November 1990 resources that we have now. As a member of an Opposition cross-bench party with multiple shadow responsibilities, I would appreciate extra facilities. Mr Ardill interjected. Mr SANTORO: I will tell Mr Ardill what I have done about the fax. Because these extra facilities have not been forthcoming, I have privately purchased a broadcast fax because it assists me in the discharge of my shadow and electorate responsibilities. I have sought to help myself, which is a practical demonstration of the fact that we need more resources, and that when they are not afforded to us, we are prepared to pay for them ourselves. I support the comments made by the Leader of the Liberal Party that were supported by Mr Sherman, the chairman of EARC. When Mr Prest calls us names and suggests that we are not deserving of extra logistical support, he is flying directly against the recommendations contained in the report that was tabled in this Chamber last Thursday week. Members on this side—and I imagine most Government members—would privately acknowledge the necessity for more resources and would disagree greatly with him. I am particularly pleased to see the Speaker in the Chamber not only because he will be able to hear what I say but also because he has been able to hear what other members who preceded me in this debate have said. When I escort visitors through Parliament House, I take great pride in bringing them into the Chamber. Invariably, they ask me, "Who sits in the big chair?", and I am always very pleased to tell them that the Speaker is fair and reasonable. As I have said previously in this Chamber, I certainly appreciate the courtesy that has been extended to me personally and to other members of the Liberal Party by Mr Speaker. The role of the Speaker is to conduct debates and I believe that the present Speaker conducts debates in this Chamber in a fair and reasonable manner. It has often been said, however, that the Speaker does not set the parameters within which debates are conducted because they are set by the Government of the day and by the Leader of the House. I see he is smiling and appears to be very satisfied, but I am afraid that those parameters have not always been set in the best democratic interests of this Parliament. I wish to refer to two experiences in particular to which members on the Opposition side of the Chamber have previously referred. Mr Mackenroth: Was that the night you got sacked as the Whip? I remember it well. Mr SANTORO: I am happy to mention that. The two instances I wish to raise are the debate on the Weapons Bill—which was the cause of my suffering some misfortune that I do not deny or try to hide from, in spite of the Leader of the House's attempts to score political points and in spite of the comments made in the local press by the member for Greenslopes—and the Industrial Relations Bill. Mr Mackenroth: It wasn't my fault. I was here. Mr SANTORO: The Leader of the House should afford me the courtesy of listening to what I am about to say. I have acknowledged the point he has made and I have taken his interjection. It has been recorded and it will appear in Hansard. During debate on the Weapons Bill, the Leader of the House wound up the second-reading debate and erroneously started to tell people that the Liberal Party was not interested in debating. The Leader of the House did not say that a deadline had been set for late in the night and that, if it had been kept, it would have allowed for a second-reading debate but would have provided no time for a debate on the clauses. This also happened when the Industrial Relations Bill was debated. When I refer to the conduct of debates and the setting of parameters within which debates are conducted, these are the types of parameters to which I am referring. The way that the Leader of the House and members of the Government told untruths about what happened during debate on Legislative Assembly 4888 20 November 1990 the Industrial Relations Bill and on the Weapons Bill does not bother me one iota. The end result was that the Leader of the House did exactly what he had condemned previous administrations for doing—he gagged the debate. His action is a matter of public record, and I will be reminding people of the track record of the Leader of the House from time to time. During this debate, various members have mentioned sitting hours. I place on record the comments I make to the many visitors I escort into this Chamber. It does not matter how intelligent or fit a member may be, or how desirous he or she may be of debating the issues because, as soon as the time of 10 p.m. or 10.30 p.m. is reached, a member's judgment and ability can be clouded. I urge members of this Government to stick to the commitment that was given and wind up the proceedings of this Parliament at a reasonable hour—and that certainly does not mean midnight, 12.30 a.m. or 1 a.m., which has been the case lately. Mr Mackenroth: Would you tell me how many times you have made your decision as to how you are going to vote on the debate that has been held? Mr SANTORO: I can inform the Leader of the House that the Liberal Party always makes up its mind on the way in which it will vote in accordance with its principles and beliefs, which are clearly enunciated in its policies. I can assure the Leader of the House that members of the Liberal Party will adhere to those policies far better than he has been sticking to his policies in relation to Police and Emergency Services. He can rest assured that when members of the Liberal Party make their decisions, they will be based on promises, commitments and philosophy and not on the example being set by the Minister and other members of the Government. My experience with parliamentary committees is a relatively happy one. Despite provocation from members on the Government side of the Chamber, I wish to place on record that the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice is working well. In particular, I congratulate the chairman for the manner in which he conducts the work of the committee. The atmosphere of the committee and the attitudes displayed by members of the committee are to be commended and reflect favourably on the ability of the chairman and on the goodwill of all committee members. Before I conclude my remarks in relation to committees, I point out that the Liberal Party has a proud record when it comes to advocating acceptance of the role of committees. It should not be forgotten that no member of this Parliament is, or has been, better qualified to speak about the role played by parliamentary committees than the former member for Redcliffe, Terry White. My membership of the Criminal Justice Committee has an effect on my daily life as a member of Parliament. It seems to me that members come to me seeking access to the administration of this State through the work of that committee. Often requests are made of me for input into the committee and into the administration of this State. Through my involvement in that committee—and, I imagine, through the involvement of other members in other committees—aggrieved people are able to seek redress, or at least obtain an audience in relation to queries that they have, which is good. In addition, through the work of parliamentary committees, active community members are able to provide input into Government policy and administrative procedures. For those reasons, the Liberal Party supports the unfettered operation of those committees. I issue a warning to the Government not to seek to interfere with the operation of committees because I believe that a good committee system is good for government and good for democracy in this State. I place on record my acknowledgment of the contribution made by many Liberal members, not the least of which was made by the former member for Redcliffe, who strove to develop in this Parliament a positive attitude towards committees . I apologise to the honourable member who follows me in this debate for not allowing him more time. I felt I had to respond to some of the comments that had been made during the course of this debate, both during my speech and earlier. Legislative Assembly 4889 20 November 1990

Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (5.07 p.m.): I support the Minister's Estimates and the remarks made by other members of the Parliamentary Service Commission. Honourable members should understand their role in this place. The operation of the Chamber is outside the purview of the Parliamentary Service Commission and under the control of the Speaker. We must recognise the important role of the Speaker, Mr Fouras. He has carried out his work in a commendable way. I join other members in thanking the staff of the Parliamentary Service Commission—Hansard, the library, the caterers, the attendants and, especially, the electorate secretaries—for the work which they carry out. I was concerned about the comments made by the honourable member for Fassifern and the honourable member for Callide. The member for Fassifern criticised harshly the committee system and also the Parliamentary Service Commission. He stated that the committee system was a Labor initiative. I remind him that many of those committees were put in place as a result of Fitzgerald recommendations. We are implementing the recommendations made by Fitzgerald. Those committees will play an important role in the operation of the Parliament and of the Government. When I was an Opposition member, I found committee work to be some of the most rewarding work that I did. It enables Opposition members to play a responsible role in government. I was concerned that the member for Fassifern insinuated that the Parliamentary Service Commission legislation was introduced as a result of a personal conflict between a previous Speaker and the Executive Government. When the legislation was debated in 1988, there was general acceptance of the role of the Parliamentary Service Commission. By indicating that the Parliamentary Service Commission is not working in the manner in which the legislation intended, the member for Fassifern is denigrating the commission's role. At the time, the Opposition spokesman, Mr De Lacy, indicated that we would support the Bill in the right spirit and in a constructive way to help in the operation of Parliament. I believe that we have done that. I recognise that the same concerns that were expressed by the Opposition at that time have been expressed today. Honourable members expressed concerns about financial responsibility of the Parliamentary Service Commission and also the role of the Executive. Members should be reminded that the Parliamentary Service Commission must fulfil its responsibilities under the Financial Administration and Audit Act by obtaining the approval of the Executive Council before awarding contracts above a certain amount. That requirement may be time- consuming, but all departments, including the Parliamentary Service Commission, must comply with it. The member for Fassifern made an indiscreet comment about members changing into training gear in the annexe. He has misunderstood the position. The annexe is the accommodation section for members. In that block, the members—not the public—come first. The honourable member indicated that that standard of dress does not apply in any other House of Parliament that he has visited. Of course it does not. This is the only Parliament House in which accommodation is provided for members. Members would be concerned if they could not undertake physical training or have a run in the appropriate dress. I hasten to add that, in this Chamber, honourable members should dress appropriately, in keeping with the traditions of Parliament. One of the difficulties with the Estimates is that a great proportion of the funding is non- discretionary spending. In other words, there is very little control over it. The allocation provides for members' entitlements and there is no provision for discretionary spending. Honourable members have mentioned that their representations in this Chamber and to the Parliamentary Service Commission should be heard with respect and be given proper consideration. The member for Yeronga was concerned about the parliamentary privilege attaching to galley proofs of Hansard. I believe that draft legislation could be introduced to provide parliamentary privilege for those galley proofs. As well, honourable members would have a responsibility to correct their own proofs. At present, because Legislative Assembly 4890 20 November 1990 members do not take the opportunity to correct their own proofs, the system breaks down. Another important issue concerns information about Parliament. Publications should provide better information about the Parliament and the Government. On a recent visit to America, I read special House of Delegate manuals and Illinois Legislature publications which are provided every two years to members to enable them to fulfil a role that is not covered in Queensland. Our Queensland Parliamentary Handbook is not up to the standard provided by other Parliaments. We should provide better publications not only for members of this Parliament but also for members of the public. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (5.14 p.m.), in reply: I thank all members who participated in this Estimates debate. I believe that it has been a reasonably responsible debate, with most members contributing in a responsible way. Before the debate began, I feared that it would become much like a very big shopping list for what could be done for members. However, I do not think it got too far out of hand. Some matters were raised by members that can be considered. Some of the suggestions would certainly be things for the future—a long time in the future—but, basically, it was a very responsible debate. One thing that I should say in relation to the entitlements of members of Parliament is that on Friday the Parliamentary Service Commission will be discussing a letter that has been received from Mr Sherman of EARC in relation the entitlements of members of Parliament and the facilities that are available to them. A number of members mentioned that Fitzgerald recommended that entitlements should be looked at. However, the section of the Fitzgerald report that was not referred to was the one that said that EARC should look at what entitlements members of Parliament receive and what facilities should be available for backbench members. That is now on the agenda for discussion at Friday's meeting of the Parliamentary Service Commission. Having read that letter this morning, I understand that EARC will certainly be looking at the entitlements of members and what facilities are available to members—not just country members but all backbench members of this Parliament. I am sure that all honourable members await with interest the outcome of that particular inquiry by EARC. I now want to refer to matters that were raised by individual members, starting with the member for Fassifern, who basically criticised the Parliamentary Service Commission and the setting-up of that commission. He said that it was set up by a former Speaker to nobble the Government. I think it was really set up by a former Government to nobble the Speaker. I would say to the member for Fassifern, who is also a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission, that if he basically believes that the commission does not fulfil a role in this Parliament or in our system of government, he should raise that at the next meeting of the commission. Perhaps the members of the Parliamentary Service Commission should discuss whether the commission has got a role to play and whether it should continue. If that is the way that the honourable member really feels, I would ask him to raise the matter at a future meeting of the commission. The Parliamentary Service Commission, as a select committee of this Parliament, could discuss not just its future role but, indeed, its future. I was disappointed in the comment that the Parliamentary Service Commission comprises the Right Wing of the Cabinet and that it is dominated by the Leader of the House. I certainly do not believe that a person with a personality such as mine would dominate anything. I cannot imagine that the member for Fassifern sits around a conference table and really feels dominated by me, which is what he said. I am sure that if he wants to have his say at a meeting of the Parliamentary Service Commission, the member for Fassifern will have it. There is certainly one decision that the commission has made with which he does not agree and with which he will never agree. However, I do not think that there has been any heat over any decisions that have been made. In the time that I have been a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission, I think there was only one occasion on which the members really could not reach consensus, and I am the only member of this Parliament who has served on the Parliamentary Legislative Assembly 4891 20 November 1990

Service Commission since it was set up in 1988. The only time the commission could not reach a decision was when two bedrooms had to be allocated and three members needed them—one from the Labor Party, one from the Liberal Party and one from the National Party. Of course, the Labor members opted for the Labor member, the Liberal opted for the Liberal member and the Nationals opted for the National member. The members of the commission discussed it for a considerable period and a consensus could not be reached, so they drew straws. Unfortunately, on that occasion, the Liberals—as they always do—lost out. That is how consensus was reached on that occasion. However, on other matters, the members of the commission have reached consensus, so I do not know how it could be said that I dominate the Parliamentary Service Commission. The member for Fassifern also raised the cost of meals in the Parliamentary Annexe, as did quite a number of other members. One of the matters that he raised was that Ministers were not using function rooms and that, therefore, a further cost was being incurred to the Parliament. One thing that he did say that was wrong was that Ministers were holding a number of functions outside the Parliament. That is simply not true. The reality is that this Government is not wasting money on functions in the way that previous Governments did. I am certain that that will be shown either this week or within the next three weeks when ministerial expenses are tabled in this Parliament. The cost of meals is always a controversial subject and always seems to attract the fancy of the media. I agree with the point made by the member for Port Curtis in relation to meals, that is, that no consideration is given to the fact that although members are allocated a bedroom in this complex, they receive no other allowance in regard to being away from home. People in any other occupation would receive a living away from home allowance when they were away from home overnight. Because they receive a bedroom in the Parliamentary Annexe, members of Parliament do not receive a living away from home allowance. However, they are then expected to pay for their meals. Because they are charged a very small amount of $3 for meals, the Government is criticised. I am not saying that it will happen, but it would be much more rational to charge members $15 for meals and to give them $15 as an allowance for being away from home, so that the money could then go into that budget. Perhaps then those people who look at the accounts of the parliamentary catering division will start to understand what the provision of those meals to members of Parliament really means and that if members were receiving an amount of money, they could be charged the full cost and that they could take that amount out of the budget. That is one way that it could be done. A number of members raised increasing facilities in their electorate offices. I outlined in my speech that this year computers and printers in electorate offices will be upgraded and that that will be done at a cost of around $1m. I believe that that is a considerable amount of money to be expending in one year and, because of that, some of the other items such as answering machines, dictation machines, hand-held telephones and all of those things are matters that will need to be put off to be looked at in the future. The money that is being spent on the upgrading of computers is certainly the greatest amount that the Parliament itself could look at spending on facilities for members in this year. A number of members spoke about the significance of the parliamentary committees that are now operating in this Parliament and the need to provide resources to those committees, as well as the need to provide extra travelling allowances and the like to members. Those are matters that have got to be looked at in the future as those committees operate for a longer period of time. The honourable member for Auburn raised the matter of a car allowance for driving his car from his electorate to Parliament House. That is a matter that I believe should be looked at. I do not know that one could justify paying the full public service allowance to any member of Parliament because, in the first instance, a $6,000 or $7,000 car allowance is being paid to members for their car. Mr Harper: For members. Legislative Assembly 4892 20 November 1990

Mr MACKENROTH: Yes, for members, but for the car. So, one cannot justify wear and tear on that car when that allowance is already being received. A more equitable way would be to look at the cost of providing a petrol card for the honourable member to drive his car to Parliament House. At 5.25 p.m., The CHAIRMAN: Order! Under the provisions of the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 3 October, I shall now put the question for the Vote under consideration and the balance remaining unvoted for the Legislative Assembly. The question for the following Vote was put, and agreed to— $32,273,000—General Public Services, Legislative Assembly (Consolidated Revenue). Administrative Services Hon. R. T. McLEAN (Bulimba—Minister for Administrative Services) (5.26 p.m.): I move— "That there be granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year 1990-91, a sum not exceeding $449,450,000 for the Department of Administrative Services that amount comprising $405,122,000 for General Public Services, Department of Administrative Services (Consolidated Revenue) and $44,328,000, Trust and Special Funds." When the Goss Government was swept to power on a mandate for reform, every other State Government in Australia had already recognised the need to create cost-effective, accountable service departments. Every other Government had commercialised its service departments and significant productivity gains and downsizing occurred. In Queensland, the emphasis for many years had been on spending funds to the limit on items such as cars and office space rather than delegating spending to departments, which would then need to consider efficient and effective purchasing on a commercial basis. One of the major segments of my portfolio is the old Works Department. The last time its Estimates were debated was in 1987, when the Minister said— "It is the overall responsibility of my department to provide the maximum economic building accommodation possible with the available space." Not a word about value for money, and not a word about efficiency; just a matter of big spending and to hell with the taxpayer. On 26 September last year, in the Supply debate, the member for Logan spoke as the next Premier of this State and said— "The Government that I will lead will be a Government of rational economic management." He went on— "My Government will reject as absurd the notion that profit is a dirty word." And he added— "The spending priorities of the next Labor Government will be funded by the elimination of waste and a reduction in unnecessary capital works expenditure." Members of the previous Government then jeered. Let the few of them who are left jeer now that those philosophies are being put into effect just as he forecast. The changes occurring in my department are momentous. I have the honour of being the Minister responsible for the cutting edge of this new philosophy of accountability, efficiency and profitability. It strikes me as quite ironic that the previous National Party Government, which paid so much lip-service to the profit motive, never put its own house in order. This Government has recognised that, in an organisation where hundreds of millions of dollars were being spent with little thought to cost- effectiveness, a reorganisation along commercial lines could save taxpayers millions of dollars. It is a far cry from the Minister for "Rorts" who operated under the previous National Party Government. Legislative Assembly 4893 20 November 1990

What honourable members will not find in this year's Estimates is taxpayers' money being poured into Queensland 2000, the weekly program that all honourable members will remember bombarded the TV-watching public with propaganda at a cost of some $2m a year. This year, honourable members will not find $27m set aside for building programs in Government electorates. This year, honourable members will not find 85 per cent of the budget for special schools being spent in Government electorates, nor any other rorting of that kind. With the change of Government, the Department of Works, Goprint, the State Stores Board, the Centre for Information Technology and Communications—CITEC—the Public Relations and Media Office, the Government Motor Garage and other sections were amalgamated under my responsibility. This was a logical step to amalgamate sections of the public service that provided services for other sections of the Government. The department's formation was an important part of the philosophy of removing duplication and overlap of functions. It was decided that the new department could best provide an efficient, cost- effective service if it operated as a number of business enterprises on a user-pays basis in a commercial environment. An amalgamation review unit has overseen the radical changes which will result in the department's being fully operational in a commercial user-pays mode by 1 July 1991. Each business unit will generate income to meet the operational costs of the business. My department has obtained approval from Cabinet to implement a new corporate strategic framework and organisational structure to house those units. The strategic plan provides a common vision, value system and service philosophy. The long-term survival of each business unit will depend on the level of customer demand for cost-effective delivery of services. In turn, each business will adopt commercially sound practices which will allow it to operate as competitively as any other player in the market. The eight business units of my department will have to earn their income by providing services which are perceived to be superior in quality, timeliness and cost. Each unit has been established to ensure that its services are clearly identified, priced and costed through appropriate accrual accounting systems to produce separate profit and loss statements and balance sheets. After the positions were advertised throughout Australia and New Zealand, managers have recently been appointed to run the eight business units, which are: fleet management; Goprint; CITEC; building projects group; building property management; maintenance and operations; purchasing and sales; and the media and information service. It is important that the service provided will meet client needs, and to achieve this result the department will follow these 22 commercial principles: services are provided through logical, product-based business units. Business units are aligned to—and compete within—externally defined industries. Management in business units is vested with the authority and responsibility to achieve predetermined commercial objectives within the framework of departmental policies. Accountability is defined in terms of the business plans drawn up by unit management and agreed to by the department. The department provides corporate policy, direction, and limited corporate services. Commercial systems and practices are developed in each business unit to suit its needs. Business unit management is responsible for ongoing enhancement of efficiency and effectiveness. The customer controls the level of services. The user pays for services provided. Customers have freedom of choice in the market, although some may be tied initially. In the long term, all services are viable, and products are clearly identified, priced and costed through appropriate management accounting systems. Product offerings conform to customer requirements of quality and timeliness. Target markets are identified. Marketing plans and resources are devoted to those targets. Any duplication or overlap of products and services is avoided. Cross-subsidisation of products within business units is acceptable. Funds are devolved to clients. All business will report on profit and loss statements and balance sheets. Valuation of all assets must take place. Business units are measured in terms of commercial financial yardsticks, principally return on investment. Ultimately, capital structures are recognised, surpluses are retained and dividend policies are set. The cost of surplus capacity, interference or provision of non-commercial services is highlighted and separately accounted for. While the long-term Legislative Assembly 4894 20 November 1990 direction of the department is dictated by the need for efficiency and competitiveness, it also provides for savings and long-term product rationalisation of inefficient services. The implementation of the user-pays system for the department's services will result in the following benefits for the Government: clients will be able to make choices about allocation of scarce funds; client departments will value services; the valuation of services allows the true costs of public- sector programs to be ascertained; the recognition of costs will allow reasoned debate amongst interest groups as to costs and benefits of public-sector programs which compete for scarce funds; and a more rigorous approach to financial analysis of costs and revenue to deliver more Government services for less taxpayer funding—and that, really, is what it is all about. With the implementation of business units, it is not intended to vary from the two distinct roles of the department, namely, a service-provider of a range of goods and services to public-sector agencies and the public; and a central agency responsibility to service Government property and assets as economically as possible and implement Government policies in relation to this function. The department's budget for 1990-91 has been prepared on a program basis which incorporates business units to commence operation on 1 July 1991. The first of these programs is the asset management program, which comprises a maintenance and operations business unit and a building property management business unit. The maintenance and operations business unit will provide four core services for client departments, namely, an inspectorial service of Government assets to ensure the Government's assets are maintained and protected; a maintenance service for client departments, which will be cost effective and timely; a construction service; and a review, investigation and advisory service for client departments on maintenance and construction matters. The maintenance and operations business unit will operate on a full user-pays basis as from 1 July 1991. Money appropriated by Treasury to this department will be allocated to client departments. The client departments will be required to use this business unit for the next two years, after which time the business unit will have to compete with the private sector for this type of work on a full commercial basis. The system will ensure that clients obtain value for money; will value the services provided; and will ensure that the true costs of these services are reflected in the programs of the client departments. The building property management business unit will act as a central property agency, managing Government office accommodation, security, cleaning, gardening, property planning, and development and consultancy services. Departments will be charged commercial rental rates for office accommodation space occupied. This business unit will operate on a full user-pays basis, also as from 1 July 1991. The major advantages to the Government through establishing this business unit are to ensure Government space is effectively utilised; bring about more effective planning and rationalisation of clients' accommodation needs; derive maximum benefit from its investment in Government-owned buildings; and meet client needs for property service within time, cost and quality parameters. The asset management budget allocation for 1990-91 totalled $197,283,000 compared with actual expenditure during 1989-90 of $179,010,000. Salaries, wages and administrative and related payments for the administrative component of the program, together with the costs of security and cleaning services, came to $42,266,000. This compares with actual expenditure last year of $36,045,000. The increased allocation is due to provision for employee superannuation contributions previously funded by Treasury and provision for award increases. The allocation for the maintenance of buildings increased by $6,343,000 over the previous year's expenditure to $78m. The increase mainly relates to a $5m supplementation for the maintenance of Government buildings. The allocation also includes $5m as a special funding for teachers' amenities as part of the Government's commitment to improving educational facilities. An amount of $49,895,000 has been allowed in the Budget for the payment of rent on leased office accommodation and outgoings. This is an increase of $3,023,000 over last year's expenditure to cover the full year's costs of rent on new leases approved Legislative Assembly 4895 20 November 1990 during 1989-90, including Capital Hill, 80 Albert Street and Santos House. A provision of $26,400,000 was provided under the asset management program and comprises $16,400,000 for accommodation fit-out and furniture and $10m appropriated for the first time by Treasury for the purpose of providing client departments with recoverable loans for fit-out purposes. The building program, which is the second unit, comprises the building projects business unit, which will perform feasibility, design, documentation and contract administration and construction roles as a project management and consultancy service on a fee for service basis. As a first stage in the user-pays process, client departments were allocated capital works funding during the 1990-91 financial year. My department is administering the client's capital works program in the current year and reports monthly on the progress of individual projects. The implementation of a commercial business unit from 1 July 1991 will ensure that services provided are commercially competitive and timely to enhance our client's operations. Work undertaken by that business unit as from 1 July 1991 will be on a fee basis. The department's Budget allocation for this area during 1990-91 totalled $49,837,000 compared to a figure last year of $353,061,000. The difference in the Budget allocation is because capital works allocations have been appropriated directly to client departments. The Budget allocation comprises salaries, wages, administrative and related payments totalling $31,743,000 and capital expenditure outlays totalling $18,094,000. That last figure includes a provision for the Government offices in Cairns totalling $7,400,000, and the balance represents minor capital works projects. Capital works to be undertaken and paid for by client departments in this financial year will total about $363m. The motor vehicle services program will comprise a business providing a motor vehicle leasing service to all departments on a short-term and long-term hire basis similar to a commercial rental car business. It will also operate a workshop and garage to support the leasing service. The business unit is operating a trial car pool in my department. The figures so far show that the use of those cars is averaging 50 per cent during working hours. In other words, half the cars are not needed during the working day. That is not so much a car pool as a stagnant lake of waste. It is just one example of the savings to be made through this Government's philosophy of commercialism. The introduction of a fleet-management business will enable the Government to achieve the most cost-efficient and most satisfactory use of motor vehicles by reducing the current motor vehicle fleet; avoiding the duplication of fleet management in each department; ensuring non-essential accessories are not fitted to vehicles; ensuring that vehicles consuming high quantities of fuel do not go undetected; ensuring that adequate maintenance is carried out; and avoiding the underutilisation of vehicles. The Government Motor Garage has been operating at a loss. This was $401,689 for 1989-90, which was quite a significant improvement on the loss of the year before, which was $911,271. However, an examination of products has been performed to ascertain which services are viable. Refinements have been made and will continue to be made to operations, including increasing prices, while maintaining competitive rates to provide better financial returns. The Government Motor Garage was appropriated at $7,438,000 to meet anticipated expenditure during 1990-91. It is anticipated that revenue will be generated from garage activities to meet the anticipated expenditure. Goprint operated the printing services program on a commercial basis prior to the amalgamation. That business will provide professional, efficient, responsive and innovative printing and publishing services to Government departments. At the moment, Goprint is operating on a tied-client basis, having gone commercial on 1 July 1988. Efforts have been made to establish and refine management and operational systems that support monitoring of performance and meeting clients' needs. In the near future, it will operate on a fully commercial basis, competing with similar industries in the private sector. That will ensure that clients obtain value for money. Goprint provides confidential printing and printing-related services to Parliament, Government departments and instrumentalities, using its own expertise and resources Legislative Assembly 4896 20 November 1990 complemented by a subcontracting arrangement with private industry. The Budget allocation for Goprint is $27,540,000, which will be offset by revenue earned totalling $26,372,000, leaving a deficit of $1,168,000. That shortfall will be met from accumulated cash reserves, which amounted to $3,277,000 as at 1 July this year. The information and communication services program comprises the CITEC business unit, which currently operates on a semi-user-pays basis, recouping costs from departments for some of the services provided. From 1 July 1991, that business will operate on a full user-pays basis. The inherited system means that the full costs of the services have not been recouped and the true costs are not reflected in the costs of client programs. It is envisaged that substantial increases in the fees charged for computing and telecommunication services will need to be made for the organisation to become a properly commercial business unit. The goal of the program is to ensure that efficient, effective, secure and flexible computing services and communication networks are available on a cost-recovery basis to assist the Government and its agencies in achieving their goals and objectives. CITEC provides specialist computing and telecommunication services to the public sector and its clients through 24-hour computing services, telecommunications networks, professional development, technology research, applications development, policy formulation, and consultancy. The allocation for CITEC is $96,888,000, comprising $46,207,000 for operational outlays, $3,030,000 for subsidies and $47,651,000 for capital outlays. Departmental users pay a fee for service for CITEC facilities that is anticipated to total $32,365,000 in 1990-91. The deficiency on operational outlays of $13,842,000 is expected to be recovered in 1991-92 when full charging for telephones will be introduced. The special services program comprises the purchasing and sales business unit and the media and information services business unit. From 1 July 1991, the purchasing and sales business unit will operate on a commercial user-pays basis, providing services of period contracts, one-off purchasing and warehousing. The business is currently restructuring its operations to ensure that the charges for its services are competitive and that its service to clients is timely. The unit is currently investigating the feasibility of utilising electronic data interchange for Government purchasing. A pilot scheme has been implemented within my department, and early indications are that money can be saved if that process is introduced correctly. The commercialisation of the business unit will ensure that clients achieve an enhanced and cost-effective service. The media and information services business unit will provide a Government bookshop and information centre; a promotional and media support consultancy; and a television broadcasting, video production and photographic service. The prime aims of this unit are to provide the Government with cost-effective services and to eliminate duplication of functions across various Government departments. The proposed bookshop and information service will provide a service to other Government departments and the public generally similar to that provided by the Commonwealth Government bookshop. An allocation of $69,087,000 was provided for that program. The State Stores Board is expected to spend $13,825,000, of which $9,400,000 will be recouped from client departments. The special services program is responsible also for providing Government financial assistance to specific sections of the community or to the community in general. That assistance includes showground capital works subsidies, with a budget allocation of $1,838,000; the school improvement subsidy, with a budget allocation of $4,981,000; and interest grants to non-State schools. In 1987-88, $8m was appropriated for interest grants to non-State schools. Last year, the figure was $8.4m, although by the end of the financial year when the Government had been in power for seven months, the amount actually spent was $9.9m. This year, the Government has increased the amount budgeted by more than 50 per cent to $13m. The program further allows for Government building service charges totalling $31,743,000. My department has adopted a set of values that will govern the service that it provides. Above all else, my department exists to meet the needs of its customers. It Legislative Assembly 4897 20 November 1990 will provide its customers with services that are cost-effective, timely and of an appropriate quality. Staff are committed to continued enhancement of the efficiency and effectiveness of the service delivery processes. My department will generate a return on investment in its business units that matches industry norms. My department will be decisive in its dealings with customers and colleagues. It will respond with certainty and act in a businesslike manner in all its dealings. The set of values includes a commitment to quality. It reads— "We take price in everything we do for our customers and our colleagues. We value technical expertise. Quality is evident in our people, our attitudes and our services." My department is being transformed to provide better, more cost-effective, more competitive and more timely services to Government departments, thus saving the taxpayer money. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I inform the Committee that, on the Chief Office Vote, I propose to allow a full discussion on the whole of the ramifications of a department (Consolidated Revenue, and 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. Mr RANDELL (Mirani) (5.52 p.m.): I rise to speak on these Estimates for the Department of Administrative Services. I have to point out to honourable members that this debate is a farce and little more than a waste of the time of this Parliament. Any semblance that this debate has to a detailed scrutiny of the programs and accounts of the Department of Administrative Services is due to the skills of public speaking exhibited by honourable members, particularly those on this side of the Chamber. The Opposition will be lucky to get six speakers into this debate. Certainly more time is needed for this very important debate. Questions need to be asked of the Minister, of the Director-General of Administrative Services and of his program managers, and these questions should be answered. I am saying that the Estimates debate under the former Government was not perfect but, by comparison, this debate is an abandonment of accountability. The old Estimates debate, which admittedly examined fewer departments, allowed at least for the development of arguments, for overnight adjournments which allowed Ministers to answer in detail questions that had been raised, and for many more honourable members to pursue the Government. The procedure I have outlined would give this Committee an opportunity to see what the departmental Estimates obscure—true measures of past performance, what sort of performance the Parliament can expect in the coming year and, more importantly, what the Government plans for the future. During my speech tonight, I will be referring to several matters and outlining the following subjects. Opposition members interjected. Mr RANDELL: They might not like what they are going to hear. I will take a close look at the department's annual report and the changes that have been made in the department. I shall refer specifically to what has happened to many loyal and dedicated public servants and not so much to what has been done but the way in which the department has acted and axed many employees in such a scurrilous manner. I will be asking the Minister a few questions to which I hope I get answers in his summing up later tonight. I have no doubt that I will get them. Firstly, I refer to page 4 of the director-general's report to the Minister. Mr Foley: That contradicts what you said a moment ago. Mr RANDELL: I will be singling the honourable member out. He has been mentioning accountability. Legislative Assembly 4898 20 November 1990

The report outlines the highlights of 1989-90. I refer specifically to the extensive services provided in emergency flood relief operations throughout Queensland. I congratulate the Minister and I commend him for the way in which he acted to relieve hardships in those areas in the western parts of the State. From what I have heard and from what I know, he acted promptly and with dedication. I understand from some members representing those areas that he actually lived overnight on site. He must be given praise for that. He knows as I do that an Opposition's role is to criticise at times, but I think he deserves that praise. It is possibly the only praise he will get during my speech. When providing the services for flood relief or any other disaster, natural or otherwise, the problem is firstly assessed by a local district manager and, if he requests, works department employees act promptly and follow up those requests. Because of the Government's user-pays system and the elimination of many jobs throughout the department, will the Minister give a guarantee that an efficient and reliable work force will be kept on hand to be made available to provide relief at times of national disasters and emergencies? I firmly believe that such work certainly transcends the costs in dollars. On page 4 of the report, the director-general lists the highlights for 1989-90. They were initiated by the National Party, so this should really be a National Party report. Among the highlights were— "Completion of the $81M prison development program with the opening of the Borallon Correctional Centre." That was a National Party initiative. Another reads— "Provision of television services to remote communities throughout Queensland." That was a totally National Party concept. Another two read— "The introduction of Program Budgeting; Establishing Quality Assurance Systems." Those systems were put in place by the National Party. Another reads— "The management of a $71.6M Maintenance Program for Government Assets." That was another National Party system put in place by the Labor Party. I could go on and on. Mr Stephan: Do they give any credit to the National Party there? Mr RANDELL: I cannot see any as yet. The restructured organisation of the Amalgamation Review Unit appears on page 6 of the report. I always thought that a restructured organisation of a department would show the Minister as the head, but I notice that this shows the director-general as the head. The Minister carries the can and takes the praise, so I think he should have been shown as the head. One paragraph on page 7 of the report reads— "Construction was completed and facilities opened at two new high schools, three primary schools, seven pre-school units and four special schools. The Burdekin Special School was re-built following the destruction of the former facilities by a cyclone. They were all National Party initiatives completed by the Labor Party. There is a real lulu, a real beauty, on page 15. There is no word of the National Party on this page. Under the heading "Schools Program" there appears— "The Schools Program contained in excess of 900 projects with building works expenditure totalling over $100M. Further expenditure, of approximately $40M, was undertaken on associated works . . . " Some of the larger projects included work on: Elanora State High School; Helensvale State High School; Boronia Heights State School; Robina State School; Agnes Waters State School; Nambour Special School; Clifford Park Special School; Bribie Island State Legislative Assembly 4899 20 November 1990

High School; Barcaldine Secondary Department and Brisbane State High School. They were all National Party initiatives taken up by the Labor Party. If the Minister got his facts right, he would give some credit to the National Party. In his many ministerial statements in the House during the past 12 months, all we have heard are his claims of pork-barrelling, something of which we will hear a good deal tonight. I can assure the Minister that he will be hearing more about pork-barrelling before this speech is completed. This annual report is a glowing tribute to National Party planning, work and vision over many years. Why does not the Minister refer to some of the projects in the annual report that were National Party initiatives of immense benefit to all of the people of Queensland and at least give some credit for the foresight and planning of previous Ministers for Works and their staff? I shall now have a look at the restructuring at the senior level of manning in the Department of Administrative Services and outline not only what this Government has done but also how it has gone about it. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! I call the honourable member for Mirani. Mr Gibbs: This will be a smash. Mr RANDELL: It is good to see the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing in the Chamber. He very rarely graces us with his presence. To return to the debate, before the dinner recess I was referring to the dumping of some Government employees by the Labor Government. The first these employees heard of their removal was when they were given a note at 4.30 on the evening of the day they finished. I will mention some names, but they are only a few of the many people who have gone. I pay tribute to Mr John Bellert, who was a dedicated public servant if ever I saw one, and who helped—together with many other directors-general of that department—to lay the foundation for the present structure of the department. He was loyal to the Minister of the day and would have given any Minister loyalty, irrespective of politics. The only principles he knows are loyalty and integrity. I understand that Mr Jack Williamson is on the Government's hit list and will go, if he has not already done so. He is another quiet man of great integrity who impressed me during the time I was the Minister. He worked hard and well and he will be missed by the department. He was another loyal and dedicated public servant. Another employee is Terry Tibbets, who introduced the Government accounting system. I am told that he has also gone. He introduced an accounting system that was so highly regarded that the Government is still running on it. Heaven only knows for what reason he fell foul of this Government. These men have devoted a large proportion of their lives to the public service and can be proud of the good service that they have given not only the department but also the people of Queensland. Why was Mr Sid Hampson shunted off? He brought printing in this State into the twentieth century. I understand from information that I have received that the Government has replaced him as Government Printer with someone from New Zealand. I have nothing personal against the New Zealand gentleman concerned, but I ask the Minister: what is his background? Can the Minister tell me that there was no one in Queensland who possessed the necessary qualifications to take the job? The Labor Party wonders why public servants in Queensland are upset with this Government! The department has been restructured in order to be more commercial and cost efficient and the Minister referred to that in his speech today. It seems to me that the new structure has made the department very top heavy for its size. I understand that the Minister now has one director-general, two deputy directors-general, one assistant director-general and eight general managers. I have made a rough costing of the salaries and estimate that they would be in excess of $900,000 against a previous salary estimate for the National Party Government's top administration people of $700,000. This is an increase of approximately 25 to 28 per cent. From the information I have received, it Legislative Assembly 4900 20 November 1990 appears that this department has too many chiefs, which is why it has had to retrench so many indians further down the list. It is no wonder that good, loyal public servants live in trepidation of their jobs and careers. I wish to ask the Minister a question concerning one of the deputy directors-general that he recently appointed. I will quote the salary from the advertisement that appeared in the Courier-Mail. The salary scale is $85,848 to $94,619, and on my information the person appointed does not meet the qualifications and experience laid down for the job. I seek an explanation as to why he got the job. The advertisement states that it was essential that the appointee have a tertiary qualification at degree level in a building or related profession. I am not sure if the person appointed holds that qualification. The information I have is that there is quite a bit of discussion amongst public servants that he was given the job but did not have those qualifications. Mr McLean: Who? Mr RANDELL: I will not name the gentleman. He is one of the Minister's deputy directors- general. Mr McLean: How can I tell you if you don't name him? Mr RANDELL: I will tell the Minister later on. There are a couple of other questions I would like to ask the Minister. Because of the downturn in the building industry not only in Queensland but also throughout Australia—and Mr Hawke has a lot to answer for—and in order to ensure some employment for school-leavers, it is essential that the Department of Administrative Services maintains its normal apprentice intake. I ask: is the Minister quite satisfied that the proposed number of departmental apprentices for 1991 in carpentry, plumbing, electrical and other trades will be sufficient to provide qualified tradesmen for the future? When I was involved in the department it had a wonderful record in the training of young people to be good, competent tradesmen for the future. In 1989, during the National Party's term, 100 apprentices were taken on. I hope that the Minister can at least match this figure, and it would be very much appreciated if the figure was increased. Also, can the Minister advise when the next stage of the Queensland Cultural Centre, including a drama theatre, will be constructed? As the Minister knows—or should know—there is a crying need in Brisbane for such a facility. The arts community want it and the need is there. The National Party Government started the planning and would have proceeded with this facility. Can the Minister give the Opposition and the community a guarantee that he will honour the commitment made by the previous National Party Government to build these extensions within the timetable set out? Mr McGrady interjected. Mr RANDELL: The honourable member would get lost if he got outside Mount Isa. At this stage, it might be opportune to ask the Minister: what was the cost of the changes and remodelling that took place in the office accommodation at 80 George Street? Considering the Minister's promise of cost effectiveness and economy of operation, was this cost necessary? I believe that this matter is the subject of much discussion in the corridors of that building. It amazes me no end to hear the Minister talking about the National Party's planned pork-barrelling when it was in office. He delights in bringing out all the documentation he can find and presents a one-sided view of how National Party members in some areas were given buildings in preference to Labor members in others, which is not a true indication of the proper position. I wish to bring to the attention of the Chamber the happenings at the little Bauple State School. A few letters happen to have fallen into my hands off the back of a truck. Legislative Assembly 4901 20 November 1990

I will quote part of a letter from Mr Dollin, the member for Maryborough, to a person who shall remain anonymous. The letter states— "I have been working on your behalf to secure improvements to the Bauple and Gunalda Schools. They have been neglected badly by the previous Government. These improvements were promised in 1983, 85 and 87. Some of them were even documented, however no funding was set aside by the Government. I am committed to the quality of our children's education. As such I have been making the strongest possible approaches to the Minister responsible for immediate action. I am not able to promise when it will be, but I am confident something can be done about the deplorable conditions in the foreseeable future. Naturally, after the previous Government's laxity in this area, it will take a little time to correct." I ask honourable members to remember those words—"previous Government's laxity". I draw to the attention of members the fact that the deplorable conditions and laxity occurred in a former National Party electorate yet, according to the Minister, Mr McLean, this never happened. The Minister says it is pork-barrelling, but the Labor member says that the previous Government had been lax. I have dug a little deeper into the matter and found that on 18 July 1989, Mr Littleproud wrote a letter to the then member for Maryborough, Mr Alison, in the following terms— "I refer to your personal representations of 30 May 1989 concerning the need for an additional classroom at Bauple State School. I wish to advise that officers of this Department are aware of the shortfall in classroom accommodation at the school and have requested the Department of Works to overcome the shortfall through the provision of a modular building. This building is to be provided as soon as possible." That letter was dated July 1989. In November, I wrote to the former member in the following terms— "I refer to your personal representations on behalf of the Bauple State School Parents and Citizens' Association concerning accommodation needs for the school. I am pleased to inform you that, in line with the recent Budget initiative of our Government to replace the demountable buildings known as tinnies I have approved that a full teaching block be provided at the school. This block which will contain four teaching spaces will allow the removal of the existing demountable building as well as providing additional accommodation. Documentation for this building will be completed by March, 1990 with tenders to be invited for the work shortly thereafter." It seems that everything was in order for receipt of the necessary facilities by the school—which had been "badly neglected" by the previous Government, as Mr Dollin states. I have no doubt that Mr McLean would dispute that statement. The laxity in this scenario is that the present member did not have the will, the know-how or the foresight to press the new Minister to ensure that the necessary allocation was included in the first Goss Government's Budget to carry out the construction of buildings that had been approved. These buildings would have been—I emphasise the words "would have been"—built by the National Party Government, if it had been returned to power. The letter written by Mr Dollin was very amusing because he made a few promises that I wish to read. He stated— "The new TAFE worth $10 million is under construction. This complex will make us the hub of education in this field for Wide Bay." Is the member trying to say that this was done because of the efforts of the ALP Government? Of course not. It was initiated and approved by the former National Party Legislative Assembly 4902 20 November 1990

Government. To all intents and purposes, his letter is implying that it was done by the Labor Party. The letter also states— "We also have the Police Station of $3.3 million nearing completion." He is suggesting that all that was done during 10 months of Government, but it was another National Party initiative. The letter also states many other things that the member for Maryborough was trying to do. I do not cast aspersions on him—which would be the last thing I would do, because that is his job as a member—but the ALP cannot have it both ways. The Minister cannot say that the previous Government was pork-barrelling National Party electorates while the member is saying that those electorates have been badly neglected. Mr Livingstone: Tell us about Laurinel up in the Ten Mile when you start talking about pork- barrelling. Mr RANDELL: The honourable member would not know what he was talking about. Mr Livingstone: As a matter of fact, I do. Mr RANDELL: The Minister cannot say that the previous Government engaged in pork- barrelling when the member is saying that the areas have been neglected. I believe that in this case political grandstanding at the lowest possible level has been engaged in by this Government. The honourable member would not know anything about it at all. While I am talking about these matters, I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that in my own electorate of Mirani in a little mining town of Glenden, I had approved certain improvements to the Glenden State School and high school. One of these improvements was a separate toilet block for the high school. At some stage between my approval and the ALP taking power, it got knocked off the list. Surprise, surprise! I am sure that it was not done on purpose by the Minister, but it disappeared off the list. The high school lies adjacent to the primary school and is about 100 metres away. There are approximately 11 teachers there—male and female—and about six ancillary staff together with aides, cleaners and administrative staff, as well as approximately 80 high school students. One can imagine what happens when all the students—who are aged up to 17 years—have to walk 100 metres across the grounds to use the primary school facilities. Girls and boys of 16 years of age and 17 years of age are using the same facilities as those provided for young pupils in Year 1 and Year 2. I think you would agree, Mr Temporary Chairman, that that is not an entirely satisfactory situation. The teachers also have to walk that distance to the toilets at the primary school staff facilities. One can imagine the situation in which a teacher or a student leaves a class for about 10 minutes for the round trip, which disrupts a teaching session. I ask the Minister to take a good hard look at providing separate toilet facilities at Glenden. They are badly needed and would have been provided by a National Party Government. If the Minister investigates these problems, I think he will find that there is no trace of pork-barrelling. There was, and is, a real need for that facility. I turn now to the Government's fleet management proposals that have been reported in the press. The reports allude to a reduction in the number of State Government vehicles. What guarantees does the Minister expect to give to Government Motor Garage personnel about continuing employment prospects? In view of the commercialisation rationale being adopted by the department, what plans has the Minister implemented to encourage all State Government departments to utilise the existing and comprehensive services provided by the garage? According to the department's latest annual report, the Government Motor Garage expanded its customer base in 1989-90 to include the Commonwealth Department of Administrative Services and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. If the garage can attract additional business in a competitive marketplace, what has the Minister done to foster a greater business expansion among its traditional State Government departmental market? Legislative Assembly 4903 20 November 1990

Public service fears concerning retrenchments have been well founded. In the light of the department's review of State Government vehicle numbers and usage, what undertakings has the Minister given, or will he give, not only to qualified tradespersons but also to the 19 apprentices employed at the Government Motor Garage in relation to opportunities for them to complete their trade training? The Minister's reported comments concerning a reduction in the State Government fleet lead me to request that he ensures adequate transport is available to officers in the public service in country areas throughout Queensland. It is imperative that they be able to maintain a level of service to remote area communities as equitably as possible relative to the more densely populated areas of Queensland. Although the electorate at large expects value for its taxation dollar because of the size of this State, it is entitled to demand, and receive, comparable services for all its citizens. The Government's adoption of the user-pays philosophy must not be overshadowed by the need to maintain equality for all Queenslanders. The Queensland Government's much-flaunted and so-called commitment to education facilities have been caught short. By sleight of hand, the Budget has extended by one year the three-year $40m program introduced by the former National Party Government which was designed to remove "tinnie" demountables from State schools throughout Queensland. In many instances, school communities will now have to wait a further 12 months for improved facilities to be provided. The Labor Party has provided no new capital works for education. The Minister must admit that his Government—for all its pre-election talk—has now recognised the programs established by the National Party, but is failing to maintain the momentum initiated by the former Government. Again, this Labor Government stands accused for reneging on firm commitments given to p. and c. associations by the National Party. The Minister must explain his lack of vigorous representation in obtaining adequate levels of funding to cater for the needs of the School Improvement Subsidy Scheme that is administered by his department. The Minister must be aware that this scheme is invaluable to p. and c. associations because it helps provide grounds improvements, various sporting facilities, buildings and other items of equipment that are not available to schools at full State cost. Why did the Minister not ensure that the approvals given in principle and undertakings provided by the former Government were honoured by his Government? School communities also plan annual local programs of works and they have worked diligently to get projects up and running—only to be advised by the Minister's department that the projects have been "put on hold" pending a review. I turn to a matter which is not confined to the Department of Administrative Services and its various subdepartments but, since the election of the Labor Government less than one year ago, extends throughout the public service. I refer to victimisation—the systematic pursuit of retribution—of public servants whose only alleged misdeed was that they loyally served the previous administration—a National Party administration—which left behind it a proud legacy of sound economic and financial management which would have made for a very smooth and easy transition for any incoming Government to build upon in the interests of continuing good government for Queensland and its citizens. Mr Gibbs interjected. Mr RANDELL: The Minister has not done much, either. Mr Gibbs: You were hopeless. Mr RANDELL: The Minister's turn is coming. Mr Gibbs: Not only were you hopeless, they said you were helpless as well. Mr RANDELL: We have a few surprises for the Minister. This State has a long tradition of loyal and efficient public administration—a tradition of good public service carried out by professional public servants whose undoubted expertise would have been loyally and impartially delivered to the new Legislative Assembly 4904 20 November 1990

Government or any elected Government of the day, especially in the Department of Administrative Services. All that those public servants expected in return was a parallel commitment by the Government towards appropriate standards of equity, impartiality, a fair deal and the opportunity to do a job in the public interest with the protection of tenure of service which has been an unquestionable feature of public-sector employment in the Westminster tradition for many years. That long-standing principle has been violated by this Government, particularly in the Department of Administrative Services. The Government has replaced the security of public-sector employment in return for a job well done with fear, victimisation and the ever-present threat of dismissal for no other reason than that the public servants were perceived, quite incorrectly, as part of a previous administration and thus warranted removal. We have recently witnessed a number of examples of this never-ending process of purge and victimisation within the Department of Administrative Services with the removal from office, on very short notice, of a number of key senior managers. I have already outlined most of those. It is strongly rumoured within departmental circles—the Minister can reject those rumours as lies if he must—that, as the internal purge continues, those managers will very soon be followed by many others. I refer to those rumours only to highlight the destruction of departmental morale—one only has to talk to some of those people to know how low morale is—that is being perpetrated by this Government in the so-called quest for efficiency, effectiveness and the ultimate objective of a politically infiltrated, partisan public service inhabited by drop-out academics and refugees from the discredited Labor Governments of Hawke, Unsworth and Cain. The Government has brought people up from the south. It will not even give its own people a go. That is probably what the Minister for Racing will do, also. Fear is the order of the day in the Department of Administrative Services, as it is in the other departments of the public service. Mr Gibbs: I'm going to make you lose weight and become a jockey. Mr RANDELL: The Minister is sick. At present, other departments are in the process of a widespread purge by Dr Coaldrake and his band of hitmen from the Public Sector Management Commission. Never in its long period of Government in this State did the previous administration evoke the fear, resentment and distrust that the Goss Government has engendered in the public service in its short period of office as a result of its provocative and contemptuous treatment of public servants. This Labor Government has renounced all of its grandiose statements made in policy documents prior to and during the election campaign—documents drafted not by professional administrators with extensive managerial experience in the difficult area of public sector management, but by Griffith University academics with little experience in managing anything, let alone a huge department with thousands of staff. Mr Prest: Who wrote this rubbish for you? Mr RANDELL: They certainly would not take the honourable member for an academic. They may accept the honourable member sitting behind him. When I look at Labor members, I wonder how many of them will be still there in two years' time. The theory has been put forward that there are many oncers on Government benches. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! The honourable member will return to the Estimates debate. Mr RANDELL: I am sorry, Mr Temporary Chairman. Those university academics are not only offside with public servants at the workface, they are seriously offside with the public sector unions. Even the unions, the traditional supporters of Labor Governments, are stating publicly that they have been sold down the drain and their members discarded by Goss and his imported bunch of academic Legislative Assembly 4905 20 November 1990 whiz-kids. Members only have to ask the Queensland State Service Union—it is passing formal resolutions asking the Cabinet to monitor and curb the overenthusiastic and heavy-handed excesses of Coaldrake and the Public Sector Management Commission. In the Department of Administrative Services and other departments, that quite unprecedented campaign against the public service is destroying morale and placing at risk the proper efficient processes of Government. That is not idle speculation. The advice that I am receiving daily—it will come to anyone who wants to listen—indicates that the Department of Administrative Services is in disarray, with whole sections virtually at a standstill whilst officers employed in them await decisions regarding their fate, their survival or their relegation to the ever-growing line of displaced officers who are seen as no longer of use to the new regime. Mr McLean: That's rubbish. Who gave you that? Mr RANDELL: The Minister should get out of his office. I understand that people cannot get to the Minister's office because the doors are locked. He should listen to the numerous people who are coming to me and telling me what is happening. There is a high degree of uncertainty about the overall objectives of the department. Certainly, if the persons making such decisions themselves have any clear idea of the department's future, they are not communicating it adequately to the work force. Without adequate communication, there can be no enthusiasm and, obviously, no commitment. I am concerned about a number of aspects of the department's management processes. It would seem that there are serious deficiencies in the management and strategic direction of CITEC, as well as insufficient thought given to ensuring that officers with backgrounds and expertise in specific policy areas are placed in positions in which their capabilities are appropriate. In the Queensland public service, retrenchments are a feature of everyday life. They have increasingly become a feature of the private sector work force in a country which has been effectively brought to the brink of bankruptcy by years of Labor's economic mismanagement. They are a subject which no Government likes to embrace—more so in the public sector, where continuity of employment in return for loyal and diligent service has been guaranteed over generations. Enforced retrenchments have no place in a State in which the need for the services provided by Government is increasing in line with the population growth rate, and their commonplace status in the Queensland public sector displays a fundamental lack of management direction at the political level. They should have no place in a Government elected to office on the policy manifesto that enforced retrenchments would not occur. It appears that, when it comes to redundancy, the Labor Party has a fundamental and philosophical problem. It has established what is known as the amalgamation review unit within the Department of Administrative Services and its charter is formalised on page 6 of the department's annual report. Amalgamation of departments is a subject which the Labor Party addressed with quite undue haste on its assuming office. It subsequently reduced the number of departments from 27 to 17. When amalgamation of large organisations occurs—do not forget that this is a forced amalgamation of largely independent entities which often possess no common culture—there are inevitably areas in which duplication occurs and savings in staff numbers can be achieved through rationalisation. I wish the Minister well in his portfolio. I hope that he administers it in the best interests of all Queenslanders. I can assure him that the Opposition will be keeping a close eye on his operations and will not hesitate to bring to the notice of this Parliament anything untoward. Government members interjected. Mr RANDELL: Mr Temporary Chairman, I am sorry that you have to put up with the rabble in the background on the other side of the Chamber. The member for Brisbane Central is quite intelligent, but he will go nowhere because everyone is upset with him. The member for Broadsound has no talent at all. The union movement is Legislative Assembly 4906 20 November 1990 keeping him in place. Mr Matt Foley is the champion of civil liberties in this State. People in the Department of Administrative Services have been sacked, yet those members stood by and let it happen. They are hypocrites of the highest order. I repeat that the Opposition will be keeping a close eye on the Minister and will have no hesitation in bringing to the notice of this Parliament anything untoward. Mr BRISKEY (Redlands) (7.53 p.m.): Of the last 15 minutes I did understand a couple of words. One was "victimisation" and the other was "pork-barrelling". It is obvious that the honourable member for Mirani and the Opposition know a lot about those two issues. Mr Heath interjected. Mr BRISKEY: Yes, they have had a lot of practice. They victimised the children of Queensland for many years by their consistent pork-barrelling. This Estimates debate marks a major change for the Department of Administrative Services. For the first time, other departments will be completely responsible for the drawing up of priorities and projects. Members of the Opposition have not, as yet, grasped this simple fact. They still think that the department operates in the same old pork-barrelling way that it did when they were in Government. In those days, all that it took was a telephone call from the Premier's office and a $27m special electorate works program was thrust upon the unsuspecting Department of Works. That atrocious document, the Special Electorate Works Program, provides an insight into the way the National Party operated in this State for so long. Mr Heath: It didn't happen in my electorate. Mr BRISKEY: That is true. Only one Labor electorate received any funding under this program. That funding was for the Cooktown State High School. Even then, the $200,000 project was jointly funded by the State and Federal Governments. The most exorbitant rorter of the scheme was the former member for Mansfield, Mr Sherrin, who had $1.865m allocated to his area. Mr Bredhauer: He was frightened he was going to lose. Mr BRISKEY: Obviously. He was closely followed by the former Premier and former member for Landsborough, Mr Ahern, with $1.72m, and the member for Nicklin with $1.605m. Of course, they are all former members. It is quite revealing that out of these three most favoured seats, two were lost by the Nationals at last year's State election, and the other was lost a few months later. In other words, the voters saw the injustice of what the Nationals were about. They saw all this largess thrown at them by people who had lost all moral respectability. It was local evidence of all the malpractice exposed at the Fitzgerald inquiry. However, in an attempt to try to get out of his culpability for this squalid affair, Mr Cooper tabled a series of documents, which he hoped would show that he was an innocent. As a member of the Minister's parliamentary committee, I, too, have obtained a set of documents, which reveal for the first time the extent to which the Nationals were prepared to go. These documents are an indictment of the previous National Party Government. The documents to which I refer are programming job sheets of the Department of Works. In volume 1, primary education, honourable members will see that the schools have all been coloured in according to what electorate they are in. In other words, the draft works program became a political colouring-in book. Mr Livingstone: Ipswich got nothing. Mr McGrady: Mount Isa got nothing, either. Mr BRISKEY: That is right. Legislative Assembly 4907 20 November 1990

Page 5A reveals that in 1989-90, the Albany Hills State School in the Pine Rivers electorate was marked in green. By 1990-91, it had gone red, as is shown on page 5B. Presumably, the colouring-in was a graphic way of explaining to National Party members the political colour of electorates. After that page, things go horribly wrong. By page 6A the Alloway State School in the Burnett electorate is shown as green in 1989-90, but blue in 1990-91. Mr Schwarten: Why is that? Colour-blind, perhaps. Mr BRISKEY: Maybe the National Party's colouring-in expert marked the school as being in a Liberal area. As everyone knows, the Liberals suffered abysmally under the Nationals. Unfortunately, there is only one Liberal in the Chamber to hear my speech. Now, of course, the Leader of the Opposition wants to re-form a coalition with them. He knows that the National Party is a spent political force in Queensland, as it is throughout Australia. How could the Liberals ever contemplate joining with the Nationals again in a coalition, particularly after the way they were treated by the Nationals? The error of assigning National Party schools into Liberal electorates by the simple slip of a colouring-in pencil was made with the Amiens State School in the Carnarvon electorate, with the Ayr State School and the Ayr East State School in the Burdekin electorate, and with the Benaraby State School in the Callide electorate. The same mistake is repeated for every school in those electorates. There are only two explanations for what occurred. Either there was a spelling error by the person who used to prepare the colouring-in books for the previous Government, in which case, if the National Party had won the last election, those electorates, because they had been coloured in incorrectly, would have received nothing. The public service would have been ordered to give the Liberals nothing and so four National Party seats would have been disadvantaged. Therefore, there are at least four National Party members who are glad that they are receiving a fair deal under the Goss Government. Mr Dollin: What happened to Bauple? What colour was it? Mr BRISKEY: I can only surmise. Or, secretly, those four National Party members had made an agreement known only to the public service to join the Liberal Party—a sort of reverse of Lane and Austin. This is the sort of high farce and high jinks that the then Works Department was subjected to under the previous Government. The question has to be asked: for how long had this been going on? How many children missed out because of this colouring in because they were in an electorate that had the wrong colour against it? How many children in Queensland missed out because of this rorting? How many children missed out on a fair go for their education in Queensland? I have been given an assurance by the Minister that this type of action ceased immediately he became aware of it, and now the public service is left to perform its public duty and not get into the business of party politics. I now want to turn to the control thrust of what commercialisation will achieve for this department. From my background as a schoolteacher—— Mr Schwarten: An excellent one at that. Mr BRISKEY: I thank the honourable member for his interjection. I was aware that there was never a clearly defined role between the Education Department and the old Works Department. It never made sense to me. If a new toilet block or an extension was wanted to a high school, the principal wrote to the old Works Department, which decided when or if it would carry out the project. Under a user-pays system, if a school decides that it needs a new facility, it must win priority for that project by first going to the Department of Education. This department will have the money and it will make the decision on a basis of priority. This makes sense. It is the way in which it should always have been done. The Department of Education will pay the Department of Administrative Services for building the facility. This will enable all Legislative Assembly 4908 20 November 1990 client departments to make choices about the allocation of scarce resources. All services associated with a project will be valued at the true cost to the public sector. Once the true costs are recognised, a reasoned debate can occur among client groups about the types of services required. In this way, debate can occur with regard to the funds available. At the moment, if a school decides that it wants something, it writes to the department. The school denotes the requirement as a top priority, regardless of the cost. Under the new system, I believe that the Education Department and other departments will more closely monitor the costs of their projects. Technical personnel will need to be correctly assigned to the facilities section in each client department. As I see it, the main difficulty is that a department such as the Education Department may have difficulty assigning people to evaluate the facility needs at each school. The reality is that facility priorities change according to the school principal or the parents and citizens association, or both. In the past, school inspectors kept watch over the facility needs of a school. Their role has diminished in favour of curriculum. Ministers will need to ensure that their facility sections have suitable technically qualified people. I think it is fair to say that in the past the Department of Education has been primarily curriculum oriented and that the emphasis on facilities has run second. I recall that earlier this year, the Minister outlined cases where the needs of special education children had been ignored. These arose because the client department developed a policy; for example, the Department of Education and its policy of integration. It carried out the policy but it was then faced with a facilities problem. This facilities problem should be dealt with at the same time as the decision is made to implement a new policy. Access problems and special education needs of children should be budgeted and planned for at the same time as the policy decision to integrate them is made. A similar problem exists with the recent appointment of administrative assistants. The Department of Education is still running around trying to find funds to provide facilities to accommodate those people. A decision was made to provide school principals with extra administrative assistants—I applaud that decision—but once again facilities should have been planned and budgeted for at the same time as the decision was made. There has been speculation at the schools where these new administrative assistants have been placed that the decision was made only on political grounds, and that the previous National Party Government made the decision to place them in schools in order to buy votes before the last election but did nothing about providing the needed facilities for them in which to work. I believe that this speculation is well founded. The problem is not one for the department alone. Budget submissions from various interest groups over the years have given adequate attention to teacher numbers but little attention to the maintenance of buildings or to the need to match facilities to teacher numbers. It is axiomatic. If extra teachers are wanted, they need extra room in which to work. I urge the Minister to ensure that client departments receive full cooperation from his department to provide technical staff for the facilities area. I take this opportunity to compliment the Minister for the way in which he has undertaken his duties in this his first year. He has made himself available and has undertaken to obtain first-hand information about needs within electorates all over Queensland. Mr Gibbs: They don't call him "big-hearted Ron" for nothing. Mr BRISKEY: That is right. His interest in and concern and hard work for the people of Charleville is acknowledged and greatly appreciated by everyone. I had the opportunity to visit Charleville, where I heard nothing but praise for the Minister and his department. This concern can also be recognised by the way in which the Minister readily accepted an invitation from me to visit the schools in my electorate. This was greatly appreciated by me and by the principals, teachers and parents. Next year, the Minister will make a follow-up visit to the schools that we were unable to visit this year. The Legislative Assembly 4909 20 November 1990 older schools in my electorate have suffered from many years of neglect. Essential maintenance has not been undertaken on some of the schools for so long that buildings have become uninhabitable. This is especially the case with the Cleveland State High School. Because of leaks each time it rained heavily, some of the school buildings were unable to be used. As a result of the maintenance work undertaken by the Minister's department this year—maintenance that should have occurred many years ago—they no longer leak. On a recent inspection of the school, I discovered many class rooms which, with adequate maintenance programs, would have been kept up to a reasonable standard. For example, the home economics block is in such poor condition that the facilities within it need to be replaced completely. The manual arts block is another example, where teachers and students have been asked to work within a building in which the hopper windows do not open. I am pleased to say that $15,700 is being expended to replace these windows. I have much pleasure in supporting the Minister and the Estimates being debated today. Mr KING (Nicklin) (8.09 p.m.): The Administrative Services Department covers a multitude of functions, some rather mundane and relatively uninteresting and others of major importance and impact. When one stops to think of the very real effect that expenditure on such things as schools has on the lives of such a large number of men, women and children whom we collectively represent, then one realises just how important this portfolio is. Also, when one stops to consider the huge amount of money which is controlled and spent by this department on such high-cost items as buildings and motor vehicles, one sees the enormous capacity which the Government has, through the Minister, for this department to either waste the hard-earned money of the electors of Queensland or, alternatively, to efficiently research, plan and spend such funds on the most efficient and prioritised basis possible. Unfortunately, with this portfolio the opportunity exists to use the huge funds available to pork- barrel and spend on a biased political basis. We have seen this happen with previous Governments and we will undoubtedly see it with the current Government also. This practice leads to much criticism and cynicism amongst the general public and the media and tends to reflect poorly on all politicians. But, worst of all, it leaves genuine areas of need unaddressed. The Sunshine Coast area in general, and the Nicklin area in particular, have not received adequate addressing of their needs—and I stress the word "needs" as compared with the word "desires"—in the recent Budget. During the last 10 to 20 years, due to the Sunshine Coast's attractive environment, closeness to Brisbane, ideal climate and relaxed life-style, we have seen an increasing rate of population growth in the area. It is now forecast that this growth rate will increase significantly in the next few years, with the population predicted to double in the next 10 years. Because of the lack of pro-active planning, massive problems occur already in relation to hospitals, police, road infrastructure, etc. In this Administrative Services budget, we see not only little provision in spending to cater for forecast demand but also existing serious problems not even being addressed. Let me cite an example within the education system as it relates to the Sunshine Coast region. The massive population increase that I have already described has resulted in a student growth rate in the Sunshine Coast region of 8.6 per cent per annum. This is the highest rate in Queensland and is also approximately four times the average growth rate in our State. Once again, this growth rate is forecast not only to continue but also to actually increase in the immediate future. Surely with such serious and impressive figures to support the request for more schools, and with Labor's pre-election commitment to such, one could have reasonably expected a far better deal than was actually received. Within the region, four secondary schools and three primary schools should have received funding commitments, but did not. One prime example is the Mountain Creek/Mooloolaba area, where both a primary and a secondary school are urgently needed to take the pressure off the overcrowded Buderim and Maroochydore areas. Many of the existing schools are physically unable to expand and, in many cases, are sadly lacking in proper maintenance and adequate Legislative Assembly 4910 20 November 1990 supporting facilities. Just some of such schools would certainly include the Maroochydore primary and secondary schools, the Nambour high school and the Eudlo primary school. So it can be seen and understood why parents, teachers and students of the region are gravely disappointed with the Administrative Services budget, which has failed to address these very real, very important and currently verified problems, despite the general acknowledgment by Governments and people that Australia needs to become the smart country—the well-educated country—in order to survive economically. I notice that a new Government office building worth $7.4m is to be built in the Treasurer's electorate of Cairns. I just hope that, when I think of the genuine educational needs of all those Sunshine Coast boys and girls, the decision to build that Cairns building was made on a truthfully prioritised basis. I turn now to the situation relating to buildings and equipment necessary for our grossly inadequate Police Service on the Sunshine Coast. In Maroochydore, the central headquarters for the region, a large, new building has been recently finished. Unfortunately, it is poorly designed, poorly built and poorly furnished and equipped. I could take a lot of time to describe to honourable members the long list of problems which should be addressed at this police station by this budget, but which are not. Then there is the acknowledged need for a new police station in the fast-growing area of Kawana, but once again, this also was not addressed. Probably the most glaring example of a real problem not solved relates to the Caloundra Police Station. This building came out of the ark, is truly grossly inadequate for the needs of the police and certainly should have been replaced. Generally speaking, the lack of adequate buildings, vehicles and equipment for the police in the Sunshine Coast region is only equalled and surpassed by the lack of police manpower in the same region. Then there is the case of the large and important regional base hospital, located in Nambour. This hospital is currently inadequate for the fast-growing needs of this tourist-oriented area. Fortunately, with the support of the Minister for Health, the Honourable Ken McElligott, some funds have been allocated to assess the needs and for planning requirements. That is appreciated. However, I believe that the funds supplied are a case of too little, too late. By any standard of proactive management, time will show that the proven needs of the future will be nowhere near met by the provisions in this Administrative Services budget, which does not even address the current needs. I note with approval and appreciation the steps taken by the Minister for Administrative Services to investigate the existing system relative to Government motor vehicles. Large savings on motor vehicles are being predicted by a more efficient motor vehicle pool system being put in place. If that eventuates, the Minister will deserve to be congratulated. It will be interesting to see the relevant facts and figures from that investigation, if and when they are released in full in the future. In his speech tonight, the Minister described the methods of operation of this Government with words such as "cost-effectiveness and efficiency of operation" and "commercialism". That certainly gives the impression that the Administrative Services Department is firing efficiently on all cylinders. However, I cite for the Minister one example from within my electorate which tells a vastly different story that I hope is not repeated in too many other places throughout Queensland. Near my office in the main street of Nambour is a very large street-level office that is leased by the Minister's department. That office has been sitting idle and empty since 18 May this year—six full months. At a monthly rental of $3,754.30, that represents almost $23,000 of taxpayers' money that has been wasted to date. Only recently, work commenced to clean up the premises in terms of the lease—which runs until 1 March 1992—so that hopefully the lease can be reassigned. I do not believe that that action would have been taken without my constant urging. Unfortunately, the public regards that type of inefficiency as grossly wrong, and it is certainly not in keeping with those efficient-sounding words used tonight by the Minister. I acknowledge that it is never possible to be in a financial position that allows a Budget to supply every worthwhile need of a community. Such an attitude would be Legislative Assembly 4911 20 November 1990 unrealistic. However, I believe that this Government's priorities have focused on sectors outside this portfolio. Whereas it is the right of the Government to allocate according to its own priorities, sectors within this Administrative Services budget were also covered by the Government's pre-election promises. Unfortunately, they have not been honoured by inclusion in this Budget. Mr McGRADY (Mount Isa) (8.18 p.m.): With a great deal of pleasure and delight I rise to support the Minister for Administrative Services, the Honourable Ron McLean, on the Estimates of his department. I realise that, on occasions such as this, it is somewhat of a tradition that members pay tribute to the Minister and his or her staff. However, tonight words cannot really convey my gratitude for Ron McLean and his team. Nothing is too much trouble for them. They always return telephone calls and create a feeling that they are there to serve the members of this Assembly and, in turn, the general public. Tonight, I wish to focus on the CITEC unit within the Minister's department. In particular, I urge the Minister to continue to provide funds for remote commercial television services. That service is absolutely crucial for people who live in northern and western Queensland. I like to think that it provides western Queenslanders not only with a viewing choice but also a superior viewing choice. The station is able to choose the best programs from the three commercial stations operating in Brisbane. By contrast, most of my colleagues in the metropolitan area have three stations from which to select their programs. Remote area commercial television does not operate at a profit. It is a service provided by Queensland Satellite Television, which broadcasts the services from studios in Townsville. Estimates given to me suggest that over 184 000 Queenslanders benefit from that service. Certainly, it is not financially viable without some form of Government support. All honourable members would be aware that the economic dries in the Federal Liberal and National Parties want no Government involvement in communications. Such a policy would be ruinous for the areas around Mount Isa. Therefore, I urge the Minister to reject the Liberal and National Parties' policies and subsidise that vital service to outback Queenslanders. The losses are approximately $3m per year. I urge the Minister to subsidise the loss and help all western Queenslanders. I turn now to the plight of education in western Queensland. For too long this issue was neglected by the previous National Party Government. I was delighted when this Government responded to my call to provide a school of distance education in my home city of Mount Isa. Schools of distance education cater for children of primary school age in remote areas where parents are either permanent residents or itinerant employees. The majority of classwork is carried out by written correspondence lessons that are usually supervised by parents. I understand that a recent innovation has been to relocate correspondence teachers from Brisbane to school of distance education centres to have them supplement written contact with direct high-frequency radio communications. Up to four studios are provided at each centre to allow up to four simultaneous classes. Video cassette material and computer projects are also administered from those centres. I understand that CITEC is assisting with those facilities. I hope that such facilities can be established in Mount Isa to help students in the far west and northern parts of the State of Queensland. In relation to education for students in remote areas—I praise the work of TSN-11, which is the Government satellite network. It has 150 major receiver sites located at primary schools, high schools, education centres, Government buildings and TAFE colleges throughout Queensland. The network delivers approximately 12 hours a week of education and training programs. It is pleasing to see the use of modern technology to improve the provision of basic needs for people in the remote areas of this State. As the Minister's portfolio covers Government technology, I bring to the attention of honourable members some of the more interesting points that were covered in the technology review report. The review was considered necessary because of the duplication of technology services. Government members often saw the Deputy Leader of the Legislative Assembly 4912 20 November 1990

Opposition parading himself as the Mr Fixit when he was the Minister for Manufacturing. When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was a Minister, he was in charge of CITEC. His great contribution to industry was to leave this Government with millions of dollars worth of vacant land called industrial estates and a bill for a paint job on an overseas jet. In technology, his efforts were even more appalling. The technology review found that drivers' licences, motor vehicle registers and vehicle hire purchase records are on incompatible computer systems. It was left to the Goss Government to fix up the mess that was left by the member for Surfers Paradise. The cost to the taxpayer is $5m. In just one blow, the "boy" from Surfers Paradise blew away $5m of Queensland taxpayers' dollars. It is the same old picture that he left us with manufacturing. There is no direction, no clear policy and the result is $5m to fix the problems. In relation to the accounting systems—despite the fact that Treasury recommended a common system, what do we find today? The Department of Housing, the Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations, the Premier's Department and the Department of Primary Industries still do not have a common system. The result is another $2m wasted. Mr BOOTH: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is completely away from the Estimates. He is discussing primary industries. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! There is no point of order. Mr McGRADY: I thought that the honourable member was asleep. I am sorry if I woke him up. Mr Booth interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Is the honourable member disagreeing with the ruling of the Chair? Mr BOOTH: No, I am not disagreeing with the ruling of the Chair, as long as it is uniform and everybody can do it. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I made the ruling that that was in order, and that is the way it stays. Mr McGRADY: As I said, another $2m has been wasted. In two recommendations, the member for Surfers Paradise chalked up a bill of $9m for the taxpayers. He simply frittered away the equivalent of two new primary schools in Queensland. The third biggest waste from the "boy" was the establishment of several computer rooms without fully utilising existing sites. In other words, it was the old industrial-estates system on a small scale, but again at a cost to the taxpayers. The review estimated the cost of that lapse under the dynamic administration of the member for Surfers Paradise at between $2m and $4m. So the poor young Deputy Leader of the Opposition—whose ambition is not matched by his ability—left the Government a legacy of approximately $13m. In addition, communication networks were duplicated for the Departments of Primary Industries, Forestry, Police and Education. The worst legacy of them all is that, as a result of the National Party administration, the Government has 17 types of computer equipment, 12 different operating systems and over 20 types of data bases. The Government has inherited the result of a failure of leadership. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition failed as an administrator and failed to push a decent technology policy through his Cabinet. His legacy is a $13m maladministration cost. He now busily runs around the State in the desperate hope that his sins will not catch up with him. Mr Johnson: How much is it going to cost to move the regional office of the School of Distance Education to Mount Isa? Have you worked that out? Mr McGRADY: If I were the honourable member, I would not worry about that. Mr Johnson: Do you know how much it is? Legislative Assembly 4913 20 November 1990

Mr McGRADY: The honourable member should take a note of this point. When the member for Surfers Paradise visits the electorates of the backbenchers, he is not doing so to assist the backbenchers; he is in the process of looking for a safe seat in the bush. If I were the honourable member, I would watch my back. Mr Coomber: What about Mount Isa? Mr McGRADY: He does not have to come to Mount Isa. It is all taken care of up there. I have no worries at all. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition hopes desperately that his failures will not catch up with him before he tries to ease himself into a nice, safe National Party seat in the bush at the expense of one of the new recruits. I conclude by thanking the Minister and his staff for all the help and assistance that I have been given. I thank the officers of his department who work in Mount Isa, who have been more than helpful with all the requests that we have made to the Minister. I bring to the attention of the Minister the visit that he made earlier this year to the schools at Mount Isa. I wish to dispel the rumour that has been started by members of the Opposition that the Minister came deliberately to Mount Isa on 17 March 1990 to participate in the celebrations of St Patrick's Day. On behalf of my constituents, I thank the Minister and his staff for the excellent assistance that they have given. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (8.30 p.m.): I thought I would be joining in the debate this evening on the Estimates for the Department of Administrative Services but, after listening to the honourable member for Mount Isa, I think that the debate is an attack on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, because the honourable member for Mount Isa spent most of his time attacking the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, for what he did as a Minister, and his department, without really speaking about the Department of Administrative Services. Obviously he went a little astray. He did speak about industrial estates. I am wondering whether he wants to sell them off—sell the farm as it were—to get funding for some of his pet projects. He gave me the impression that that is what he wants to achieve. The honourable member for Redlands, Mr Briskey, spent some time talking about pork- barrelling. I did not hear him say which schools should not have been built in the first place or should be pulled down. He finished by saying that the buildings were deteriorating, yet he claimed that an enormous amount of money was spent in National Party electorates. Which statement is correct? Was a good deal of money spent in National Party electorates just for the sake of pork-barrelling or were buildings deteriorating? The honourable member for Cooroora is shaking his head. There are some buildings in Cooroora which need attention. More money is required to be spent in these areas. More people are living in them and more children are attending the schools in them. They are growth areas. If the honourable member cannot accept that, he should nominate which schools should not have been built in Cooroora. The honourable member for Redlands contradicts himself and is right off track when he is talking about the amount of money being allocated. It is a matter of consistency. The Minister has been known to make comments about expenditure in the Gympie electorate, but sometimes he gets lost. A couple of months ago, he claimed that $1.4m was being spent in the Gympie electorate. What he did not say was that $500,000 was to be expended next financial year, that $700,000 was carried over from last financial year and that only a small amount was allocated for this year. Mr Welford: You do not expect him to spend it all in Gympie? Mr STEPHAN: I expect him to know where the money was being spent and what it was allocated for. Mr Booth: He is a nice, smiling old fellow. Mr STEPHAN: He is. Let us see if he keeps the smile on his face when I read out what is in the Gympie Times. He certainly does have a good smile and a good laugh, Legislative Assembly 4914 20 November 1990 but he gets lost. He mentioned $500,000 next year for the One Mile State School. One Mile has been looking for a school for a long time. If he went up there and told the parents and teachers that they do not deserve a school or that they should not have any money spent in their area, he would turn tail quickly. He would not be able to get out of the place fast enough. He also mentioned funding for the upgrading of the Gympie State High School. That funding is very much required. Mr Nunn interjected. Mr STEPHAN: The honourable member is talking about Hervey Bay whereas I am talking about the Gympie State High School. Hervey Bay is a growth area. Is the honourable member saying that too much money was spent at Hervey Bay because it was in a National Party electorate? Perhaps he could tell me which schools should be pulled down. Government members interjected. Mr STEPHAN: There are too many interjecting at once. The member for Isis said one of them should be pulled down but he is not too sure which one. When I pointed out what the Minister had said, some interesting comments were made. A spokesman said that there was a mix-up in the whole affair and that credit for the project was the result of the combined information from two departments, and he blamed the lack of communication between the Department of Education and the Department of Administrative Services. He said that it was difficult for Brisbane-based staff to know the stage capital works in country areas had reached. Perhaps it is one of those communication break-downs where the departments do not want to recognise the National Party members and National Party areas at all and apparently the way to go is to ridicule and ignore those members. About a month ago, the same Minister made an announcement that $77,000 was being allocated for a modular building at the Jones Hill State School. It is needed because that is a growth area and more students are attending that school. He pointed out that the National Party electorates had been allocated enormous amounts of money but that the honourable member for Gympie was not able to obtain sufficient funds to maintain his buildings and keep them up to scratch. On 15 November, the Minister made the comment that he had given approval for $40,000 to be spent on expanding the facilities at the Jones Hill State School. However, he did not say that it was the same building. The Minister is getting great mileage out of the one announcement. First of all, he announced that the Government was spending $77,000, which included the building itself and the furnishings. Apparently the Minister found another slip of paper and then made the announcement about the $40,000 for the modular building at the school. He gave another press release pointing out that this was another building and stated in the article that there were two buildings. Comments of this kind lead people astray and I am trying to emphasise that the Minister is getting a lot more publicity about this building than he actually deserves. I do not mind if the Minister makes comments such as this from time to time. At one stage he said that he hoped the local member would take note of his actions and highlighted the fact that the local member was getting under his skin a little and upsetting him. Mr Booth: He's got a burr under the saddle. Mr STEPHAN: Yes. Sometimes a burr under the saddle is needed to stir things up a little. There is a great need for money to be spent in these areas to ensure that there is growth in the development of educational facilities. I question some of the comments made about the knocking down of buildings. I believe that Mr Briskey made the comment that, when old buildings have been fairly well preserved with paint, the only reason they need to be knocked down is if the design of the building is incorrect, it is in the wrong place or something of that nature. Some Legislative Assembly 4915 20 November 1990 buildings are very well preserved and the timber in most instances is as good as it was on the day it was built. I compliment the officers of the department for their enthusiasm and efforts over a long period of time and the way in which they go about the maintenance of those buildings, whether they be school buildings or other departmental buildings. The maintenance carried out on those buildings is a credit to them. As stated in its annual report, the Department of Administrative Services has two distinct roles. Firstly, it is to provide a range of goods and services to public sector agencies and the public, and, secondly, it is to be a central agency responsible for the economic management of Government property and assets, and implementing Government policies in relation to this function. The department will introduce the user-pays principle. I have no hassle with that principle at all, as long as money is not allocated to areas in which it is not really required simply for the sake of committing funds and balancing the books. I know that the departmental officers themselves do not need the extra bookwork and paperwork that would be required under that arrangement. There should be a genuine attempt made to ensure value for the money spent, rather than merely the shuffling of paper from one department to another. That would be of enormous benefit. In several areas of the department, this year's estimated costs represent a considerable increase in the actual funds spent last year. The item for salaries, wages and related payments has increased from $7.7m to $9.3m, which is a considerable increase and certainly more than the inflation rate. The figure for plant and equipment has increased from $931,000 to $2.03m, which is a fairly substantial amount. Mr Prest: Sit down. Mr STEPHAN: I know that that amount may be getting a little above the honourable member's head. He cannot understand the funding, but I point out that the funds are not necessarily being spent in the way that honourable members might like to think they are being spent. Funding has been allocated to other areas, such as courthouses. Extra funding is certainly required for courthouses, and that applies particularly in Gympie. The present court room is very cramped and there is insufficient room for the jury to sit in any comfort. Somewhere else has to be found for juries that are held over for the night. An extension of the Gympie Court House has been planned for the future and the houses that are situated on land that has been resumed for future courthouse use have to be removed. I compliment the department for making available to community organisations those buildings that have been classified as surplus to requirements. I am not sure if this has happened in other areas, but it is an opportunity for various community organisations—not private individuals—to pay a minimum amount for buildings and remove them to a block of land on which they have a substantial tenure. These buildings are then available for community use. This initiative needs to be extended and encouraged, and it is certainly proving to be very successful in fulfilling the requirements of the general community. I agree with the Opposition spokesman's comments about the carryover of jobs and projects from one Government to another. Mr Randell pointed out that some of the projects highlighted in the department's report were in fact commenced by the previous National Party Government. I did not hear any comments from Government members about that, but there are a considerable number of such projects. For example, the Borallon Correctional Centre was a National Party initiative. I could give honourable members a list, but I know Government members are not particularly interested and would like me to wind up my speech. However, these matters cannot be ignored. When the Opposition highlights these matters, the Government will not be able to ignore them. Human nature being what it is and the present Government's attitude being what it is, no doubt Government members will try to ridicule these suggestions rather than accept them as constructive criticism. Members of this Government are very negative in their approach and do not show much interest in these matters at all. Legislative Assembly 4916 20 November 1990

The suggestion seems to be widespread that improved communications are required in remote areas of western Queensland only, but that is not the case. A great need exists for the provision of expanded communication facilities by utilisation of the satellite network, particularly for use in education but also in relation to health and welfare. For example, TAFE courses and remote area university centres would benefit greatly from improved communication facilities because the necessary information could be broadcast through the satellite system. Time expired. Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton North) (8.46 p.m.): At the outset, and prior to addressing my remarks to these Estimates totalling $450m, I extend my sympathy to the Hansard reporters who must have had a difficult job interpreting the verbal braille of the previous speaker. I will attempt to make a better speech than the previous one when I address two areas that are totally on target with the policies of this Government and with the administration of this Minister. I refer to the fleet management unit and the Government Motor Garage. For the benefit of honourable members who may not have read the documentation, I point out that the goal of the fleet management unit is to assume control of all Government vehicles. Earlier today, the Minister indicated that a trial was taking place in pursuit of that goal and that a fourfold strategy was being applied. Firstly, costs had to be identified. Secondly, usage had to be identified. Thirdly, charge-out rates had to be examined. Fourthly, potential savings to the Government had to be ascertained—a concept with which I concur. Indications gained from interstate experience show that savings of at least 10 per cent are to be made by undertaking the arrangement that the Minister is implementing at this stage. In New South Wales, it has been proved that these arrangements are more efficient and more cost-effective and that, as a result, more cost-effective maintenance programs have been developed. This ought to be heartening news for all members of this Parliament, but it is probably something of an embarrassment to members opposite, including the Liberals who are huddled in the corner of the Chamber. I say that because, 10 years ago, they were aware that this type of strategy should have been implemented. I wish to refer to an Auditor-General's report published 10 years ago, which stated— "A need exists for a study of the concept of car pooling being introduced on a general or a limited basis." Three main reasons were given for the introduction of this concept. One was that the use of official vehicles by officers travelling to and from their residences was costing approximately $2m per annum. The second reason was that up to half the Government vehicles in use incurred more than 50 per cent of their kilometre reading travelling on "to and from" journeys. The Auditor-General found that those vehicles had a relatively small official use of less than 40 kilometres a day and that their collective need was suspect. The third reason was that the Auditor-General found that vehicles were being retained for periods substantially in excess of the prescribed period or distance travelled before being disposed of. What did the Government of the day do about that? The previous National Party Government did what it usually did with reports that were contrary to an indication of a good performance in Government. The report was shelved, and nothing was done about it. Members of the previous Government thumbed their noses at the report, with the consequence that literally millions and millions of dollars in taxpayers' funds were wasted. I see that some members of the Liberal Party are nodding off to sleep at the back of the Chamber, which indicates the extent to which they were interested in this matter 10 years ago. It is easy to see why they are now the rump of representation in this Chamber. Mr Livingstone: The telephone box group. Mr SCHWARTEN: The Liberal Party will be able to have its send-off function from this Parliament in a telephone box, and there will be no problem with that at all. Legislative Assembly 4917 20 November 1990

What has this Government done about these problems? The Government has taken a four- pronged approach to the matter. The first step taken by the Honourable Minister was the appointment of a car fleet management unit to examine the problem and see whether the Government's plans could be implemented. The Minister has introduced a system of leasing that will make client departments more accountable. Ten years ago, this was a matter to which the Auditor-General referred. The Minister has also implemented a centralised computer system that will identify vehicles that have travelled 40 000 kilometres—the magic figure signalling disposal of the cars. The Minister has addressed the issue of time-lag between the pick-up and return of vehicles by charging client departments storage rates. The old rort used to be that those client departments would not send their vehicles back on time. The people involved would either come down and pick up a car or simply not bother to pick a vehicle up. The records indicate that some vehicles from client departments were kept for periods of three or four months and were not picked up, whereas other vehicles clocked up 40 000, 50 000 and 60 000 kilometres. I can remember when I was teaching in the Longreach district that a vehicle had been kept and had clocked up 80 000 kilometres before it was returned. By the time that kilometre reading had been clocked up, the value of the vehicle had depreciated drastically and the taxpayers of this State were left to carry the can. My concern in relation to this matter is that some members on the Opposition side might like to persuade the Government that the answer to all these problems is to enter into some type of leasing arrangement with private enterprise. I caution the Government about putting its head into that type of noose because the New South Wales tory Government discovered that a similar arrangement cost $25m more than the previous arrangement in interest payments alone. Mr Rowell: No. I have got it here. Mr SCHWARTEN: I know that the honourable member finds this hard to cop and difficult to comprehend, but he should just listen. Mr Rowell: No, no. It was the same amount of money. Mr SCHWARTEN: It cost $25m more, and I know that that does not matter to the honourable member. That is why the Government is in the predicament of having the Government's car fleet going down the chute. Although the honourable member was not personally involved, his party was involved in rorting the system. The honourable member will not be a parliamentarian for much longer. The interesting thing about it is that before he was able to dethrone the Premier of the day—I think the order was that Ahern got Bjelke-Petersen and Cooper got Ahern—the present Leader of the Opposition published this lovely little document that I have here. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: The honourable member would not have read it, so he should sit there and listen. He has been a member of this place for only five minutes. If he wants to interject, he should do so from his own seat. He does not understand how this place works. In the annual report of the Government Motor Garage, the Honourable Russell Cooper, MLA, Minister for Corrective Services and Administrative Services stated— "As from the 1st July 1988, the Garage was required to recover all costs associated with its operation." The Government Motor Garage was one of those fleas, as it saw it, on the back of the former Government and it wanted to do a marvellous job of corporatising it. Accordingly, Theo Russell Cooper woke up one morning and unearthed that ungodly plot of how to make the Government Motor Garage more accountable. Mr Cooper was proud that the Government Motor Garage had been operating for 75 years. He even had it placed on the front cover of the annual report. However, he was attempting to replace that 75-year-old system. Legislative Assembly 4918 20 November 1990

Mr Rowell: Why are you spending more money on vehicles? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mrs Woodgate): Order! I have been pretty patient. However, if the honourable member for Hinchinbrook wants to interject, he must do so from his own seat. Mr SCHWARTEN: The honourable member is a dill. He should return to his seat. The system had been in place for 75 years and Mr Cooper wanted to change it in two weeks. I can only guess at his motive for trying to big-note himself in that regard. The fact is that he provided no support system for that change. He had no operational guidelines and no suitable computer system to deal with the invoicing, which was all done by hand. It is a wonder the employees were not using quills and ledger books. The other departments that were expected to suddenly start paying for the use of vehicles were not consulted. The people involved were not trained and the unions and the workers generally were not consulted. It is no wonder that that little exercise cost the taxpayers of this State $911,000. Opposition members are proud of the fact that that scheme lost $911,000 in that year. The last year that the former Government was in charge of the Government Motor Garage, it lost $911,000. Because the other departments were not consulted, the Government Motor Garage suffered a 30 per cent decrease in business. The morale of the workers was at absolute rock bottom. It is no wonder that that little foray into commercialisation failed. The motive behind that exercise was, "If at first you don't succeed, fail, fail, fail." However, since the present Minister has been responsible for the Government Motor Garage, things have changed. He has established a project team to develop strategies and establish a financial framework to allow commercial operations to become more effective. Mr Hobbs: Who wrote this speech? Mr SCHWARTEN: I wrote it. I have no problem with that. People are starting to see the benefits from those strategies and it is starting to hurt Opposition members. Officers from the Government Motor Garage are aggressively marketing their product and Opposition members do not like it—they cannot cop it. Those marketing techniques have already made inroads into local authorities and statutory authorities, as well as Telecom. The Government Motor Garage has even attracted St Vincent de Paul as one of its clients. Unlike his predecessor, the present Minister understands that change must be managed. One of the ways in which change is managed is by consulting with people. One does not wake up early one morning and say, "Corporatisation is the good word for today. Let's go and do it." One must consult with people, which is exactly what the Minister is doing. I applaud him for that action. If the scheme is to work, the people who ultimately will be affected by change—the workers, other departments and other stake-holders who have an interest in that matter—need to be consulted. The major problem with the previous Government was that no-one understood the direction in which it was going. I do not believe that the current Opposition Leader understood it, either. Mr Smyth: He still doesn't. Mr SCHWARTEN: He still does not understand it. Another matter that is being addressed is the working conditions of employees at the Government Motor Garage. Their poor working conditions are a shocking indictment on National Party members. The roof of the Government Motor Garage leaked. The spray-painting booth also leaked. In fact, the people from the Division of Accident Prevention declared it to be unsafe. They are the conditions that National Party members provided for their workers. I again congratulate the Minister on addressing that problem and ameliorating it. The way in which this Government is going is the only way to go. My biggest fear is that it will not be enough and that, because of the shambles that the previous Government left, even with our best efforts we will not be able to overcome the problem. I hope that is not the case; however, I fear that that may occur. The Government Motor Legislative Assembly 4919 20 November 1990

Garage is in such a bad state of disrepair, so run down and so unproductive that it will take a lot of work to salvage its operations. I turn briefly to my electorate. We heard various members, including the previous speaker, refer to my electorate. I come from one of those geographically disadvantaged areas that had a red line drawn through the middle of it by the former Government. Some of the schools in my electorate are the worst in the State. The last class room in which I taught seven or eight years ago was the same class room in which I was taught. It had not been painted in the intervening period. This year, we have finally been able to obtain some redress for that issue. I thank the Minister for that. Capital works in my electorate were an absolute disgrace. Very little money has been spent. We are slowly but surely eating away at that issue. I also congratulate the Minister for the two excellent appointments that he has made to his private staff, Mr John Lutterel and Mr John Mickel. I have found those people to be very cooperative, hard working and equal to the dreadful task that the National Party has left them to clean up. Finally, I congratulate the Minister on taking the initiative that he has taken. He has taken the bit between his teeth. He is well received in all electorates, as is evidenced by various newspaper articles that are written about him. The Minister is a fair man. He is about the business of fair treatment for all Queenslanders. Even members of the Opposition must acknowledge the efforts that he has made. I have great pleasure in supporting the Minister in the presentation of his Estimates. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs) (9.00 p.m.): All that members of the Labor Party have done is condemn the National Party for what it did not do, yet when the Labor Party was in power some 32 years ago the public works facilities in Queensland were an utter disgrace. I wonder how many honourable members remember the schools as they used to be under Labor in 1955, 1954 and 1951. They were an absolute disgrace, and the Labor Party did not care one bit about it. Government members interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mrs Woodgate): Order! There is too much noise in the Chamber. Mr LESTER: Thank you, Madam Temporary Chairman. I cannot help it if I have stirred them up. I have hit a very raw nerve, which has got them scuttling back. I will never forget the dark days of 1952, 1953 and 1954. I can remember looking at the State school at Tara. The then Labor Government did not even listen to the people of Tara or look after the educational needs of the children in that town. Dalby and Emerald also come to mind. The Labor Party just did not care about them. During some 32 years of very good Government, the National Party provided roads, schools and public buildings, and made Brisbane not just the key city of Australia but also one of the key cities of the world. Yet members of the Labor Party have stood in this Chamber tonight and talked about the neglect of the National Party. They are wrong. The National Party achieved a great deal. It established guidelines that this Labor Government can go by and build on, if it wants to. Before the last election, certain promises were made by the Labor Party. After the election, the facilities in Labor electorates were allowed to remain, but the facilities in National Party electorates were taken away. I say shame on the Labor Party for trying to deprive good Queenslanders of sound, basic education and public service facilities. It is a simple fact of life, and members of the Government cannot deny it. Mr Lingard: Is it true that they didn't build a high school for 30 years—1924 to 1954? Mr LESTER: That is true. All that was provided was a secondary school annexe. One only needs to look at the annexes—— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! There is too much noise in the Chamber. I cannot hear the member who is on his feet. It is going to be a long week. I suggest that honourable members settle down a bit. Legislative Assembly 4920 20 November 1990

Mr LESTER: Thank you, Madam Temporary Chairman. It seems that even though I am well into my speech, I am still stirring up members of the Labor Party. They are very upset that I am revealing their sheer neglect of those people who have chosen to vote for the National Party. An Opposition member: Tell us about the gemfields. Mr LESTER: An honourable member has mentioned the gemfields. That is close to home and close to an area that has been well represented for the past 15 years and is still being well represented today. It is a fact of life that recently I have been able to get for that area a medical facility, additional school improvements and ambulance facilities. Who has knocked this all the way? None other than members of the Labor Party! They wanted to put all the facilities at Emerald. They said, "To blazes with the gemfields." That is the reason why the people of the gemfields voted for me so very strongly in every booth at the last election. They rejected what the Labor Party was about and the phoney way that it carried on about fair and decentralised representation. That brings to mind the rest centre at Anakie. Once again, the Labor Party was dead against me. In fact, Councillor Paul Bell, who I soundly defeated at the last election, made it very clear that that rest centre would be an election issue. It most certainly was an election issue. He was thoroughly defeated. He had forgotten about the people of the gemfields. They let their thoughts be known with their votes. I would at least like to compliment the Minister for keeping honourable members informed as to what is happening in their electorates regarding public service and public works facilities. I sincerely thank the Minister very much for that because some Ministers do not show quite the same degree of sensitivity as does the Minister. At least he gives honourable members the courtesy of letting them know what is happening. However, the Opposition would like to see just a bit more happen. That would be very good. A few days ago, the Minister visited Emerald, while I was there. He will recall that when I was a Minister, I always let him know that I was visiting his electorate of Bulimba. In fact, on one occasion I invited the Minister to join me in presenting a cheque to a needy group. Mr McLean: I had to threaten you first. Mr LESTER: No, the Minister did not. The first that he knew about it was when I told him. He said to me, "Gee, thanks for letting me know, mate. I wouldn't have known." In fact, he said that I was one of the better Ministers because I kept him informed. He was there and he presented the cheque. The Minister is now being totally ungrateful for the courtesy that I displayed towards him. In all fairness, I would expect the Minister to show me the same courtesy that I showed him. Leaving that aside, I thank the Minister very much for providing in recent times some 12 houses for Emerald, which is facing a catastrophic problem as a result of the development of the Gordonstone mine. All Governments will have to deal with this problem. As new mines are developed, then new problems arise in so far as town infrastructure is concerned. A great mass of people will descend upon the town, and that will require additional construction and building work, and housing becomes very scarce. The cost of housing goes up and severe social problems occur. I will cite for the benefit of the Minister the example of a young lady, a single mother with two children, who, for a number of years, had been paying $80 a week in rent for a flat. That rent has now increased to $180 per week and obviously that person will have to leave the town. Another example is that of a family with four children, the gentleman having part-time work. The mine has announced that it has purchased the whole area of land on which that family's house is situated. They have been given until the middle of December to get out, otherwise they will be literally bulldozed out. They have certain rights and they will be able to stay for a little while, but the simple facts of life are that Governments have to plan for the future to ensure that this infrastructure problem does not occur with the severity with which it is now occurring in Emerald. Legislative Assembly 4921 20 November 1990

However, there is more bother in store for Emerald and that relates to the Ensham project. As all honourable members are aware, if this Government had not messed around and mucked up the contract and had not allowed CRA as a potential partner in that corporate combine, then the Ensham project would have been on the move but, like the Cape York project and so many others over which this Government procrastinates—it thinks; it stops; it starts; it stops again—the Ensham project is not yet under way. However, ultimately it will commence and will cause a major social problem in Emerald. I acknowledge that the Minister has visited Emerald and looked at the facilities, but the problem is extremely severe and an urgent injection of funds is needed to help overcome the problem because the basic right of the ordinary person in this land today is housing. If people cannot obtain housing, then there will be severe family problems. Emerald also has other areas of concern that do not appear to be receiving proper attention at this time by this Government. I refer to the provision of development facilities for the Emerald State High School. At present, the school has 514 students and, in the not-too-distant future, that school's population will increase to approximately 700 students. However, the infrastructure does not appear to be in place to meet that increase. Within the next 18 months, the Emerald North State School will increase its numbers from approximately 480 students up to 700 students. The p. and c. association and other interested groups have called upon the Government to immediately move to ensure that proper educational facilities are available and that can be achieved with the new modern, type of educational facility—not demountables but similar detachable units—that can quickly be brought in and used to fill a gap at an important time. I ask the Minister to consider the needs of the Emerald community and its surrounding environment because of not only the Gordonstone development but also the Ensham project. I would like to see a new police station built in the town of Capella. It is an excellent town based on the rural community and the Utah Gregory mine. It has one of the oldest police stations in Queensland and that is not in keeping with the progressive nature of this town. The electorate of Peak Downs has been very carefully represented over a long period of time. A new courthouse is needed in Clermont. The present courthouse has stood for approximately 90 years and the simple truth is that it has seen better days. I ask the Government to provide funds for the building of a new courthouse in Clermont. When one mentions courthouses, rural people become concerned because they have seen the present State Government sound the death knell on the courthouses at Mount Morgan and Springsure. I ask the Minister for a very definite assurance that Clermont will retain its courthouse because not only has the town expanded in recent times but it also looks forward to the Wolfang development. It will therefore be necessary to upgrade the Clermont Court House to the most modern standard. This year, Clermont was granted a high school in its own right—an innovation of the former National Party Government. However, what is needed is a totally new high school situated in a new area away from the present site, which is similar to that of the Brisbane State High School. The site of the present Clermont State High School does not allow room for expansion. At present, it is fenced in a manner similar to the Berlin Wall. Students cannot go underneath the school because it was not built sufficiently high enough for tall students to be able to walk underneath without hitting their heads. At a time when a lot of emphasis is placed on skin cancer, those students do not have a covered play area. It is a little bit phoney for the Government to talk about protection from the sun and all those sorts of things when the Clermont State High School does not have a proper covered play area. The money that the Government needs to pour into that school to bring it to any sort of an acceptable standard would be far better put into the construction of a new high school near the present Clermont State School. If that is undertaken, the Government will be planning ahead and ensuring proper education for students. Time expired. Mr PEARCE (Broadsound) (9.15 p.m.): I am still reeling from the vicious attack that was made earlier tonight by the member for Mirani. At least by his comments he proved that he had a balanced argument—he has a chip on both shoulders. Legislative Assembly 4922 20 November 1990

I direct the Committee's attention to the work force within the Department of Administrative Services. As the annual report showed, during the past financial year, the department was responsible for capital works programs totalling over $350m. This year, because the capital works funding rests with the client departments, this figure has declined to $18m. Much of this money will be spent on the Government offices in Cairns and the rest on minor capital works. The difference this year is that the Department of Administrative Services will be paid by client departments for work undertaken on their behalf. Employees within the department are respected throughout the Government for their technical expertise. And so this year, working in close cooperation with client departments, they will assist in providing the expertise to bring the programs forward on time. In this Chamber, the Minister has repeatedly congratulated his staff on their superb response to the Charleville and western Queensland floods. It is fair to say that, without the employees from the Department of Administrative Services, there is no way in which the towns would have recovered as quickly as they have. In Charleville alone, the Department of Administrative Services has been responsible for the repair of 289 private houses whose residents qualified for 100 per cent assistance from the joint State/Federal Governments relief scheme. There were 139 private houses whose residents qualified for various amounts of assistance from the Government. Other buildings that were badly affected included eight teachers' homes, 24 public servants' houses, nine Aboriginal and Islander Affairs' houses, the police station, the courthouse, the Water Resources Commission building and those of various sporting clubs throughout the town. With my colleague from Redlands Darryl Briskey, I visited Charleville soon after the floods to talk with the department's employees. We were very impressed with the performance of these employees, who were working above and beyond the call of duty. From talking with many of the local residents, we learned that, through their dedication, the employees had contributed in a big way to getting Charleville back on its feet. It has been a magnificent effort and full credit should go to all those employees. I believe there is a case for the department to become the chief reconstruction authority after any disaster. This will ensure an effective chain of command between the various departments. There is no doubt that, immediately after any disaster, people require urgent solutions to the problems. But as the disaster recedes, a more considered approach is required. This phase should be spearheaded by a department fully equipped to handle it. I believe that the Administrative Services Department has capably demonstrated its capacity to undertake this task. I wish to turn now to the structure of the department itself. In my preparation for this debate, I was surprised to learn that the restructuring of the department has at last been completed. My surprise arose from the fact that, although partial reviews have been carried out over the last 30 years, a total review encompassing all areas of the former Department of Works had not occurred in that time. Previous Ministers for Works included Bjelke-Petersen, Gunn and Randell—yes, Mr Randell, who earlier tonight attempted to mislead this Committee by showing concern for the department's work force. We all know that the National Party does not care one little bit about the workers. Mr Randell is a joke and fits in real well with the party to which he belongs. So the department was firmly in the hands of the National Party. Senior people were running the State and they never thought to have a look at their own department to see if it needed an overhaul. Let us look at the effect of this on the department's employees. For over 30 years, they were perceived to have lost salary parity with the rest of the public service. This made it difficult to attract and maintain the appropriate level of expertise in the department. In other words, the Nationals did not give a damn about the employees, just as long as they obeyed the instructions coming from the Premier's office to provide public buildings in National Party electorates, whether the buildings were needed or not. Employees were seen as little more than lever-pullers directing the money into National Legislative Assembly 4923 20 November 1990

Party electorates. Nowhere was this more evident than in the treatment of temporary stores clerks. Opposition members interjected. Mr PEARCE: Members opposite should listen to this because it is a perfect example of what they are like. In the old Department of Works, 32 people were employed as temporary stores clerks. Of those 32 temporaries, 16 had been with the department continuously for more than 10 years. One fellow in particular from Maryborough had been with the department as a temporary for 41 years. Over 41 years, not one of the characters opposite thought that he should be retrained so that he could establish a career for himself. It is quite obvious that, because of the length of time that he was with the department, he liked his job. These people had no access to a career path and could be dismissed at a moment's notice. We know that that happened on many occasions. Mr Bredhauer: No superannuation after 41 years. Mr PEARCE: I will get to that. The honourable member is dead right. This employee had no superannuation after 41 years. The National Party never took any interest in the employees. It just allowed their careers to be broken while its members went around the State pork-barrelling their own electorates. I am pleased that the present Minister ensured that action was taken against this grave injustice by making these people permanent employees. They will now have the same access to superannuation as that enjoyed by all other public servants. I want to deal also with the department's attitude to apprentices. I am pleased to advise the member for Mirani that, in my conversations with the Minister, he assured me that he has issued an instruction to the department to take on the same number of apprentices as it did last year. Mr Randell: What was it? Mr PEARCE: Does Mr Randell want me to repeat that? Mr Randell: Yes. Mr PEARCE: The Minister has instructed the department to take on the same number of apprentices as it did last year. During this difficult period in the building industry, I congratulate the Minister and the Government for setting an example by committing themselves to the training of our young people. When the emphasis is on contracting out for services, because of the economies it brings, the idea of training our young people falls by the wayside. Subcontractors in the building industry appear in general to be oblivious to the need for the training of our young people. I believe that the Government can create an opportunity for training. I would like the Minister to undertake an investigation to ascertain whether Government contracts can be let to those companies that are willing to employ apprentices. Some large companies are bludging on their training responsibilities. It seems unjust that one firm will train apprentices and accept the costs that go with it while another firm that does not accept the responsibility still takes the benefits of training by taking on skilled tradesmen. The lack of skilled tradesmen is retarding the growth of our economy. It appears that, when this nation achieves a growth rate of about 4 per cent, its skilled capacity will be stretched to the limit. Once a skill shortage is reached, prices will increase or there will be calls to increase the migrant intake. It would seem that the more appropriate way to go is to commit ourselves to training our young people. One of the ways that I believe that can be done is by a Government commitment to give contracts to firms that employ apprentices. I understand that that measure has the support of the building industry employer groups. While I am talking about contracts, I draw the Minister's attention to a proposal by the Federal Minister for Industrial Relations, Senator Peter Cook, for a set of principles Legislative Assembly 4924 20 November 1990 for companies when tendering for public work. Those principles include adherence to awards and formal industrial agreements, adherence to national wage case principles, implementation of award restructuring, compliance with established national standards for occupational health and safety, prohibition of all-in or cash-in-hand payments, standardised workers' compensation procedures and continuity of employment practices. I believe that those recommendations are sensible, particularly because the Minister's department is introducing a user-pays system. It is essential that the Government receives value for money in its contracts, but not if it leads to inferior health and safety or tax-avoidance measures. The principles would level the playing field for businesses vying for Government jobs. At the same time they would help the construction crew within the department to compete for contracts. That can be done without upsetting the ratio of Government and private work contracts being let. There is no sensible reason why contracting out services should mean an opting-out by a Government department. Recently, Dr Ed Shann, the Director of Access Economics, summed up the situation in the Business Review Weekly when he said— "It is important to debunk some of the common myths about competitive tendering. It is designed to ensure that the most efficient provider wins the contract. The public sector can tender and if it can do things better, it will win the contract." Therefore, it is completely in order for the Minister's department to compete for its share of construction jobs. It would be good to see that extended to cleaning jobs, provided that the companies involved pay award wages for their staff. I offer my support to the Minister in his willingness to work with the Department of Education in moving as quickly as possible to step up the program for the provision of replacement facilities for demountable school buildings. Schools that have an ongoing need for teaching spaces must have those demountable units replaced with permanent facilities. There is no greater example of the previous National Party Government's ignorance of the needs of Queensland schoolchildren than demountable school buildings. The sooner that they are on the rubbish dump with the National Party, the better off our schools will be. The change of Government policies and the determination of Ministers will ensure that our children can obtain their education in a comfortable, more acceptable environment. I look forward to supporting the Minister for Administrative Services as the department changes direction by implementing new procedures and, in particular, enters the commercial environment with the full introduction of the user-pays system. I support the Minister and his Estimates. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong—Leader of the Liberal Party) (9.27 p.m.): It is quite clear that this Minister has landed on his feet. I am sure that he was very lucky to have been in the right spot at the right time—and perhaps in the right faction—to obtain the Administrative Services portfolio. It is quite clear that this is the department for good news and bad news. Madam Temporary Chairman, it is usually good news for those who sit on your right and bad news for those who sit on your left. Over a number of years, I have become fairly used to that procedure. Nevertheless, regardless of the politics involved, I believe that officers of the department have always endeavoured to do the right thing by the people of Queensland. All honourable members know that a fair bit of politics is involved in the department—whether it is called the Works Department, Administrative Services Department or whatever. Quite clearly, some members seem to miss out all along the line. I am pleased that the Minister is endeavouring to make a number of changes within his department. The Budget documents mention the commercialisation of various sections of the department. I hope that means a good, strong, free-enterprise approach to the way in which the department operates and is not simply an excuse to increase Government charges and taxes. That is not the way to go to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of services by that very important department to the people of this State. The department is certainly an ideal place to start with the examination of commercialisation, which I understand is being done with Goprint. The Minister has made several Legislative Assembly 4925 20 November 1990 statements about asset management, which I presume is his way of considering commercialisation of assets and obtaining an appropriate return on the assets over which the department has control. I suggest to the Minister that the Government can undertake commercialisation in a number of ways. I am not sure whether some of those ways have been attempted yet, but I hope that the Minister will consider contracting out maintenance work to the private sector. The Department of Administrative Services handles a great deal of maintenance of schools, police stations, some housing and all Government buildings. A good deal of maintenance needs to be undertaken continually, and the Government should adopt a good old free-enterprise approach to it. Recently, the Government has been talking about the approach taken by the New South Wales Government to cleaning. The New South Wales Government of Mr Greiner has contracted out a good deal of its cleaning work to private enterprise, which has saved tens of millions of dollars on school cleaning. That Government is also considering using private contractors for the cleaning of hospitals. The Administrative Services Department controls a large number of cleaning operations, and I am sure that suitable savings could be made by using private contractors. The same applies to a large number of security services for which the department has responsibility. The Minister referred to improved asset management of the motor vehicle fleet. I hope that that means that some positive results will be forthcoming. On a number of occasions, I have heard about the fleet management. I remember that the previous Government was always improving the asset management of the fleet. I presumed that, by this stage, not much more improvement could be made. Perhaps it did not get too far. I hope that the program that the Minister is undertaking will not go the same way. Mr Littleproud: You can talk about a lot. Mr BEANLAND: It can be talked about a lot, without ever getting there, perhaps. I hope that will not be the case. As I said, I have seen it happen in the past. I look forward to the Minister's indication of what the savings will be in real terms. That is the bottom line. Commercialisation involves the contracting out of work. I have already mentioned some aspects that the Government should consider. By contracting out work in which the Government need not be involved, it can save considerable amounts of taxpayers' funds, which would enable it to spend taxpayers' funds more wisely, or perhaps not to increase existing taxes and charges. In relation to asset management—honourable members have heard a great deal about the way in which the Government will handle the management of buildings. I notice that the Treasury building is still vacant. A lot of discussion has taken place and each Minister seems to have his idea of how he could use the Treasury building. However, the last time that I looked at the building, which was not very long ago, it was empty. It sits there in all its magnificence. Whilst it is all very well to talk about putting a casino there or using it for executive suites, a decision must be made. While the building sits there empty, it costs the taxpayers money. It must be well over 12 months—perhaps two years—that the building has not been used. I am sure that the refurbishment of the Old Government Printery must have been completed at least 12 months ago. Again, I understand that that building is empty. I am sure that, if it is not, the Minister will correct me. Some other members and I have made representations about various groups that would like to be located at the building. The Arts and Craft Council of Queensland, the Genealogical Society of Queensland, the family history society and a number of other groups that are not always given consideration when the Government allocates building space to the normal arts groups would dearly love to move into premises of the style of the Old Government Printery. I trust that the Government will give consideration to some of those groups moving into the building. A decision must be made. Whilst the building is largely empty, it is not being put to use for the taxpayers of this State. All Queenslanders deserve some use being put to that magnificent building on which so much money has been spent. In relation to asset management—the Government should also consider police stations. I again appeal to the Minister in relation to the Taringa C.I. Branch, which Legislative Assembly 4926 20 November 1990 cannot even get hot water connected. I suppose that I sound like a broken record in relation to that issue; I have raised it on a number of occasions, and I have written to the Minister. The fact that a station such as the Taringa CIB cannot even get hot water says something for the priorities of the Government. The public servants and others who work in places such as police stations and hospitals need to be provided with proper facilities and services. When the Government talks about asset management, it should consider those aspects. It is all very well to acquire new buildings, but the Government must ensure that the buildings that it owns and controls, and in some cases leases, are being put to the best use possible. We have all heard many stories about empty buildings, and perhaps one or two in this city are largely empty and not being put to very good use, and the Government should be looking at them. I can think of a couple that perhaps have not been put to the best use of recent times. This department is also involved in purchasing and procurement. There is a need in this regard to give emphasis to local companies. It is easy for a large department, such as this one, to acquire goods and services without paying much attention to local companies, many of which rely upon Government orders in order to exist in this very heavy recession. They would not exist in the current economic climate without Government support. I trust that the Government will place emphasis in this area and not simply rush out and acquire goods and services without paying due care and attention to where it acquires those services. There is no more important time than the present for emphasis to be placed on Queensland companies which, through no fault of their own, are in difficult financial times. These companies employ many people and the role played by this department has a very significant effect on their ability to employ good Queenslanders during these very trying times. Let me conclude by saying that CITEC, which has been transferred to the area of responsibility of this department, has improved its services to the Government and the facilities that it makes available to the people of this State. This is a scenario that the Government will have to continually update if the taxpayers of Queensland are to receive the ultimate benefits. There will need to be continuing expenditure in this area if we are to keep up with the changing circumstances, and the Government and the people are to receive the maximum benefit from the modern technology that is available. It is very easy for departments to slip behind and not make full use of the facilities available, and certainly, through this technology, a greater mass of facilities than has been available in more recent times is available to the public service and the people of Queensland. Mr NUNN (Isis) (9.40 p.m.): The honourable member for Peak Downs is quite interesting at times, but he is repetitive. Peak Downs is the seat which the National Party embalmed by hiving off some of its vital parts to other electorates so that it might save the hide of the member. He has told us of the woes of the people of Emerald with regard to school accommodation. I sympathise with the people of Emerald on two counts: firstly, because they have to put up with a member so short-sighted that he could not foresee the problems so that they could be provided for and, secondly, because they will probably have to wait. The people of Isis and, in particular, the people of Hervey Bay have been putting up with inadequate school conditions for some years. The feud between the previous member for Isis and his party is well documented. So bitter was the feud that the National Party Government, in an effort to get square, vented its spleen on the parents and citizens of that area, so the good people of Emerald may have to stand in line while my people get a go. The National Party was determined to make the people of Isis pay for their neglect. The National Party philosophy blames the victim for his plight. First the member for Gympie and then the member for Burnett have been quoted, one on television and the other in Hansard. Both have denigrated the people of Isis, who are good people. Both members have promoted the proposition that Isis people are somehow unworthy. Now they are joined by the member for Peak Downs who would jump the queue in true National Party fashion. The Estimates for the Department of Administrative Services for 1990-91 have been capably compiled and well received. The department has, as its overseer, a Minister of Legislative Assembly 4927 20 November 1990 great capability who grows in grace and beauty day by day. I hope he is listening. However, he should not get carried away with it. One must remember that beauty rests always in the eye of the beholder. Let me give the staff a rap at the same time. The staff in the Department of Administrative Services is second to none. All those who have dealings with that staff will attest to that fact. The department's allocation for the building program in the 1991 year totals $49,837,000, compared with the 1989 allocation of $353,061,000. On the surface that appears to be a significant reduction and suggests some sort of irregularity. Nothing of the sort! What has happened is that Queensland now has a Department of Administrative Services within the Goss-led Labor Government which is prepared to do what it is paid to do. It is prepared to administer those programs belonging to other departments which do not need to be the administrative prerogative of those departments. Put simply, the difference in Budget allocation is the result of the appropriation of capital works allocations directly to client departments. This means that the individual departments have not only total control over their spending but also total responsibility. The departments know what they are up for. They decide what their priorities are and the timing of any capital works which they desire to promote. The 1991 capital works to be undertaken and paid for by client departments will total $363m. The good news continues. The total budget allocation for the Department of Administrative Services for the 1990-91 year is approximately $450m, which is made up of $405m from Consolidated Revenue and over $44m from Trust and Special Funds. Administrative Services is a big department with a large budget. At this stage it needs a large budget, not only to fund its six business units, but also to enable it to begin to process what will ultimately save Queensland a lot of money. It must be recognised that the department has obtained approval from Cabinet to implement a new corporate strategic framework and organisational structure that will provide a framework of commercial business units. The department's budget for 1990-91 has been prepared on a program basis, which incorporates these business units, to commence operations on 1 July 1991. Not the least important of these programs is that of information and communication services. This program comprises the CITEC business unit. The need to have a system such as that provided by CITEC was borne out of the necessity to ensure that efficient, effective, secure and flexible computing services and communication networks are available on a cost-recovery basis to assist the Queensland Government and its agencies in achieving their goals and objectives. The 1990-91 budget allocation for CITEC is $96,888,000. This is a fair bit of money, but cost recovery in this business will improve when full charging for telephones is introduced in 1991-92. This business will operate on a full user-pays basis from 1 July 1991, which contrasts with the part user-pays policy adopted by the previous Government. In that case the full costs of the services were not recouped and the true costs were not reflected in the costs of client programs. This is another instance of departments not knowing their true position. The asset management program is designed to ensure that the department's portfolio of property and building assets is maintained and protected, and that the Government's long-term requirements are achieved. The allocation for the maintenance of buildings is—and needs to be—a major requirement. Over a period of years the previous Government, some of the members of which are now in Opposition, adopted a peculiar policy, to say the least. New buildings were vote-winners, so the erection of new buildings was a high priority, but maintenance was not—there were no votes in maintenance. I add that sometimes it took three elections to complete some projects. The ploy was to announce the project at one election, build it for the next election and actually get around to using it just before the third election, making one promise last for three elections. Pork-barrelling was stretched right out and made something of an art form. After years of neglect by the National Party, the lack of maintenance of public buildings could not be ignored. In some cases buildings were literally falling to bits. One classic example is the Childers hospital. This building has been allowed to deteriorate to a state where it is beyond repair. This Government is committed to providing a new hospital Legislative Assembly 4928 20 November 1990 for the people of Isis and will not let that hospital fall to bits. Maintenance is a priority for this Government. It realises that to maintain an asset is to preserve it. If honourable members want to know what people are saying, they should go to a Labor electorate, especially one with a rural content which used to belong to the Nationals. These people know how to preserve their buildings and of the folly of letting them fall into a state of disrepair. These people are saying, "Thank God we got rid of the Nats. We are glad we had the good sense to elect a Labor member because at last we have good, sound, old-fashioned management." The maintenance of building allocation has increased by $6,343,000 over the previous year's expenditure to a budget allocation for 1990-91 of $78m. After years of neglect—and only when they were staring defeat in the eye—the Nationals pork-barrelled with a record maintenance budget, but it did no good. It was too late. The people had had enough. In its first year the Labor Government has increased that artificially high figure by a massive $5m and a further $5m was provided as special funding for teacher amenities. This is not a gift to the people of Queensland; it is their right. It begins the long haul back by the Labor Party to redress the inadequacies of the past system. It is the start of a responsible attitude by a responsible Government to build slowly up to a position where our buildings are not fast-deteriorating assets, but are indeed an investment in the future and a monument to good government. No-one in this Chamber should underestimate the importance of the Department of Administrative Services. It is timely that I should mention that the department has undertaken a program of maintenance for public buildings in the electorate of Isis that will cost $95,000. Some clown on the opposite side of the Chamber—I think the member for Nicklin—said that this is somehow to be construed as pork-barrelling. This is a desperate grab for notoriety that would do credit to an out-of-work actor. It is indicative of the neglect and crying need for the maintenance of Queensland's public buildings. At this stage of the debate repetition becomes the norm. I have tried not to be repetitious. I sincerely support the budget Estimates of the Department of Administrative Services. Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (9.52 p.m.): The debate has been interesting, but nonetheless I will begin my speech with a slight change of pace. I wish to spend a few moments discussing certain design factors that have come to my notice over the last four years; things that should be brought to the notice of the Minister and considered by the people in the Minister's department who are involved in designing schools and other buildings. Recently, in my electorate, a school was upgraded by the provision of a new teaching block and, interestingly enough, a new toilet block. After I inspected the new facilities, it was brought to my attention that an insufficient number of toilets had been provided for the female staff. I approached the Works Department and said, "What is the system?" I was told, "We have a formula. For a certain number of females and a certain number of males, we do a calculation and provide a urinal and two pedestals for the men and two pedestals for twice the number of females. It seems to work okay." However, what had not been taken into consideration is that every day a number of ladies come to the school on a voluntary basis to manage the school tuckshop, to work as volunteers in the library and engage in various other activities handled by, invariably, female parents at a school. As a result, a situation arose whereby the school had to begin using toilets provided for the disabled for the female staff and for the casual workers in the school. The point I make is that the Minister's department should consider all factors in even the most simple design problems that arise in the construction of schools, police stations or any other project in the capital works program. The Government simply cannot have a single formula that can be applied to handle all problems. I ask the Minister to take on board the matters I have raised and refer them to his department as a matter of some urgency for future design consideration. Other aspects that should be the concern of the Minister's departmental architects relate to prevailing winds and weather, and the provision of shade trees. Over the last 10 or 15 years, I have been a member of many p. and c. associations. In performing Legislative Assembly 4929 20 November 1990 that role, I have been involved with the Department of Works in discussions in relation to the placement of buildings in school grounds—not that I was always welcome in those particular discussions. Indeed, at one stage my involvement required me to travel to Townsville to meet a district architect. The purpose of the trip was to have a building relocated because its site involved the removal of one of the few decent shade trees in the school grounds, which was highly inappropriate. When I brought it to the notice of the district architect he said, "We can change it." Much to the astonishment of the staff of the school and of the p. and c. association, the site for the building was relocated and, to this day, the tree is still in the school grounds. It is absolutely imperative that architects understand that in tropical Queensland, shade trees and shady areas in schoolyards must be retained. They must understand that buildings should be designed and constructed in accordance with the proper aspect and take into account prevailing winds and weather. A school to which I wish to refer is located at Tolga, four kilometres in a straight line from the Atherton school and within the same area of weather pattern and in the same precinct. When the Atherton school was constructed, it was provided with weather-protected walkways, covered areas and similar structures. The Tolga school was given walkways without weather protection on the sides. On one side, the covered area was not protected from the weather at all. In winter months, it was impossible to use the area when the prevailing winds were from the south east, usually bringing rain. When I visited the school, the entire floor of the covered area was wet and the ladies working in the tuckshop were being wet by the rain. After discussions with the Works Department, I managed to have the site enclosed. The point I make is that departmental architects must take full cognisance of prevailing winds and weather, and altitude. Recently, I contacted the Minister's colleague the Minister for Education in respect of the provision of air-conditioning and heating. Later, I was informed that a decision had been made to install air-conditioners in schools in the electorate of Cook—that very large and remote area of this State's north west. The Minister failed to accept that in my electorate there are several schools that become every bit as hot and dry as any school in the Cook electorate. The department is drawing arbitrary lines on electorate boundaries. Mrs Edmond: You are up in the nice cool hills. Mr GILMORE: Unfortunately, Chillagoe, Almaden, Petford and Dimbulah are not in the nice cool hills; nor is Mareeba. A simple, commonsense approach to the matter is required. The ambient temperature of an area should be considered on a daily basis and, if it surpasses a certain level, the buildings should qualify for air-conditioning; conversely, in winter-time, heating should be able to be obtained in places such as Millaa Millaa, which is located considerably farther north than the Tropic of Capricorn and which does not qualify for heating. The point is that Millaa Millaa is located at an altitude of 3 000 feet and, in winter-time, can be the most miserable place on earth. Mr Stoneman: Lovely people. Mr GILMORE: Yes, they are lovely people. The p. and c. association came to me and said, "Look, get some heating into this library. The books are growing whiskers." Heating was very difficult to obtain, simply because the area did not fit within the arbitrary boundary of the Tropic of Capricorn. With the greatest respect, I asked the Minister to speak to his departmental architects and suggest that they use a little bit of common sense when designing schools and other facilities. The Mareeba State High School tuckshop has been due for replacement for approximately seven years. It is inadequate, particularly taking into account the size of the school. I recognise that the school's enrolments are reducing; but even if enrolments dropped to 400, the tuckshop would still be inadequate. A similar position exists at the Legislative Assembly 4930 20 November 1990

Mareeba primary school because its tuckshop is also a disaster area. It was supposed to be replaced with the introduction of a new covered area some years ago. The p. and c. association came to me and said, "We don't want our school redeveloped. We want to keep our large, old, elevated timber buildings because they are cool." At the time, the Minister and I agreed with that. Because of that, the school was then denied a covered area and a new tuckshop, which were already on the books. I find that to be quite appalling and unacceptable. A tuckshop for those two schools should be high on the order of priority. A few moments ago, a Government member made some disparaging remarks about small schools. When speaking about a small school, the honourable member stated, "And it had a covered area and all." In my electorate, I have a school with 11 students and it has a covered area. When I became a member of Parliament, that school did not have a covered area. I was knocked back on three occasions until I pointed out to the Minister of the day that no single child in this State is more important or less important than any other child. It does not matter to me how big or small a school is, every school should be entitled to a covered area sufficient for the size of the school. That school now has a covered area. I am pleased to say that I had some hand in that. Mareeba has an annexe of the Cairns TAFE college operating in what used to be a CSIRO tobacco research institute. The TAFE college is operating in what is almost totally the original buildings. A technology building was designed and listed for construction within two years for the Mareeba annexe of the TAFE college. I am seriously concerned that that building may now be lost. If that were the case, it would be a travesty of justice, as the Mareeba annexe of the TAFE college is very busy and should be headed quickly towards autonomy. The quality of the work that is coming out of the college and the number of student hours that are being taught are an important facet of TAFE education in far-north Queensland. We need the technology building so that we can provide apprenticeship training, block training and prevocational training. I would not like to see that technology building taken off the works program. For some years, it has been on a rolling program and was due to be completed by the end of next year. Finally, I turn to the Kuranda high school, which I have mentioned on a number of occasion in this place. Tonight, I will refer to it at some length. The establishment of that school has been a matter of serious concern to me and to the parents in the Kuranda area, not simply because nearly 300 students in the area qualify for high school education but mainly because those students are travelling up and down the Kuranda range in buses morning and night. That presents a number of difficulties, not the least of which is daylight-saving. At the height of summer, children are catching buses at Oak Forest about 15 minutes after dawn. They travel a considerable distance down what is broadly considered to be a dangerous road. That should be sufficient to encourage the Government to move towards the construction of a high school at Kuranda. Recently, the Minister for Education stated that I had not done sufficient work in site selection or in other considerations for the matter to proceed. I have refuted that in this place quite clearly, and I do so again. However, I must say that I am most concerned that, last week, a meeting—from which I was expressly excluded—was held in my electorate between officers of the Department of Administrative Services and the Mareeba Shire Council to discuss site selection for a high school at Kuranda. I found that most offensive. Having done a considerable amount of work, having put on the files of the Minister's department all the reference material necessary for the selection of a high school, having driven and measured every road in the district, having done water surveys, having looked at the possibility of sewerage problems, and having spoken to about five different departments, I believe that I have earned the right to have some say in the selection of a site for that school. I am most concerned as the site that is favoured by the Mareeba Shire Council is inappropriate simply because of a road intersection between Myola Road and the Kennedy Highway. It is an intersection which comes down off a steep slope. If a school is established somewhere on that road, inevitably, sooner or later a child will be riding a bicycle to or from school along that road—children will be riding on bicycles to and from that school for the next 100 years—and collide with a motor Legislative Assembly 4931 20 November 1990 vehicle at that intersection. It is dangerous and inappropriate. I urge the Minister to take a personal interest to ensure that the school is not established on Myola Road. Further, I believe it is in everybody's best interest to have the school established on land which is already owned by the Crown. The land should not be purchased from a private owner for more than half a million dollars. That would be an inexplicable and unforgivable waste of a State Government resource. I ask the Minister to investigate that matter. I complete this address by saying to the Minister, "Thank you. You have been most accessible and cooperative." In the last 12 months, I have had to approach the Minister on three or four occasions and he has probably been the most cooperative of all the Ministers in that I have always received an answer within 24 hours. I have not necessarily liked the answer, but at least I have received an answer. Mr HOLLIS (Redcliffe) (10.07 p.m.): It is with great pleasure that I support the Estimates for the Department of Administrative Services, which was formerly the Works Department. In common with many other Government departments, that department is going through great change which will improve the efficiency and the financial stability of the Government in the future. The department is to implement a new corporate strategic framework and organisational structure that will provide a framework of commercial business units. The Strategic Services Division provides a framework for specific plans of business units and provides a common vision, value system and service philosophy. The long-term survival of each business unit will depend on the level of customer demand for cost-effective delivery of services. In turn, each business will adopt commercially sound practices, which will allow it to operate as competitively as any other player in the market. What that really means is that the department is now moving into a user-pays system—a system that is streamlined and efficient—which, hopefully, will make it the forerunner of all departments in the saving of money. It was quite amazing to listen to the speech by the member for Mirani, who showed that he does not understand the changes and that he does not understand that when people apply for senior positions in these departments they stand a chance of missing out. He complained about the selection of people for senior positions in the department. More than 600 people applied for those jobs. The honourable member did not seem to understand that the accounting firm of Ernst and Young—an independent firm—interviewed the applicants for these senior positions. The appointees are not the university drop-outs that Mr Randell claims they are; they are the very best people for the job. The Minister should not be criticised for their appointments. If the best people are not employed, whom will the Government end up with? Mr Heath: People like the member for Mirani. Mr HOLLIS: Exactly—people like the member for Mirani. Mr Randell also criticised the appointment of the new Government Printer. It was quite incredible to find that he did not even check to see who the new Government Printer is. In fact, he was the head of the printing department in New Zealand. He has all the necessary qualifications, he is a very capable man and he is the best man for the job. The Government should be employing the best man for the job at all times. Under the user-pays system, the Government now has fleet management of the car pool. In the past, cars were purchased by departments, parked under buildings and used at sporadic intervals. They were mostly used as taxis to take departmental staff home and no real restriction was placed on their use. Quite a large fleet of cars was just parked under buildings all day, taking up space as well as incurring pretty prohibitive costs. The Minister has looked into the matter. Honourable members have probably read in the newspapers in the last few weeks that, in future, departments will have to enter into a rental scheme, which will actually result in a saving of some $15m over the next year. Those savings will be made by reducing the current motor fleet, avoiding the duplication of fleet management, ensuring that non-essential accessories are not fitted to vehicles, Legislative Assembly 4932 20 November 1990 ensuring that vehicles that consume high quantities of fuel do not go undetected, ensuring that adequate maintenance is carried out and avoiding the underutilisation of vehicles. I was quite interested to hear the method of changing over the fleet. If in a fleet of 40 cars five were due to be changed over, that would be delayed so that the department ended up with five extra cars for the whole year. That was an easy way of ensuring that a department had a fleet that was rather larger than it needed, which is where the term "phantom" fleet came from. That will now be stopped and departments will have to be accountable. The nuts and bolts work of the Department of Administrative Services is well known. Mention has already been made in this debate of the efforts of the staff of that department during the Charleville floods. After the big storm in Redcliffe, the Minister was able to get his men in very quickly to carry out repairs to public buildings and Housing Commission houses. I am sure that many of the people in Redcliffe who live in Housing Commission accommodation still owe a great debt of thanks to the staff of the Department of Administrative Services for their speedy and helpful efforts in repairing the damage to their homes. Redcliffe also was in the position of being one of a number of electorates on which the Nationals spent a total of 3 per cent of funds. Earlier in the year, the Minister pointed out that the amount of money that went into National Party electorates was some 67 per cent, the amount of money that went into Labor electorates was some 30 per cent and the amount of money that went into Liberal electorates such as Redcliffe was some 3 per cent. So it is no surprise that Redcliffe had schools that had not been painted for years and on which maintenance had never been carried out. In fact, the hall at one school in the Redcliffe electorate was built some 20 years ago and has never seen a coat of paint or a repair in that time. The problem is now being addressed. Over the last year, it has been gratifying to see the department paying special attention to the carrying out of maintenance at schools in my electorate. In fact, every school in the Redcliffe electorate now has a good coat of paint. This not only makes the schools look brighter but also improves the morale of the teachers and the students. In the last few months the redevelopment of the Humpybong State School in Redcliffe—which has been promised for the last seven or eight years—has commenced. When Labor assumed office in December of last year, I received letters from parents of students at the Scarborough State School who were absolutely staggered when they saw the condition of the toilets that their children had to put up with. When the Minister visited my electorate, that school was one of the places to which he was taken, not because he particularly likes toilets but to show him what those kids had to put up with. Mrs Edmond: And in Bardon. Mr HOLLIS: And in Bardon. It was astounding to look at those toilets and see the discrimination against those children. These problems are now being rectified, but things should never have reached that stage. If maintenance had been carried out over the years, those toilets probably would not need to be replaced now; they just needed to be maintained. The result of 30 years of neglect will be the spending of many millions of dollars in former Liberal and Labor electorates throughout this State. I have been told that, under the previous Government, the schools in Mount Gravatt had carpeted rooms. However, for years one of the infant schools in Redcliffe had no carpet. Whether it was cold or hot, the kids had to sit on concrete floors. This has happened over a long period. The Minister looked at this problem and said that the Government would do something about it. What was the cost? A very measly $1,300! That is the type of problem that people were faced with under the previous National Party Government. Some members spoke about there being no discrimination by the previous Government. I give the honourable member for Tablelands his due. I think he is a very sincere man when he says that he would not discriminate against anybody, but obviously the previous Government did. Legislative Assembly 4933 20 November 1990

Recently, I visited Kilkivan to carry out a task on behalf of the Minister for Emergency Services and I spoke with the principal of the school who said to me, "Look, it is great. What a good Government. We are getting this and that. We really expected to miss out because that is what the other crowd did." However, that school is not missing out because this Government will not discriminate against the children of this State. Facilities are being provided for those children. That was a very telling visit for me to a National Party base. People who usually support the National Party are now swinging to the Labor Party because they know that it is fair, just, honest and efficient. One of the very good things about this Government is that there will be no discrimination. It was interesting to hear the member for Nicklin speak about the building in Cairns and state that he hopes his electorate will not miss out on similar facilities. The member for Nicklin would be aware of what has happened in previous years. The member for Mirani spoke about the school that was on the list that had suddenly been crossed off. It made me wonder whether it was one of those phantom projects that the previous National Party Government put out prior to the last election whereby different schools would be completed, redeveloped or built and yet there was never any money for those projects. I checked, and it seems to me that there was no rejection of such a school in the electorate of Mirani because it never existed. Mr Beanland, the member for Toowong, spoke about cleaning contracts and said that the Government should be more efficient. Had he read the departmental report, he would have discovered that— "The Division manages the cleaning of Government office buildings and leased accommodation through the use of day-labour and contract cleaning services. A total of 43 buildings now are serviced using the resources of 277 day-labour staff. This level of service has been maintained, despite a reduction in staff, subsequent to a review of work practices, and the introduction of modern cleaning methods." Already the Minister is working on improving efficiency, even at the level of office cleaning. It is quite interesting that the Liberal and National Parties now clearly differ in their policies. The members of the Liberal Party are now saying that they want to get rid of the day-labour and the members of the National Party are saying that they want to retain the day-labour. With the conservative groups split, there is no real problem for the Government in the near future. With those few words, I will do a Mr Nunn from Isis and congratulate the Minister on a very good set of Estimates and on a very efficient department that will be recognised in the forthcoming year as the department to deal with. I am sure that the results of the restructuring and the user-pays system will be of great benefit to the State of Queensland. Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (10.19 p.m.): Tonight, I am very pleased to speak to the Estimates of the Department of Administrative Services. I have had quite a lot to do with this department over the last few months because of the floods in Charleville. The departmental officers did a marvellous job and I believe that credit should be given to them for that work. The quality of the people who were in charge was very high. They were able to mix well and to communicate with the people. One aspect that was most important was the ability of those in authority to handle people under stress, and I was very impressed with their capabilities in that regard. No matter what happens, there are always problems. It is often the case that sometimes the harder one tries, the worse the problem becomes. Basically, Charleville had to be reconstructed and, while it may have been a bumpy start, it finished well. One problem that has not been resolved relates to a block of flats that had been demolished at the beginning of the floods. I still do not know who is responsible. I am referring to Mrs Gordon's flats behind the BP service station. I am not aware whether that problem is being dealt with by the Minister's department or whether it has been referred to the Premier's Department. She has been ringing up, and I have contacted different departments that are claiming that it is not their responsibility. I shall follow that problem through with the Minister to see whether it can be resolved because it has been going on now for quite a while and it is one of those untidy bits and pieces that Legislative Assembly 4934 20 November 1990 need to be tidied up. The local staff of the department in Charleville have done a great job and I congratulate them. I believe that it was an initiation for some of them who had not been in town very long and they certainly had to learn very quickly. Another important issue in the western areas relates to the air- conditioning of public service housing. I consider that air-conditioning is not a luxury but a necessity. Many people who drive motor cars out in those western areas consider air-conditioning to be almost as standard a fixture as a radio. It is of paramount importance to provide those public servants with air-conditioning. The heat has been terrific lately and recently in Birdsville the temperature reached 48 degrees. Occupants of public service housing in the far western areas of the State do have the right to air-conditioning, but there is a cut-off point. I believe that that scheme is slowly being extended eastwards and that one day it will operate right throughout Queensland. It must be remembered that many public servants who go to western areas to work take with them their wives and families. When they come home from work at night they, too, have to be comfortable and happy. A good employee is a happy one, and a happy employee is a good one. These days, much is said about productivity. It has to be ensured that the Government gets the most out of its employees. That is an aspect that must be considered. To give an indication of how hot the westerly wind was last Sunday at home, when we closed the windows in the house the temperature inside dropped 2 degrees. Our house has quite a lot of gardens and trees around it and a white roof. When windows have to be closed in order to reduce the temperature inside, it certainly is damned hot. Many of the public service houses in that area probably do not have such gardens and trees and are often exposed, thus making them very hot. Many of the houses have sliding glass windows that cannot be opened properly. As a result, it certainly becomes very uncomfortable for the families. It must be remembered that children are pretty important as well. One thing that has been forced upon us in the west is daylight-saving. That does not help, either. Mr Hayward: You have only been going four minutes. Mr HOBBS: The honourable member should give me time. I have not finished yet. My remarks on daylight-saving could take a while. Daylight-saving makes the situation worse. Mr Hayward: What has daylight-saving got to do with these Estimates? Mr HOBBS: I am talking about air-conditioning in public service housing and about the effects that daylight-saving has on that. Because of daylight-saving, people are forced to have their meals at an earlier time. Does the honourable member not believe that? Mr Hayward: I don't believe anything you tell me. Mr HOBBS: Well, it is about time the honourable member learnt to. If members opposite had listened to members on this side, the Premier would have avoided the problem that he had recently with the rural industry. Mr Hayward: What are you going to tell me—there are 25 hours in a day? Mr HOBBS: No, I am not saying there are 25 hours in a day. However, the children are supposed to go to bed an hour earlier. It is as simple as that. Is the honourable member suggesting that the children really should—— Mr Hayward: What has this got to do with the Estimates for Admin. Services? Mr HOBBS: It concerns air-conditioning of public service housing. I am speaking of the need for air-conditioning in that area. Many houses in the far-western area have air-conditioning. However, houses nearer the more populated areas do not. Provision of air-conditioned houses is an important aspect that should be taken into consideration. I can appreciate that the member for Caboolture would not know about the heat out Legislative Assembly 4935 20 November 1990 there because he would not have been out there very often. If he did go out there, he would probably get lost. Mr Hayward: I even spoke to you out there. Do you remember that? Mr HOBBS: Yes. That was when you were rushing back into the hotel to keep in the air- conditioning. That must have been the day. I think it might have been winter-time, too. If I can recall, it was very cold. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the honourable member to return to the Estimates. Mr HOBBS: I am sorry, Mr Chairman. I was diverted from them. The CHAIRMAN: Comments should be made through the Chair to the Minister, not to a backbencher of the Government. Mr HOBBS: I accept your ruling, Mr Chairman. I turn now to deal with the need for air-conditioning at the Thargomindah school. Some backbenchers, who will remain unnamed, may not realise that it gets very, very hot in that area, too. The problem is not just the heat but also the dust. Thargomindah school is unique in that if it rains the place turns to a swamp; otherwise it is dusty. The present air-conditioning unit really is not big enough to cope. The department has given consideration to what can be done to rectify the problem. It appears to me—and also to the department—that the only solution is to install a bigger air-conditioning unit. It is realised that such units are expensive and that the department has certain priorities. However, I think this is a priority that should be given consideration sooner rather than later. During the floods, the TAFE college in Charleville was a great asset. Many of the students who were already in Charleville or who went there assisted in the repair of washing machines, lawn-mowers, fridges, little motors, motor bikes—the whole lot. I take my hat off to all the people who travelled to that area and put in so much of their time. The TAFE college facility is absolutely essential and fantastic. Many students, both young and mature, have benefited greatly by the building of that TAFE college. At present, the School of Distance Education is being built. It will be responsible for an increase in teacher numbers from about 7 to 22. That facility is very welcome. One of the most important benefits that it will provide is an improvement in education for those students who are unable to go by school bus to their local schools or to boarding schools. Because of the problems facing the rural industry at present, more and more families will be unable to send their children away to school. Therefore they will be relying on the School of Distance Education, which I understand will be opened some time in the second term of next year. It will certainly be of great benefit. I congratulate the staff on the way in which they have handled the hardship they have had to endure this year, particularly with the school being split because of the floods and the problems associated with staff numbers. They did a great job. I congratulate them on their hard work and on the dedication that they showed to their students, to the town of Charleville and to the School of Distance Education. Another important matter relates to radios. The School of Distance Education needs more 100- watt radios. This matter probably does not relate to the Minister's portfolio, but it is well worth mentioning. Mr Hayward: That has never stopped you so far. Mr HOBBS: No. I will keep going. I thank the honourable member for the advice. Another matter that could be touched upon relates to the north-west region education zone. However, I understand that the Chairman might not like me referring to that. Nevertheless, it is certainly disappointing that it has caused so much trouble and concern and that it has become a bit of a blot on the copybook of the School of Distance Education. Legislative Assembly 4936 20 November 1990

I turn now to covered play areas, which are very important, particularly in the prevention of skin cancer. People are being encouraged to stay out of the sun as much as possible. Covered play areas would assist in that regard. The Tambo and Blackall schools certainly need such areas. Quite a long time ago those schools applied to the Government for covered play areas. I look forward to action being taken in that regard without further delay. I suggest to the Minister that even if those schools cannot obtain the proper, dinky-di covered play areas, perhaps a cheaper method such as shade cloth could be used as a temporary measure. Mr Hayward: Hats. Mr HOBBS: Hats can be used, too. It would not be difficult to erect steel casing and shade cloth. Although that would be a temporary measure, at least it would be a start. It would not cost much, and I am sure that many p. and c. associations would assist. The Tresswell school on the Springsure road needs air-conditioning. It is a great little school. No doubt, the Minister will organise some work to be done soon at the Lockington school, which is situated in the north west towards Springsure. That school is already established, but because of insufficient student numbers it has been allowed to run down. Because it now has sufficient student numbers, there is a deal of work to be done in the schoolgrounds. The toilet facilities must be improved. Teacher accommodation is needed. Although the school room is quite good, some money needs to be spent on it. Students are supposed to start at that school in the first term of next year. It would be appreciated if that school receives priority to enable those children to be placed in the education system as soon as possible. Last Saturday, the Morven swimming pool was opened. That was a very important occasion, particularly for the people of Morven. They raised a lot of money—about $100,000-odd. The Murweh Shire Council was very cooperative and provided $30,000 to the fund. That was a great achievement for those people. It was one of the hardest and most intensive fund-raising exercises that I have witnessed during my time as the local member and, before that, when I was involved in the community. The Morven area is very tough and dry. One aspect that concerns some of the smaller schools in my electorate, including those at Mungallala, Amby and Wyandra, is the closure of railway sidings. If railway staff leave that area, it will have a detrimental effect on those schools, which are hanging in there with small student numbers. If those workers leave the area, thereby taking their children with them, the schools will have insufficient student numbers to remain open. That will create problems with school buses and trauma for families, because children will have to travel further to attend schools. The Cunnamulla and Quilpie schools are very important. People in that area are also concerned about the closure of railway sidings. I hope that pupil numbers can be maintained there. Time expired. Mr SMYTH (Bowen) (10.34 p.m.): I rise to address the Administrative Services Estimates for this 1990 Budget and support the Government in its aim to provide competitive and efficient services. A new corporate strategic framework and organisational structure will be implemented to provide a framework of commercial business units. The department's strategic plan provides a framework for specific plans of the business units and a common vision, value system and service philosophy. The long-term survival of each business unit will depend on the level of customer demand for cost-effective delivery of services. In turn, each business will adopt commercially sound practices that will allow it to operate as competitively as any other player in the market. It is important that the service provided meets client needs. In order to achieve that result, the department will adopt the following basic commercial principles— services are provided through logical produce-based business units; Legislative Assembly 4937 20 November 1990

business units are aligned to and compete with externally defined industries; management in business units is vested with the authority and responsibility to achieve predetermined commercial objectives within the framework of departmental policies; accountability is defined in terms of the business plans drawn up by unit management and agreed to by the department; the department provides corporate policy, direction and limited corporate services; commercial systems and practices are developed in each business unit to suit their needs; business unit management is responsible for ongoing enhancement of efficiency and effectiveness; the customer controls the level of services; the user pays for services provided; customers have freedom of choice in the market; in the long term, all services are viable; products are clearly identified, priced and costed through appropriate management accounting systems; product offerings conform to customer requirements of quality and timeliness; target markets are identified, and marketing plans and resources are devoted to those targets; any duplication or overlap of products and services is avoided; cross-subsidisation of products within business units is acceptable; funds are devolved to clients; all businesses will report on a profit and loss and balance sheet; valuation of all assets must take place; business units are measured in terms of commercial financial yardsticks; ultimately, capital structures are recognised, surpluses are retained and dividend policies are set; and the cost of surplus capacity, interference or provision of non-commercial services is highlighted and separately accounted for. Although the long-term direction of the department is dictated by the need for efficiency and competitiveness, it provides a tangible goal in the form of savings for Government and long-term product rationalisation of inefficient services. The Department of Administrative Services will achieve savings to Government through increased competitiveness in providing a range of services that are focused on client needs. The implementation of a user-pays system for the services of the department will result in benefits for the Government. Clients will be able to make choices about allocation of scarce funds, and client departments will value services. The valuation of services allows the true costs of public sector programs to be ascertained. Recognition of costs will allow reasoned debate amongst interest groups as to the costs and benefits of public sector programs that compete for funds. A more rigorous approach will be taken to the financial analysis of costs and revenue in order to deliver more Government service for less taxpayer funding. The role of administrative services will be that of a service-provider of a range of goods and services to Government public sector agencies and the public. It has a central agency responsibility to service Government property and assets as economically as possible. The department's budget for 1990-91 has been prepared on a program basis, which incorporates business units to commence operation on 1 July 1991. The asset management program comprises a maintenance and operation business unit and a building property management business unit. The maintenance and operations business unit will provide Legislative Assembly 4938 20 November 1990 core services for client departments. From 1 July 1991, it will operate on a full user-pays basis. The system of user pays within the business unit will ensure that clients obtain value for money, that they will value the services provided and will ensure that the true costs of those services are reflected in the client department's programs. The building property business unit will act as a central property agency managing Government office accommodation, security, cleaning, gardening, property planning and development and consultancy services. Departments will be charged commercial rental rates for office accommodation space occupied. From 1 July 1991, the business unit will operate on a full user-pays basis, which will provide major advantages to the Government. The building program comprises the building projects business unit, which will perform feasibility, design, documentation and contract administration and construction roles. That will be performed as a project management and consultancy service on a fee-for-service basis. As a first stage in the user- pays process, client departments were allocated capital works funding during the 1990-91 financial year. The implementation of a commercial business unit from 1 July 1991 will ensure that services provided are commercially competitive. From 1 July 1991, work undertaken by that business unit will be on a fixed-fee basis. The goals of the building program are to ensure that approved projects meet clients' requirements, are in accordance with prescribed standards, comply with Government policies, provide value for money, are timely and enhance the quality of the environment. During 1990-91, the department's Budget allocation totalled $49,837,000, compared with the 1989-90 Budget allocation of $353,061,000. The difference in the Budget allocations is the result of capital works allocations being appropriated directly for client departments. The Budget allocation provided to the department comprises salaries, wages, administrative and related payments totalling $31,743,000 and capital expenditure outlays totalling $18,094,000, which includes a provision for the Cairns Government offices totalling $7,400,000. The balance represents minor capital works projects. The new Bowen TAFE college has been allocated $2,120,000, and $410,000 will be spent on extensions to the Bowen State High School, including a home economics kitchen and class rooms. Mr Perrett interjected. Mr SMYTH: It is something that has never been done in a Labor electorate. For a long time, the people of Bowen have suffered in relation to extensions to schools, and $147,000 will be spent on extensions to the Queens Beach State School in the Bowen electorate. A total of $133,906 has been allocated for work-maintenance projects that have been approved, completed or are in progress at Bowen, Collinsville and Scottville, and $41,640 has been approved for Moranbah in the Bowen electorate. I refer to comments made by members of the Opposition that the Government is pork- barrelling. This time last year, I visited the Scottville school and found that the exterior had not been painted for at least 15 years. It was in such bad condition that the paint was falling off and the exposed timber had been bleached. I inquired about that building and was told that it was on a five-year plan, which was common under the National Party Government. After the election, I pointed out to people in the department that, if that Government did not undertake to paint that building, it would have to pay for major repairs. Throughout Queensland, the National Party pork-barrelled its own electorates; it did not assist Labor electorates. The result is that the department will have to spend more money. At the Moranbah State School, the buildings that were erected 17 years ago have not been painted and the furniture is falling apart. In the class rooms used by Years 1 and 2, the furniture was so bad that the children were pinching their backsides on the seats. The National Party Government did not take that into consideration. It did not worry about the children at school; it worried about pork-barrelling its own electorates. The former member for Broadsound pork-barrelled that electorate. It was shocking. How much did he achieve? He tried to pork-barrel by knowing the right Ministers. At the time, he supported Premier Bjelke-Petersen. When he could not get his support, he Legislative Assembly 4939 20 November 1990 went in behind Premier Ahern. When he was no longer Premier, the member supported Premier Cooper. That happened all the time in the National Party. The Labor Minister should be complimented on this budget. I commend to the Committee the budget for the Department of Administrative Services. Hon. R. T. McLEAN (Bulimba—Minister for Administrative Services) (10.45 p.m.): I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Before answering some of the questions asked, I take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the staff of the Department of Administrative Services from the director-general down. Since becoming Minister, I have had the opportunity to get around the State from the Torres Strait and Thursday Island down to the south coast and I have met most of the workers in all of the depots. They are a fine bunch of people and are to be congratulated. There are exciting times ahead for this department. The moves and the changes that we will be making will provide much more job satisfaction for the staff of the department in the long term, because they will be given credit for the work they are doing and have done for a long time, in contrast to what has happened over the years where they copped the brunt of the attack when the department was used, in some cases quite regularly, for political pork-barrelling purposes. As one Opposition member said, every child should be treated equally, and I could not agree more. If we can establish and accept that that is the case in this State, work will be done on a needs basis and the people working in this department will get more satisfaction out of their jobs. That is the direction this Government will be taking. I again thank and congratulate all workers in the department. With only 10 minutes in which to reply, I doubt very much whether I will be able to cover all speeches, so I also take this opportunity to say that, if I miss anything, I will go through the speeches in detail over the next two weeks and answer any other questions asked. Firstly, I shall reply to the remarks of the Opposition spokesman, Mr Randell. It is quite obvious that he just does not understand what this is all about. He made one of the worst speeches I have ever heard in this Chamber. It is obvious that he did not read or listen to my speech. I was interested in his opening remarks. He said that questions need to be asked about the department. If that is so, he obviously has been a complete and utter failure as the Opposition spokesman because, in the 10 or 11 months that I have been the Minister, I can remember only one question from him. Last week, he asked two questions of the Minister for Primary Industries. Mr Randell: I can't get a question in. I don't have the time to ask questions. Mr McLEAN: The honourable member has had plenty of opportunities. In all of that time, he has asked one question. He said that questions need to be asked; I do not know where that leaves him. The fact is that the department is so efficient that he has no reason to ask any questions. He most certainly does not understand what this is all about and what the Government is trying to do. He also complained that there was not enough time allowed for this debate. If he casts his mind back, he will realise that this is the first time a Government has allowed all Estimates to be debated. The previous debate on the Estimates of the then Department of Works was in 1987. Mr Schwarten: Who was the Minister then? Mr McLEAN: I do not know. It was probably Mr Gunn or the previous Premier. The honourable member for Mirani also said that, as Minister, I should have been shown in the annual report as heading the department. It is interesting to note that in the previous report no mention was made of the Minister. Obviously, the honourable member does not understand the separation between the public service and politics. He asked whether I could guarantee that an efficient and reliable work force would be retained to deal with emergencies such as the one that occurred in Charleville. This is something that is dear to my heart. I can certainly give that guarantee because I believe it is essential. Once again, he must come under heavy attack for his efforts over Legislative Assembly 4940 20 November 1990 the years because, under the National Party, the day labour force shrank from 2 500 to 1 811 in the four years from 1984 to 1988. Mr Randell: Those figures aren't right. Mr McLEAN: Those are the figures. I will check them out if he thinks they are not right. I will do a double check. He spoke strongly about the victimisation of public servants and said that I should get out of my locked office in the Department of Works. By the way, that office was never used by one National Party Minister. Not only did the honourable member not get out of the office, but he did not speak to the people who worked in the department. No National Party Minister used that office. Mr Randell: I used that office. Mr McLEAN: On very few occasions. The honourable member for Mirani spoke also about purges and fear being the order of the day among workers in the department. What absolute rubbish! He referred to the people who won appointments to the eight business units. They were appointed after an independent assessment of 600 applicants from every Australian State and New Zealand. They were assessed by independent consultants. A short list of three people plus the incumbent fronted a panel of three who interviewed them. Mr Randell: Peter Coaldrake? Mr McLEAN: Not necessarily so. The panel of three consisted of two directors-general and one person from the PSMC. The best applicant was chosen in each case. It is unfortunate that in these moves some people get hurt. I acknowledge the fact that some of the people who have left the department were good and dedicated people. However, if changes are to be made, they must be fair. We advertised right across Australia and an independent panel was used to select these people. It could not have been done in a fairer way. If the honourable member thinks that there are any problems or rorts involved, he can come to me and I will have the matter investigated. We feel that the best people have got the jobs, and I and the staff of my department are looking forward to an exciting future and a great deal of job satisfaction. The honourable member claimed that it will cost an extra $900,000 in salaries for these people and that the department had become top heavy. Mr Randell: I didn't say that. Mr McLEAN: That is what I understood the honourable member to say. He quoted the figure $900,000 because he went through these appointments. The real position is that these appointments are cost neutral. There is no more money involved in setting up these business units and the honourable member's claim is completely out of order. The honourable member for Mirani asked about the next stage of the Queensland Cultural Centre. Stage 5 is still being examined and there is no question of it not going ahead. The honourable member then referred to the famous Bauple State School. Mr Stephan: Don't you know where it is? Mr McLEAN: I know where it is and I also know that it did not come in the first 100 schools in Queensland that were listed in priority order for extra accommodation. Mr Randell: It was approved. Mr McLEAN: It was approved quite easily because the honourable member and another previous Minister wrote a letter. However, absolutely no money was put aside for it. The honourable member wrote the letter as a gimmick prior to the last election. It was another one of the National Party's rorts or con jobs on the people who live in that electorate. Mr Randell interjected. Legislative Assembly 4941 20 November 1990

Mr McLEAN: If it was so important, why was it not put on the $27m rort called the Special Electorate Works Program? If the honourable member visits some of the electorates that I have visited since being made a Minister, he will see some projects that were put on to that works program that did not deserve to be there. If this project was so important, it should have been included in that program and it was not. Time expired. At 10.55 p.m., 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 Administrative Services. The questions for the following Votes were put, and agreed to— $405,122,000—General Public Services, Department of Administrative Services (Consolidated Revenue). $44,328,000—General Public Services, Department of Administrative Services (Trust and Special Funds). Progress reported. DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTIONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 24 October (see p. 4222). Mr LINGARD (Fassifern) (10.57 p.m.): The Opposition accepts the comment that the present system of short-contract, low-paid salaries has acted to the detriment of the prosecution corps in Queensland and the administration of the criminal law in general in this State. It is only natural that if Queensland is to have competent prosecutors they need to be well paid and also have some form of career path with a degree of security of tenure. Unless this is provided, we can only expect to have a high rate of resignation with the obvious detrimental effects of loss of experience. However, the Opposition wishes to state the obvious concern; we must be careful that the position does not become a sheltered workshop for those who are incompetent in other areas. This is a matter for the Director of Prosecutions to address in his appointment and review of positions from time to time. Obviously, it will be the role of the director to ensure that in the review of job valuation there is scope for career paths as well as opportunity to have access to other legal officer positions. There is very genuine concern within the legal profession that we are about to have a glut of legal professional people coming out of Queensland's tertiary training institutions. The present funding program for universities will make it desirable to have a high number of students participating in what might be called lecture-type courses where funding is available for tails on seats. When compared with the subjects of physics, chemistry and medicine that require costly facilities for students, the study of law requires only a lecture room. Hence there will be a high number of law graduates who will require career paths to overcome discontent. The Opposition supports the concepts proposed in this Bill and supports the Bill completely. Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (10.59 p.m.): At the outset, let us welcome the move away from the misguided contract system which has proved so unsuccessful in its impact on the morale of the office of the Director of Prosecutions. In this respect, it is important to note that the provisions of this legislation will enable reciprocal mobility of staff between criminal work in the office of the Director of Prosecutions and other work within the department. That is to say, their positions as public servants will assist in ensuring that legal practitioners who serve as prosecutors will have opportunity to enrich their knowledge of the law and its practice through the civil arena in the course of their careers. That can only serve to improve morale in the Office of the Director of Prosecutions. This is an important reform and one that comes on the heels of a most significant annual report of the Director of Legislative Assembly 4942 20 November 1990

Prosecutions for the year ended 31 December 1989. The former Director of Prosecutions, Mr Des Sturgess, QC, at page 3 of the report observed as follows— "An effective criminal justice system is fundamental to civilised existence. In fact, no function of organized society is of greater importance. If anyone doubts this he should go and live in a place where there never was one or where it has broken down. Amongst other things, an effective criminal justice system must not prefer the rights of one party to the rights of the other or others; its procedure should provide for the timely disposition of the cases coming before it, but not at the sacrifice of thorough hearings; it should be applied systematically so that its benefits and sanctions fall evenly upon all." That statement of principle contrasts sharply with the ugly reality of practice in Queensland. It is an astonishing fact that, in the Director of Prosecution's previous annual report, he was moved to refer to the neglect of the criminal justice system at page 5, where he stated— ". . . another example of the neglect of the criminal justice system by a government which, advised of it by the Lucas Inquiry in 1977, chose to ignore it until some recent events at the Fitzgerald Inquiry made it electorally necessary to do something about it." This Government's appointment of former District Court judge, Mr Royce Miller, QC, has done much to lift the morale among prosecutors. However, it is important for this House to back up the efforts to restore morale by providing the legislative machinery to ensure that proper opportunity is provided for the appointment of prosecutors as public servants, hence facilitating their careers. It is important because nothing is more important to the rights of victims of crime than that an effective and efficient prosecution corps exist. Indeed, at page 3 of Mr Sturgess' annual report, he made the following observation— "In many cases the rights of victims of crime, including members of the public who are alarmed, and justifiably so, at the incidence of serious crime have been lost sight of." That is a serious indictment upon the administration of the criminal justice system under the previous Government. I am delighted to note the efforts being made by the current Attorney-General in taking action to ensure that victims of crime are properly protected. It is truly astonishing that one hears the slogans of law and order falling from the lips of honourable members opposite when it is remembered that they presided over a criminal justice system described in severely critical terms by the Director of Prosecutions whom they appointed. The particulars of the gross neglect described by Mr Sturgess are set out in appendix 10 of his annual report, which has been tabled in this House, and I shall not deal with them in any detail. However, the challenge held out by Mr Sturgess was the prospect he described at page 21, which is— "We look at a third-rate criminal justice system unless something is done." I am delighted to say that something is being done. This legislation will be an important step in ensuring that law and law enforcement are not mere slogans but are principles that—the people of Queensland may rest assured—this Government is determined to enforce. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong—Leader of the Liberal Party) (11.05 p.m.): I rise to state how disappointing it is to note that the Office of the Director of Prosecutions is reverting to the old system of making prosecutors in that office permanent employees of the public service. There seems to be some suggestion that the contract system is the cause of the ills that have bedevilled that office. If one reads the comments made by the Minister in conjunction with a report and survey of that office completed in 1989 by Price Waterhouse Urwick, management Legislative Assembly 4943 20 November 1990 consultants, it will be noted that that group highlighted the inefficiencies of "the existing system" and recommended certain changes in relation to staffing levels, the contract system of employment and progression of Crown prosecutors according to experience. It seems to me that those sentiments suggest a continuation of the contract system of employment. I notice in the Minister's second-reading speech that he stated— "Due to the substantial underfunding of the office, short, low-salaried contracts were offered on an ad hoc basis." I emphasise "low-salaried contracts" because, clearly, the problem centres on the low salaries that have been paid to prosecutors. I do not believe that the simple measure of moving prosecutors to the public service without paying suitable remuneration will resolve the problems that exist. Perhaps it would have been far better if the Government had offered suitable remuneration to prosecutors while they were on contracts. I have referred to Mr Sturgess' annual report for the year ended 31 December 1989. Paragraph 25 on page 13 should be considered in relation to the problem that now confronts the Government. Because it is very relevant, I will quote it— "One result of the inadequate funding is that the salaries being paid to the competent and energetic prosecutors and the fees being paid to private counsel are quite inadequate which, inevitably, will lead to the running down of this office unless the situation is corrected urgently. Briefs to private counsel are seen as 3rd class briefs and it says much for their integrity that the service they give is much better than that. However, one cannot expect such donations of time and effort to continue indefinitely. This difficult situation was made much worse and much resentment was caused by the payment of extraordinarily high fees to persons briefed in the Fitzgerald Inquiry and the disparity between the salaries to prosecutors and the fees to private counsel paid by the Special Prosecutor and the salaries and fees paid by this office. For instance, with respect to cases in the District Court, the Special Prosecutor pays private counsel $1,500 fee on brief (which is for the preparation of the case and the first day in court) and refreshers (which are fees for every other day in court) of $1,000. This office is only allowed to pay a fee on brief of $387 and refreshers of $255. That there should be 2 prosecuting services in this state, one given ample funds and the other so underfunded it is forced to cut corners and to depend upon a sense of public duty on the part of its prosecutors and the private counsel it briefs, is disgraceful." The Government has made moves towards correcting some of those problems. Nevertheless, making this move will not rectify the problem. It may cause a different type of problem further down the track. I have spoken to a number of barristers who were employed in this field. They were not very impressed with the Government's course of action; nor was I when I read the Bill. If we are to get the right people there—to have the ability to bring people in from the private sector and allow them to return to the private sector—we must give them an adequate return. If we want to obtain a wide range of experience in the Office of the Director of Prosecutions, that is the way to go. We should provide the incentive, encourage initiative and bring people in from the private sector to gain experience and utilise the experience that they have gained from the private sector. I was shocked to see the Government going down this path, which I believe is a step backwards and not in the interests of the Office of the Director of Prosecutions. It also would seem to me to be a break-down of some of the independence of prosecutors. They cannot simply be classed as other public servants. By putting them back into the public service, perhaps the Government is attempting to do that. Their hours of work are diverse and long. They should be treated as the equivalent of prosecutors in the private workplace. It is disappointing to see this legislation being brought forth—legislation which the Liberal Party is opposed to because it does not believe it is in the interests of or for the benefit of the people of this State. Mr WELFORD (Stafford) (11.11 p.m.): The Leader of the Liberal Party totally misunderstands the massive changes that are in the wind for the restructuring and reclassification of public service jobs following the very valuable work being performed in all departments by the Public Sector Management Commission. Far from this new Legislative Assembly 4944 20 November 1990 career structure for prosecutors in the Office of the Director of Prosecutions being a step back into the past, it is very much a step into a new, improved career structure—a career structure and career path which not only improves on what the Leader of the Liberal Party quite properly refers to as the old public service system but also improves significantly on the haphazard and ad hoc contract system which operated under the previous Government. In the months leading up to the last election and just after Price Waterhouse Urwick conducted its review of management systems within the Office of the Director of Prosecutions, I was contacted by a number of prosecutors working in the office who were concerned about the low morale in that office and about the future of that office. It is true that, under the previous Government, the Office of the Director of Prosecutions in Queensland was grossly underfunded and that it was an extremely difficult task for the then director—indeed, any director, no matter what capacity he had for good management of the office—to attract quality lawyers to act as prosecutors within the office. It also forced the management of the office to resort to engaging private counsel on occasions when it otherwise might have been more efficient not to do so. Of course, to engage private counsel is an expensive exercise. In the long run, it is much more efficient for our State prosecution service to rely as much as it can upon its internal expertise which it develops by, first of all, attracting lawyers of quality and, secondly, developing the expertise of those lawyers in prosecutions over the years. The effect is that this amendment will facilitate an enormous change to the management structures and career paths of prosecutors in that office. It is of significant benefit to the management of the office as a whole and will enable a more stable working environment to be established for all prosecutors who come to the office. As the member for Yeronga quite properly said, the recent appointment of the new Director of Prosecutions has engendered a new level of morale—a higher morale—amongst prosecutors in the office and amongst lawyers in the legal profession at large. We now have a prosecution office which will reassert itself as a quality prosecution service for the State of Queensland. Quite apart from the question of funding, which I commend the Attorney-General for moving to address quite promptly, it is still important that a formal and progressive regime of career structures be provided within the department. If one looks at the proposed classification systems contained in the recent draft paper of the Public Sector Management Commission, one finds that there is a specific classification stream for professional groups within the public service. This should ensure that within the new public service career structures, there is adequate remuneration for people who have special professional expertise, such as lawyers, not only in the Office of the Director of Prosecutions but also in other sections of the Attorney-General's Department. The other aspect concerning the Office of the Director of Prosecutions on which I wish to comment is the new initiatives that were discussed previously during the debate on the Attorney- General's Estimates. It is not just an office of prosecutors. It is important that expertise in non-criminal or other civil areas is developed amongst the lawyers who are attracted to the office. That is just as relevant to the other important aspect that I have raised previously in this Chamber, that is, the aspect of the confiscation of profits of criminal activity. I was pleased to read in this morning's newspaper of action on the part of lawyers with the Criminal Justice Commission to bring into operation the provisions of the Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act of this State to retrieve and freeze what are arguably the ill- gotten gains of criminals. One of the valuable benefits of that legislation is that it can attract substantial pecuniary benefits for consolidated revenue and deprive criminals of the fruits of their criminal activity. That, of itself, is a very important deterrent measure. Indeed, it is probably as important and as effective a measure as imprisonment or other forms of sentencing. Overseeing the operation of the Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act in Queensland is an important function of the Office of the Director of Prosecutions and, in implementing the provisions of that legislation, it is important that there are prosecutors who have experience beyond just the criminal Legislative Assembly 4945 20 November 1990 areas of law, that is, lawyers who have some commercial and civil experience. For that reason also, these amendments, which provide for the rotation of lawyers between the various sections of the Attorney-General's Department, are to be commended. One matter that is important not just for the criminal justice system but also for the respect that the Office of the Director of Prosecutions enjoys in the profession at large is the development within that office of a high degree of professionalism and a high degree of respect for the quality of legal work performed by that office. I am confident that these measures are the first steps in achieving that improved performance. I am sure that the Attorney-General is committed to achieving those goals as well. I support the Bill. Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (11.18 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members who have taken part in the debate. I thank the honourable member for Fassifern for his sensible and cautionary speech. I thank the honourable and learned member for Yeronga for his very accurate analysis of the present situation in the Office of the Director of Prosecutions. I thank the honourable member for Stafford for his remarks. The honourable member for Stafford is himself an ex- prosecutor, and when he speaks about prosecution, it well behoves honourable members to listen. I thank the honourable member for Toowong for his contribution. However, I want to draw to his attention one or two small things. First of all, the word counsel—spelt c-o-u-n-s-e-l—means barrister and is pronounced in the same way as the council in which he used to work. The first point that I make is that court room etiquette is very important for people who would speak on these subjects. The second point that I make relates to the remark by the honourable member for Toowong that he does not see moving across to the public service as being an advantage unless prosecutors receive suitable remuneration. They will receive suitable remuneration. The whole purpose of this reform is to put prosecutors back into the career structure of the Attorney-General's Department, from which career structure they had been excised. They were on penurious contracts, while other people—— Mr Beanland: Why don't you put them on suitable contracts? Mr WELLS: The rest of the Attorney-General's Department is organised into a career structure. The Crown Solicitor's Office, the Office of the Public Defender, the central services agency, the Law Reform Commission and so on have gradations for career legal officers. Those gradations provide a career structure into which people can fit. The contract system did not provide anything of that kind and, therefore, there was no opportunity and no incentive. The very problem with the contract system and, in particular, with the penurious contracts that were previously being offered was that large numbers of people were leaving the public service, that is, the Office of the Director of Prosecutions. I say "public service" advisedly because all the positions in the Office of the Director of Prosecutions were set off against public service positions. This is a solution to the problem because, as the honourable member for Toowong required, it does provide suitable remuneration, and it provides the opportunity for mobility from the Office of the Director of Prosecutions to the other offices within the Attorney-General's Department. The honourable member for Toowong also quoted from the report of the retired Director of Prosecutions, Mr Des Sturgess, QC. Mr Sturgess called for an increase in the fees payable to private counsel. That was a question that was addressed by this Government in April this year, if I remember correctly, and an increase of 25 per cent was granted. I would not be surprised if further increases were granted some time next year. I respect the honourable member for Toowong for raising those points but, nevertheless, his reasons are fatally flawed in terms of their capacity to provide an argument against the reforms encapsulated in this Bill. I thank honourable members for their participation in the debate, and I commend the Bill to the House. Legislative Assembly 4946 20 November 1990

Question—That the Bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. Committee Clauses 1 to 9 and Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Wells, by leave, read a third time. STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 24 October (see p. 4223). Mr LINGARD (Fassifern) (11.34 p.m.): The Opposition accepts the concept that there is often a need to make amendments to legislation which adjust minor drafting errors as quickly and as concisely as possible. Therefore, it accepts the principle whereby a large number of small amendments—in this case, 48—have been combined into this Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. However, there will naturally be criticisms of the policy of extending the statute law Bills to include minor policy amendments. Quite obviously, what might be regarded as a minor policy amendment to a person of one political persuasion is regarded as a Legislative Assembly 4947 20 November 1990 matter of great concern to another. In the case of this particular Bill, I refer to the insertion of a third schedule into the Drugs Misuse Act, which seems to me to be changing, in some instances, the quantity of dangerous drugs. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on this matter. It certainly appears to me that this type of change is hardly a matter of house-keeping or a minor matter. Similar comments can be made in relation to the amendment to section 65 of the Forestry Act. It is hardly house-keeping as it empowers the Conservator of Forests to recover from the owner of adjoining land compensation in certain circumstances. We in the Opposition agree with the principle of the matter, but it is hardly house-keeping legislation. The Opposition believes that the amendment to the Public Trustee Act is a major concern. However, it is a most necessary procedure enabling the Public Trust Office to complete matters which it had undertaken for somebody who is incapacitated upon his becoming non-capacitated. Similarly, the amendment to the Superannuation (Public Employees Portability and Acts Amendment) Act is hardly a simple house-keeping piece of legislation. However, the Opposition believes that, in this case, the amendments are perfectly appropriate. Therefore, it is prepared to support the legislation. Mrs SHELDON (Landsborough) (11.36 p.m.): I rise to speak very briefly on the amendments contained in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Generally, we in the Liberal Party support the Bill. However, I would like to raise a point of concern, that is, the question of minor policy amendments. We also consider that what the Government may consider to be minor policy amendments may be a question of concern or controversy in the mind of the public. We also agree with certain matters that were pointed out, but these indeed we do not regard as minor. However, generally speaking, we support the Bill. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.37 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their support for this legislation. The intention of this Bill is to amend minor errors. The fact that the third schedule of the Drugs Misuse Act is being amended does not mean that an attempt is being made to try to slip something through. It is amending an error. For the benefit of the member for Fassifern, I will read the explanation. Section 12 of the Drugs Misuse Act Amendment Act 1987 contained an error in its amendment of that schedule. To remove any doubts as to the effectiveness of that amendment, the third schedule is reinserted without making any changes to the current schedule. The Commissioner of Police has approved this amendment. So nothing is actually being changed, the schedule is being reinserted in the proper way. None of the quantities of drugs has been changed. I guess that is the point to which the honourable member was referring. In relation to that matter, I point out to him that there is nothing untoward in what the legislation seeks to do. As to the Forestry Act—the words to be omitted by the Fire Service Act of 1990 were incorrectly cited. The amendment simply substitutes the subsection as intended by that Act. We are not changing the meaning or the content. It is simply to bring it into line with that Act. As to future amendments to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill—perhaps it would be advisable to distribute to the Opposition explanations of the relevant clauses before they are debated. That would probably make it simpler for members to understand the changes. When dealing with 48 separate Acts, it is difficult to ascertain the changes. I thank members for their support. Motion agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 4 and Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, by leave, read a third time. Legislative Assembly 4948 20 November 1990

ADJOURNMENT Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (11.41 p.m.): I move— "That the House do now adjourn." Australian Free Enterprise Foundation Ltd Mr HAYWARD (Caboolture) (11.42 p.m.): I take this opportunity to further draw to the attention of this Parliament the facts behind the Australian Free Enterprise Foundation Ltd. During the past week, I have taken the time to highlight the organisation's appalling lack of compliance with basic Corporate Affairs procedures. I have also read media reports attributed to the founder of the organisation, Mr John Hay, calling on me to apologise to him. Let me say very clearly that Mr Hay resigned as a director of the organisation on 1 July 1987. It is important to understand that a recent article in the Sunday Sun claimed that Mr Hay stated that "during the term of his chairmanship all affairs of the foundation were meticulously administered and accounted for". He is actually saying that he is giving a nice touch-up to the people who followed him. He is making it very clear that, since he resigned, things have gone very badly for the Australian Free Enterprise Foundation. If Mr Hay had bothered to pay attention he would have learned that the organisation was founded on 18 June 1986. Its main objective was to promote free enterprise. According to Mr Hay, the organisation was established as "a new, national employer group" that would lead Australia out of "economic madness". He said— "The foundation would canvass issues such as taxation, superannuation and compulsory union membership through the community in such a way as to 'protect and project the heart and soul of this country business." Mr Hay issued a further press release headed "National Party more timely" in which he stated— "The business community through the foundation has set the key agenda for the next Federal election." He stated that the foundation would require party candidates to be honest. He said— "We will require written guarantees from politicians . . . empty political promises are . . . not on." When considering the Australian Free Enterprise Foundation, it is important to understand where the money came from. On 27 August 1986, an article in the Courier-Mail headed "Free Enterprise fund is not for employers" stated— " . . . in Brisbane last June, more than 2 000 business people dug deep in their pockets." On the last occasion that I mentioned this matter in the Parliament, I mentioned just how deep they dug. Since then I have obtained a copy of the accounts to 30 June 1986 and the year ended 30 June 1987. Those 13 months cover John Hay's chairmanship. What do those accounts reveal? They reveal that the organisation obtained a gross income of $786,000 and $722,000 in membership subscriptions. How was the money expended? It was expended on advertising of $270,000; commissions of $97,000; consultancy fees of $23,000; and wages of $136,000. The organisation that was set up to promote free enterprise and to end "economic madness" in Australia picked up $786,000 in 13 months. However, since then, as Mr Hay said, no annual accounts have been lodged and the auditor has not seen the accounts for two years. Surprisingly, no financial information about that organisation has been available for the past two years. I would like to know—and I am sure that all honourable members would like to know—what has happened to the organisation that raised that money. In the past three years, it has had 19 directors and 13 resignations. The primary responsibility of those directors was Legislative Assembly 4949 20 November 1990 to prepare the accounts and lodge annual returns. The auditor has notified the Corporate Affairs Office that it has not seen the accounts for those years. That is significant, because Mr Hay has acknowledged that, during his chairmanship, he sold the dump for the next people who came along. Since then, the people involved were reported in the media as saying that nobody has done anything wrong. Who are they kidding? A total of $786,000 in 13 months, and no records have been lodged with the Corporate Affairs Office in the two years since—it is a pathetic situation. It is a disgrace that it was allowed to continue. Time expired. Plenty Highway Mr JOHNSON (Gregory) (11.46 p.m.): Mr Speaker—— Mr Hayward: Where were you? Mr JOHNSON: I was here all the time. I rise to speak in the Adjournment debate on the Plenty Highway, which runs between Boulia and Alice Springs. It is 242 kilometres from Boulia to the Queensland border, and that section of the highway is known as the Donoghue highway. The distance between Boulia and Alice Springs is 810 kilometres. In recent years, that road has become an important link between the Northern Territory and Queensland. I would like that highway to be proclaimed a national highway. In addition to being a very important tourist link, it is an important link for the delivery of livestock from the eastern side of the Northern Territory to the western side of Queensland. It would be beneficial to both Queensland and the Northern Territory for stock to be brought back to Townsville through Mount Isa, and through Winton into Rockhampton. I mention also the road between Dajarra and Mount Isa, which runs through Urandangi, Manners Creek and Tobermory, connects with the Plenty Highway and stretches 280 kilometres. It would be great if the Government could find the money to upgrade that road. The honourable member for Mount Isa would agree with me that it would be a tourist link between Mount Isa, Urandangi, Tobermory, Alice Springs and Ayers Rock or wherever. It is 1 474 kilometres from Boulia through Mount Isa and Tennant Creek to Alice Springs. As I said, the road from Mount Isa to Alice Springs is 846 kilometres long. That is a great saving in distance, and a lot of work should be done on that road. It needs a lot of work, and it would be terrific if the Government could put some money aside to upgrade the Plenty Highway from Boulia to Alice Springs. Another part of that road upon which I place special emphasis is the crossing of the Georgina River near Urandangi and the crossing of the Georgina River between Boulia and the Northern Territory border in Queensland on Glenormiston Station. Those low-level crossings require a fair amount of work. If a three-foot fluming could be put in those channel crossings, that road would become virtually an all- weather road. That river runs for two or three months in the wet seasons, and that area is completely isolated from the rest of Queensland or from the Northern Territory in the other direction. It would not take too much work to make that highway an all-weather road. On the Queensland side, that part of the road approximately 160 kilometres from Boulia that runs towards the border has been made virtually an all-weather road by putting a lot of mud rock on it. A great deal of work needs to be done to extend that road for another 100 kilometres. In parts where road trains have been ploughing through, wheel tracks are up to 3 feet deep. It is a four-wheel-drive road. A fair bit of money will have to be expended to put mud rock on the road in order to make it an all-weather tourist link. I hope that the Government will give this matter some consideration. Recently, at the Kennedy road summit in Mount Isa, the road was discussed. It is a very important link. If that road were to be upgraded, it would be a tremendous boost not only to the tourist industry but also to the cattle industry of western Queensland and the eastern side of the Northern Territory. The road is used only by four- wheel-drive vehicles. I Legislative Assembly 4950 20 November 1990 would like people to be able to drive ordinary family motor vehicles on that road. With escalating fuel costs, it would be a terrific asset to all people, not just those who live in western Queensland. Rubbish Dump Site, Gardner Road, Rochedale; Proposed Development of Business Centre, Upper Mount Gravatt Ms POWER (Mansfield) (11.52 p.m.): This morning, as I read the Courier-Mail, I was appalled to discover that Mr Denman was again the Acting Lord Mayor. My disgust is not with Mr Denman personally. He has had so much practice that he probably does the job as well as the Lord Mayor. I am annoyed at how many times the Lord Mayor is not doing her job. Where is she this time? Once again the cry goes up, "Out of town; out of touch." On 2 December 1989, Queenslanders gave an overwhelming thumbs down to the State's conservative parties' ability to govern. In March 1991, let us hope that the people of Brisbane will be offered a choice between the out of touch Liberals and the fresh, young, committed team led by lord mayoral candidate Jim Soorley. The media machine in the Lord Mayor's office tries to paint a picture that all is rosy in the garden but, if we look deeper, it is not. The Liberal council is allergic to decision-making. After six years, it still has not made a decision on the future of waste disposal. My constituents are waiting to hear that decision. The Lord Mayor's lack of concern is evident in that she is absent from office at this time and the decision is to be made in December. I have already raised in this House this issue of the Rochedale dump site. The Liberals have treated the people in my electorate and surrounding areas with contempt. They tried to foist the dump onto the area and, when they were caught out, they tried to shift the blame to the State Government. The Lord Mayor, on one of her rare occasions in the office, has taken to name-calling as a defence for the incompetence of her office and the local alderman, Quirk. Statements in the newspaper from Quirk state that he has known since May that the dump site might be Rochedale. Locals in Gardner Road who live beside the proposed site visited my office in March. What sort of administration do the Liberals run at City Hall if locals and the State member knew about a dump site and Alderman Quirk did not? The secrecy and deceit at City Hall is more closely aligned to nazi tactics than those of the South Side Action Group which opposes the dump site at Rochedale. My electorate contains some parts of four wards. They are Runcorn, Rochedale, Holland Park and Carina. Rarely does a day go by when we do not receive at the office a call from a constituent regarding the electorate offices of the aldermen. Some of the concerns are: that appointments are not kept, and Alderman Quirk even tried to shirk out of one with the honourable member for Springwood and me but he was no match for the two of us; that the alderman fails to return calls; that no action is being taken on problems; that developers are considered more than people, and that no consultation takes place before decisions are made; and the list goes on. If it happened only once or twice, one could say, "So what? We all make mistakes." But it does not; it is regular. One has to ask, "What do they do? Where do they go?" The latest crisis in my electorate is the proposed development of a business centre at Upper Mount Gravatt. Once again, complete disregard has been shown for the residents in the area. Development plans were displayed to residents. Imagine their horror at finding their homes would be resumed for roadways or would be beside large-scale development. I realise that, to service the community better, it is necessary to develop business centres in the outer suburbs. Upper Mount Gravatt is the obvious choice. Major services already exist there, the bus terminal is sited at Garden City and it is the major intersection from the east, the west, the north and the south. I have no qualms about the establishment of this business centre, but I have some reservations about the way decisions are made, the way they are presented and the way criticisms and concerns are handled. Last week, after numerous phone calls from people in part of Upper Mount Gravatt, I visited homes in that area, which I found to be a quiet, suburban community. Many Legislative Assembly 4951 20 November 1990 of the people are elderly and others plan to retire there. Birds and the occasional koala have found their way to this haven. Here, people care for one another. They are concerned not only for their own fate but also for that of their elderly neighbours. Why would the Liberal council want to destroy this caring community when there is vacant land directly across the road which could be used? Why would the Liberal council propose to resume homes to build yet another road when Link Road already exists? Why was not Alderman Quirk out in his electorate discussing, with his constituents, their concerns regarding the council's proposals? Why? Time expired. Proposal to Dam Tallebudgera Valley Mr COOMBER (Currumbin) (11.57 p.m.): Today, I have presented to this Parliament a petition from some 450 people from Tallebudgera Valley. These residents are outraged at the suggestion of this Government that the Tallebudgera Valley should be dammed to provide water to south-east Queensland. This Government will be damned if Tallebudgera Valley is changed from its natural state. The assessment of Tallebudgera Valley as a possible dam storage area has been conducted with all the dignity of a rapist. In other areas under investigation, notices to enter properties were provided to land-owners and the purpose for investigation was explained to the resident. Not so the Tallebudgera Valley people. Survey and evaluation was conducted by helicopter and the number of affected properties was also calculated in this manner. Not many members of this Parliament would know where the Tallebudgera Valley is, but I can assure them that if they thought the people affected by the Wolffdene dam were active in their fight to retain their valley, Tallebudgera Valley residents will embarrass this Government, not only by their desire to retain their valley but also by their knowledge of water resource needs of south-east Queensland and the costs of provision of water. When in Opposition, the Labor Party made a promise to the electors of the Albert Valley that there would not be a Wolffdene dam. This action removed a water-storage facility that had been planned from 1971. Land acquisition had commenced and every ratepayer receiving water from the Brisbane and Area Water Board was contributing to the provision of Wolffdene dam. The land still remains under the control of the Brisbane and Area Water Board. Wolffdene is not a dead issue. The political decision made by this Labor Government to axe Wolffdene will not be substituted with a relocation of water storage to another site—the Tallebudgera Valley. The decision to undertake a south-east Queensland water distribution study was well known to local authorities. In fact, most local authorities have had some input to the study criteria. This study was initiated by the previous National Party Government and at the time it was well known to be an objective of the Commissioner for Water Resources, Mr Fenwick, to establish a south-east Queensland water distribution network—a network of existing and future water storage areas linked and integrated by a trunk main system. This may well be the strategy that this Government adopts, which would reduce the number of storage areas required to service the projected population increases. The needs must be accommodated by taking a regional approach to growth centres. If we try to address the needs of each individual local authority as a separate entity, significant duplication of services will occur. We must enlarge on the basic study philosophy for overall population distribution discussed with local authorities in 1989. I seek leave to table that document. Leave granted. Mr COOMBER: It can be seen from this document that the maximum assured yield from existing sources, plus Wolffdene, Stradbroke Island and Hinze Dam Stage 3, is approximately 790 000 megalitres. The maximum projected population, assuming a per capita consumption of 200 000 litres per annum, was calculated by dividing the maximum yield by the annual consumption per head. The answer is 4 million people, which is a totally fictitious assumption of the total population capable of being serviced Legislative Assembly 4952 20 November 1990 by the available water. I will take Wolffdene out of the equation. By using the same criteria, existing and future assured resources would service 3 250 000 people. The current usage of water on the Gold Coast is 320 000 litres per annum per property. That is per property, not per person. On average, the usage per head is closer to 100 000 litres per annum than 200 000 litres. The Gold Coast is metered and conducts a regular water conservation program. Water usage could be further reduced by user-pays programs and recycling of effluent, or the introduction of restrictions. Brisbane City Council is now introducing water meters. It is clear that the reason for this is not a lack of raw water, but the need to upgrade or duplicate treatment plants in the near future. Even the recycling of effluent for use in oil refineries and fertiliser works, near sewerage treatment plants at Luggage Point, at Gibson Island in Brisbane would reduce Brisbane's use of Brisbane and Area Water Board water from 76 per cent to 57 per cent of the total. This Government must address these important issues of conservation of water, recycling and reuse of this resource. At no stage has a fair study been undertaken to determine the real costs of alternative sources of water. I am talking about desalination or reverse osmosis. These processes are in use worldwide and the costs associated with that technology are reducing each year. No additional water supply is needed for Brisbane at this stage. All the growth is occurring in the Gold Coast-Brisbane corridor and can be met by raising the Hinze Dam to its ultimate level and a trunk-main strategy to utilise Wivenhoe and Somerset storages. In 1986, the Gold Coast region suffered a severe drought. Hinze Dam reserves dropped to 25 per cent of storage and the two local authorities investigated the installation of a trunk main to Brisbane. This action highlighted the lack of forward planning in trunk main augmentation on the south side of Brisbane. I submit to this House that that situation has not changed and that the growth areas of Logan, Kingston and Beenleigh will suffer water shortages. The Wolffdene dam fiasco and the dissenting report by Labor MLAs Palaszczuk and Ardill will haunt this Government in trying to relocate water storage areas from Wolffdene to other valleys. If the dissenting report was politically motivated, then it is the Labor Party that is to be damned. I turn to the Tallebudgera Valley. This valley is steeped with history. It is a major area for bananas and home for nearly 1 000 people. If Wolffdene has a major social and environmental cost, then I suggest the same applies to the Tallebudgera Valley. I seek leave to include in Hansard a letter from Mr Ronald Chippendale of Tallebudgera which sums up the feelings of the valley people. Mr SPEAKER: Leave is not granted. I have not sighted the letter. It cannot be incorporated. Mr COOMBER: I will table it. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the documents referred to. Remote Area Incentive Scheme for Teachers; Japanese Language Lessons in Mount Isa Schools Mr McGRADY (Mount Isa) (12.02 a.m.): For the past 10 years, I have been a strong advocate of the introduction of the remote area incentive scheme for teachers in Queensland. My reason for supporting this proposal is quite simple: Governments have to offer incentives to attract people to work in the remote parts of this State. Recently, I visited the township of Camooweal, which is part of my electorate. I spent some time at the Camooweal State School and I was most impressed by the way in which the principal, teachers and teachers aides went about doing their duties. They were genuinely trying to assist their students in their educational and social development, but in communities such as Camooweal a problem exists because, in that school, the vast majority of students are Aborigines. Camooweal has an extremely high unemployment rate—almost 90 per cent—and most of the young students believe that they will leave school and continue to live in Camooweal. Obviously, the prospects for employment Legislative Assembly 4953 20 November 1990 are limited, to say the least. Having to teach in that environment obviously causes a great deal of stress for teachers in the area and, without doubt, there is a real need for a very special type of person to teach in these schools. Thank God, we are fortunate that in many cases that type of special teacher can be found teaching children in Queensland's remote schools. However, in the interests of the future of this State, special incentives must be given to teachers in remote areas. In small towns in remote parts of Queensland, social facilities are certainly restricted. Professional development is also extremely limited. Therefore, if the Government is to attract teachers to these areas, it must offer them genuine incentives to persuade them to leave the relative luxury of coastal centres where they can mix with their peers, secure participation in professional activities and, basically, enjoy a far better life-style in a far better environment. This morning, I must express my disappointment that the remote area incentive scheme could not have been introduced in this year's Budget. National Party members are attempting to jump on the political band wagon, but they had 32 years to do something for the teachers and students of outback Queensland and failed the test. They did nothing, and the people of Queensland—including Government members—can see right through their posturing. I encourage members who represent areas on the Gold Coast—especially Surfers Paradise—and who probably have not set foot outside the coastal area to visit the inland and inspect some of the schools in remote areas so that they can obtain a far better understanding of the problems that exist in those parts of the State. Recently, the Minister announced a pilot scheme that will allow the Japanese language to be taught in three primary schools in Mount Isa. In 1993, Japanese will also be taught in one Mount Isa high school. The three primary schools that have been selected are Barkly Highway, Happy Valley and Townview. Both the Barkly Highway and Happy Valley schools are feeder schools for the Mount Isa State High School because almost 100 per cent of students from those schools eventually attend that particular high school, and 50 per cent of the students who attend the school at Townview also go on to attend the Mount Isa State High School. In fairness to the other high school in Mount Isa, namely, the Kalkadoon State High School, I appeal to the Minister to look into the possibility of adding Sunset school to the list of primary schools in which the Japanese language will be taught, because almost 100 per cent of the students who attend this school will go on to attend Kalkadoon State High School. Having stated that, I also request the Minister to give consideration to having the Japanese language taught in both high schools in Mount Isa. This could be achieved by the teacher dividing his or her time between the two high schools. I congratulate the Minister on his initiative in selecting Mount Isa for the pilot study. I have no doubt at all that it has been warmly welcomed by the teaching staff, parents and students. Land Rental Increases Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (12.06 a.m.): I wish to draw attention to a cruel hoax that has been perpetrated by the Premier of this State. He stated that huge land rental increases would apply from 1 January, whereas in press releases and in statements he has made in the past, he has made it quite clear that a two-year moratorium would be placed on increases in rental charges applying to pastoral and grazing leases, and that the increases would be phased-in during the following years. The Premier has tried to pull the wool over the eyes of primary producers in this State, which is an absolute disgrace. The Carter report recommended increases of 100 per cent for sheep properties and 200 per cent for cattle properties. The Government has legislation before the Parliament that will bring about those increases. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr HOBBS: Yes. I wonder what Mr McKechnie will think about it. Legislative Assembly 4954 20 November 1990

The Premier gave assurances to rural industry leaders that a moratorium would be imposed on the rent increases. How can those people trust the Premier when he makes a statement such as that and then reneges on it? He is pulling the wool over the eyes of primary producers. The cold reality is that some land-holders will be paying thousands of dollars extra in leases that they should not have to pay under these very trying conditions. At present, the wool industry is experiencing economic conditions that it has not experienced since the serious droughts of 1971 and 1975. The cattle industry is also going through trying times. The returns to graziers are about the same as those received in 1971. I refer to the task force which has been established by the Premier to appease the rural industry. That task force led by Mr McGrady and his team of day-trippers will not solve the problems in the rural industry. They merely have to listen to what we have been saying in this House time and time again, that is, that the rural industry is in trouble and needs help. They merely have to listen to what is being said and they will understand the problems. Mr Borbidge: Fancy having to depend on Mr McGrady! Mr HOBBS: That is correct. The Government should be looking at implementing positive policies that will improve rural industry, which is in trouble. Mr Polichronis carried out a study into the QIDC and decided that many of its schemes were no good. Now, we find that the Government is bringing the schemes back because it has discovered that they were good schemes in the first place. What is the sense in knocking those schemes out and bringing them back? All the Government is doing is giving back to primary industry what it took away. It is an absolute waste of time and an exercise in hypocrisy. I refer to the Premier's statement on civil liability for straying stock on declared roads. He stated— "Recommendations have been received from the Justice Department that legislation should be changed to impose civil liability on stock owners . . ." He now claims that the Government has decided to defer its decision on that recommendation. What are the other recommendations? What cost will be imposed on primary producers? Obviously, huge costs are involved in that exercise. I am amazed that the Government is not prepared to let the people know what the recommendations are. The Government has been holding onto the Wolfe report for 80 days and 80 nights. When will this report that is so shattering be released? Maybe today or the day after. The only matter that has held it up for so long is the issue of freeholding. I am pleased that the Government has considered freeholding to be an important part of land management in Queensland. Time expired. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 12.12 a.m. (Wednesday).