Legislative Assembly 1721 22 October 1991

NOTE: There could be differences between this document and the official printed Hansard, Vol. 320

TUESDAY, 22 OCTOBER 1991

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m.

ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following Bills reported by Mr Speaker— Public Sector (Appeals) Amendment Bill; Corporations (Queensland) Amendment Bill; Elections Amendment Bill (No. 2); Special Freeholding of Leases Bill; Petroleum Amendment Bill; Totalisator on Licensed Premises Bill.

APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS OF PARLIAMENT Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise the House that at midnight on 20 October 1991, Mr A. R. Woodward retired as the Clerk of the Parliament. I wish to place on record my appreciation of Mr Woodward for his tireless devotion to duty during his more than 12 years as the Clerk of the Parliament and I wish him and his wife, Brenda, a long and happy retirement. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, the following acting appointments have been made consequent upon Mr Woodward’s retirement: Mr R. D. Doyle, Acting Clerk of the Parliament; Mr I. W. Thompson, Acting Deputy Clerk of the Parliament (Procedure); Mr B. S. Sanderson, Acting Clerk Assistant (Procedure); and Mr B. D. Charlier, Acting Second Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Bills and Papers.

PAPERS PRINTED OR CIRCULATED DURING RECESS Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that the following paper was ordered to be printed and circulated during the recess in accordance with section 29A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954— Annual report of the Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations for the year ended 30 June 1991.

PRIVILEGE

Speaker’s Policy on Interjections Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I refer to the matter of privilege raised by the member for Fassifern on Wednesday, 9 October concerning interjections. Strictly speaking, a member is entitled to be heard in silence and a member’s speech can be interrupted on only one of very few grounds. However, the practical reality of parliamentary debate is that members do not always sit quietly listening to the member speaking and may interrupt or interject another member’s speech by comment or questions of their own. That has become a well-established custom of the House. Legislative Assembly 1722 22 October 1991

However, it is the duty of the Speaker to keep interjections within reasonable bounds. A member speaking is under an obligation not to provoke interjections. If a member embarks on a course of questioning other members present in the Chamber, he is encouraging them to answer. A continuation of that behaviour is likely to draw the Chair’s attention and result in the member concerned being told to desist. A member may interject only from his own seat in the Chamber and not while standing or moving around the Chamber. An interjection should always be relevant to the matter under debate and, if it is irrelevant, should always be ignored by the member speaking. The main reason why interjections are permitted at all is that they can add to the debate by eliciting further information or testing arguments made. However, the Chair will intervene if a member interjecting tends to monopolise the time of the member speaking, and a member must cease interjecting when called to order by the Chair. Also, when an interjection is not acknowledged by the member speaking, the interjector must desist.

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

Child-care Legislation From Mr McElligott (50 signatories) praying that the Parliament will support the Child Care Bill 1991 and promote the development of associated regulations. A similar petition was received from Mr Palaszczuk (20 signatories).

Capital Punishment From Mr Borbidge (12 signatories) praying for legislation to introduce capital punishment as a matter of urgency. Petitions received.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Reports for the year ended 30 June 1991— Queensland Police Service Bureau of Emergency Services President of the Industrial Court of Queensland Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development Queensland Small Business Corporation. The following papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under— Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1984 Gas Act 1965 Mineral Resources Act 1989 Credit Act 1987 Regulations under— Liquor Act 1912 Vocational Education, Training and Employment Act 1991 Reports for the year ended 30 June 1991— Central Queensland Racing Association Downs and South-Western Queensland Racing Association Rockhampton Jockey Club Royal Brisbane Hospital Foundation Trustees of the Funeral Benefit Trust Fund Proclamation under the Vocational Education, Training and Employment Act 1991. Legislative Assembly 1723 22 October 1991

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Island Industries Board Annual Report Hon. A. M. WARNER (South Brisbane—Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs) (10.10 a.m.), by leave: I have given an extension of time to the Island Industries Board to furnish its annual report for the year ending 31 January 1991. The Island Industries Board is required to furnish its financial statements within two months of the close of its financial year and its annual report within four months. The board’s financial year ceases on 31 January each year. This year, the board has been late in submitting both its financial statements and its annual report, and it has been necessary for me to grant an extension of time for the board to complete these two documents. In the case of the financial statements, I approved an extension to 31 August 1991, and I also approved an extension to 31 October 1991 for the annual report to be furnished. I am able to approve these extensions in accordance with sections 46F and 46J of the Financial Administration and Audit Act. The Auditor-General has been consulted and agrees with the extensions. The accounts for the Island Industries Board were finalised at the end of March 1991. However, the accounting records required a number of substantial reconciliations and journal entries to correct previous errors in subsidiary and general ledger transactions. As a result of the delays with the finalisation of the accounts, it was not practical to commence the audit before 16 April 1991. After consultation between the financial controller of the Islands Industries Board and the auditor regarding format and compliance with the public finance standards, draft financial statements were available on 29 April 1991. However, further resources were required to audit these statements and substantial delays were experienced in finalising the documents to the satisfaction of the Auditor-General. The board’s financial statements were certified by the Auditor-General on 26 August 1991. As a result of the delays associated with the finalisation of the financial statements, it was not possible for the board to complete its annual report. Following certification of the financial statements, it will now be possible to conclude the annual report, and I expect to receive it before 31 October. Following receipt of the report, I will arrange for it to be tabled.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Absence of Ministers during Question-time Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (10.12 a.m.): I have to inform the House that the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Transport will be absent from question- time this week. The Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industries will be absent today because they are attending a Rural Adjustment Scheme meeting in Melbourne with the Honourable Simon Crean. Legislative Assembly 1724 22 October 1991

MOTION OF CONDOLENCE

Death of Honourable Sir Alan Roy Fletcher Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts) (10.13 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “1. That this House desires to place on record its appreciation of the services rendered to this State by the late Honourable Sir Alan Fletcher, a former Minister of the Crown and Speaker of the Parliament of Queensland. 2. That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to the widow and family of the deceased gentleman the above resolution, together with an expression of the sympathy and sorrow of the members of the Parliament of Queensland in the loss they have sustained.” Sir Alan Fletcher was a well-known and long-serving member of this House who served both in Opposition and in Government. His career as a member of this Assembly spanned 21 years and included terms as Speaker and also as a Minister of the Government. Sir Alan was born at Pittsworth in 1907. He was educated at Irongate State School and later attended Scots College in Warwick. Like his father, Sir Alan was a farmer involved mostly in dairy farming and grain-growing. He was elected to the Pittsworth Shire Council in 1945. For nine of his ten years as councillor he was chairman of the council. Like many other members of this House, Sir Alan graduated from local government to the wider sphere of State politics. In 1953, he entered State Parliament as the Country Party member for Cunningham. Four years later, with the change of Government at the 1957 State elections, Sir Alan became Speaker of the Queensland Parliament. According to Clem Lack, Alan Fletcher undertook his Speaker’s duties— “. . . with a high sense of the dignity, traditions and responsibilities of the office. He maintained the scrupulous impartiality implicit in the office of Speaker and strictly enforced the observance of the rules of debate.” Following the re-election of the Country/Liberal coalition in 1960 and the retirement of Mr Adolf Muller as Minister for Lands, Sir Alan took on that portfolio, a position to which—with his long experience in land and agricultural practice—he was well suited. As a point of interest, one of Sir Alan’s successors as Speaker in this House was Adolf Muller’s son, Mr Sel Muller. In 1968, Sir Alan was appointed Minister for Education and Cultural Activities. As Minister for Education, he introduced the legislation which provided for the establishment and incorporation of the Griffith University and James Cook University of North Queensland. He also introduced amendments to the Education Act in 1970, which abolished the Junior and Senior external exams and created the Board of Secondary School Studies to oversee a new system of internal assessment in Queensland’s secondary schools. He received a knighthood in 1972 for his services to the Parliament and the people of Queensland. Sir Alan resigned from Parliament in 1974. Following his retirement from politics, Sir Alan was highly active in the community. He was appointed chairman of the Queensland Theatre Orchestra in 1975, was a member of the council of the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Technology in 1976 and vice- president of the Pittsworth Historical Society in 1977. Sir Alan Fletcher’s contributions to the State are widely acknowledged and his achievements both personally and professionally are many. On behalf of the Government and members of this House, I extend condolences to Sir Alan’s wife and family members. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (10.16 a.m.): I second the motion moved by the Premier and offer my sympathy to the family of Sir Alan Fletcher. Sir Alan was a man who gave nearly 30 years of his life to the people of Legislative Assembly 1725 22 October 1991

Queensland, first as a councillor and then as Chairman of the Pittsworth Shire Council, and later as a distinguished member of this Parliament. Sir Alan was held in high regard by everyone with whom he had contact. His background suited him down to the ground, as it were, for the portfolio of Public Lands and Irrigation, which he held from 1960 to 1968, but Sir Alan will probably be best remembered as Minister for Education. As the Premier said, it was Sir Alan who introduced the legislation that provided for the establishment and incorporation of the Griffith University and James Cook University of North Queensland. He also shaped the future paths of many young Queenslanders when, in 1970, changes were made to the education system to abolish the Junior and Senior external exams and create the Board of Secondary School Studies. As the Premier said, Sir Alan will also be remembered as an impartial Speaker—one who performed his duties with a deep sense of responsibility. In 1974, Sir Alan resigned from Parliament and it is pleasing that he was able to make up for lost time in enjoying his pastimes. Even after 30 years of serving the public, Sir Alan found time in his later years to offer his knowledge and experience to help the Queensland Theatre Orchestra, the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education and the Pittsworth Historical Society. The debate on this motion will be forwarded to Sir Alan’s family who, above all others, know the sacrifices that public life demands. For many years, they shared their husband and father with the people of Queensland. To Sir Alan’s family, I offer our condolences and the support of the Parliament in the future. Mr COOPER (Roma—Leader of the Opposition) (10.11 a.m.): On behalf of the National Party members of this House, I also endorse this motion of condolence that has been moved by the Premier and seconded by the Leader of the House. I also endorse the comments that they have made. Sir Alan was one of the most notable Queenslanders of this century, and his passing capped a remarkable life of some 84 years, which included 30 years of representation at State and local government levels. As has been said, Sir Alan was a former Speaker of this Parliament. In many ways, he epitomised the era when Queensland’s growth was nurtured by men of practical experience and knowledge. Alan Fletcher was born at Pittsworth on the Darling Downs on Australia Day in 1907. He was educated in Warwick and was about 24 years old when he took up dairying and grain-growing in the Mount Tyson area. Later, he also acquired property at Mount Russell. In 1945, he was elected to the Pittsworth Shire Council and served for a decade, including nine years as Shire Chairman. In common with many other State members, he made the transition from local to State politics. In March 1953, he became the member for Cunningham and he held that seat until his retirement in December 1974. After the Labor split in 1957 and the subsequent election, in August of that year Alan Fletcher became Speaker of State Parliament and held that position until the mid-1960s. It is interesting to note the comments in the publication Three Decades of Queensland Political History on his performance as Speaker. It states— “Mr. Fletcher entered upon his Speaker’s duties with a high sense of the dignity, traditions and responsibilities of the office. He maintained the scrupulous impartiality implicit in the office of Speaker, and strictly enforced the observance of the rules of debate.” The punchline is as follows— “Under his firm control of the debates, members in general had never been so well behaved, and the standard of decorum and dignity of Parliamentary proceedings attained its highest level for many years.” One can only wonder—and these comments certainly are by no means a reflection on you, Mr Speaker—how historians will view the decorum of this House in the latter part of this century. I know all members do their best to preserve and uphold the dignity of Legislative Assembly 1726 22 October 1991

Parliament, but I doubt very much whether history will again pay such a glowing tribute to the role of a Speaker or to his influence on the House. As I said, those comments are not a reflection on Speakers who have served since the mid-1960s, because times have changed. Various circumstances—not the least being the effect of electronic media coverage—have impacted on the Parliament over that period. However, that is not an excuse for all of us not to seek to achieve the high levels of dignity and decorum that Sir Alan Fletcher attained and which the people have a right to expect. In many ways, the tribute paid to Sir Alan’s term as Speaker typified the dignified gentleman that he was. He was a quiet achiever even before the term became fashionable, and his performance as a Minister of the Crown shows also that he was a very forward thinker for his time. Sir Alan became Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation in 1960 and held that portfolio through three of former Premier Nicklin's Ministries until 1968. His previous experience on the land and knowledge of agricultural practices made him ideal for this ministerial role. He was instrumental in supporting the development of water resource projects—both on-farm and those of a strategic nature—particularly in the more drought- prone areas of the State. He took a particular interest in the channel country, and many of his efforts were directed towards lessening the impact of drought in that area. In fact, he took a particular interest in people in many remote areas. I understand also that he was patron of the Isolated Children’s Parents Association for a considerable period. I mentioned before that he was a forward thinker. This was clearly shown in his concern over the widespread use of pesticides. Sir Alan successfully pushed for the restricted use of pesticides 2,4,5-T, 2,4-D and the insecticide endrin 30. He could also gauge the potential of land. In this regard, he was the driving force behind the opening-up of brigalow scrubland throughout central and western Queensland areas in the 1960s. Most people would know that some of that country is now among the best grazing and cropping land in the State. From January 1968 until his retirement, he was the Minister for Education and Cultural Activities in the Pizzey, Chalk and Bjelke-Petersen Ministries. In the late 1950s, Sir Alan had been a member of a committee that investigated youth problems, the report of which subsequently resulted in greater assistance being given to kindergartens and preschool centres, and youth organisations obtaining Housing Commission buildings for their use. To this day, these establishments are dotted around this State. He was able to draw on this experience in his role as Education Minister and was instrumental in the establishment within his department of a health education program for children. He also had a role in the formation of the social welfare section in the Department of Health. Sir Alan was a strong advocate of the Literature Board of Review and, in his role as Education Minister, campaigned for the prohibition of excessively obscene literature, particularly in regard to children. In 1972, the culmination of Sir Alan’s efforts and dedication throughout his distinguished public career was recognised when he received a knighthood. At the outset, I mentioned that Sir Alan was typical of the calibre of practical, knowledgeable men who guided Queensland throughout the second half of this century, and I would like to conclude on that note by paying tribute to the staunch support he gave the National/Country Party. He was a strong unifying force inside the party for many years and I have no doubt that his positive influence contributed significantly to the dominance that conservative politics has had in Queensland over this half century. On behalf of National Party members, I extend our sincere condolences to the family and relatives of the late Sir Alan Fletcher, a truly outstanding Queenslander. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong—Leader of the Liberal Party) (10.24 a.m.): On behalf of the Queensland Liberal Party, I offer our condolences to the family of Sir Alan Roy Fletcher. As previous speakers have outlined, Sir Alan had a very distinguished career, Legislative Assembly 1727 22 October 1991 not only in local government, but as the member for Cunningham, Speaker of this House, Minister for Lands and Irrigation and Minister for Education. Sir Alan was honoured with a knighthood in 1972. Sir Alan was not only a family man, but also a man of the land. I notice that in the Toowoomba Chronicle in 1980, Sir Alan said that he considered that his most important contribution to Queensland was the opening up of Queensland’s 30 million acres of brigalow lands in the 1960s. That was certainly something that Sir Alan firmly believed was a magnificent achievement. Three Decades of Queensland Political History by Clem Lack has already been quoted today, but I would like to quote a couple of other parts of that history that summarises the life of Sir Alan— “Under his firm control of the debates, members in general had never been so well behaved, and the standard of decorum and dignity of parliamentary proceedings attained its highest level for many years . . . While in Opposition he had in his quiet positive fashion, made many valuable contributions to debates on land legislation and associated subjects. Mr Fletcher is widely read, and keenly interested in art and literature. Rifle shooting, A grade tennis, and cricket are his favourite recreational sports. For 24 years he was captain of the Irongate Cricket Club.” That quote summarises what I was saying, that Sir Alan was a family man, a man of the land, and a very distinguished Queenslander who served not only in local government but also in this House for many years in the most important of portfolios. One thing I should mention is that Sir Alan and I shared Australia Day as our date of birth, even though Sir Alan was born decades before I was born. On behalf of the Queensland Liberal Party, I offer to the family of Sir Alan our deepest sympathies and condolences. Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (10.26 a.m.): As the present incumbent of the seat of Cunningham, I have pleasure in joining in the debate on this condolence motion today because members who have been here for a considerable period would realise that Sir Alan was one of the few people in this place over the years who transcended party politics. He was a person who saw the bigger picture, and he certainly treated all people fairly. Sir Alan was very much a person who would certainly do a good turn if he was treated with respect. No matter what side of the political fence one was on, he treated all people equally. When I look back on Sir Alan’s political career, I realise that he was a member of Parliament in a far more gracious age and era. This is typified by the fact that he was captain of the Irongate A-grade cricket team for 20-odd years. For much of that time he was a member of this Parliament. It is hard to imagine anyone in politics today having the time to be so involved in cricket as to go back to his electorate on the weekends to play. Members of Parliament today have to cope with this fast lifestyle and with the pace and pressure of dealing with the electronic media. Really, when I look back, I wonder whether the changes have really been to the betterment of Government in this State. Sometimes one really does not see the big picture. I will not repeat all the matters other speakers have mentioned about Sir Alan’s career, but the outstanding thing, as a couple of other speakers and the Leader of the Opposition indicated, was, of course, the brigalow scheme, of which the Arcadia Valley was a major part. Sir Alan was a tremendously family-minded person and had very strong family ties. The Fletcher family is a big family. The extended family of the Fletchers and the McIntyres on the Darling Downs cover a very wide area. It has a tremendous number of members and Legislative Assembly 1728 22 October 1991 they are a very well respected people on the Darling Downs. They have given a tremendous amount of public service and charity work in all areas. Sir Alan, as the Minister for Lands and Irrigation, was almost singlehandedly responsible for getting the Arcadia Valley scheme off the ground. He took the scheme to Cabinet, and the members were not enthusiastic about it and said to him, “Well, you are on your own with it. If you can get the Commonwealth to put the money up for it, then we will go ahead with it.” Sir Alan and the then Premier went to Canberra and fronted the Federal Cabinet with the scheme. The then Prime Minister came on side and the Commonwealth Government decided to put up the money. The Arcadia Valley then went through a disastrous drought. Queenslanders think that they are going through a bad drought now in Queensland, but the Arcadia Valley had two years without rain. A lot of the timber had been pulled out and burnt. I can remember seeing the area during that era. It was quite unbelievable; it looked like a moonscape. I would have thought that the whole of the topsoil was going to blow away. I could not believe that any of the grass seeded in the ashes would still be there. During that time, Sir Alan was directly responsible for a moratorium on repayments for two years. I think that speaks volumes for the attitude of the Government of the day. Those people had been through the depression. They knew what it was about. They had suffered the hardship. They had an understanding of just how tough things could be. I think from there probably came Sir Alan’s compassion and understanding, and his ability to be able to foresee problems. Sir Alan believed very strongly in the concept of the owner/operator. He believed that the man who would best look after the land and, in the final analysis, do the best job with it for the State was the person who actually lived on the property and operated the equipment with the assistance of his family and, perhaps, of a few other people. When we look back on the history of Queensland, I think we can say that he was very much correct in that assumption. Although corporate business probably is able to be far more efficient than small business in some respects, such as using machinery and high technology , it is very difficult to be able to corporatise farming, because there are so many human elements involved. Some areas of farming, such as raising pigs and poultry, corporatise easily, but the actual tilling of the soil and the growing of crops is not easy, and Sir Alan understood that very well. Perhaps he did not make friends with all people in rural Australia. There were those people who were against the breaking up of any land, and perhaps some of them fought with him. But I believe that when one goes to the Arcadia Valley in particular and sees just what has transpired there and the people who have been successful and have raised well-adjusted families in that area, it is obvious that it has been one of the success stories of closer settlement in the whole of this State. We owe Sir Alan a great debt of gratitude for that. Sir Alan’s funeral in Pittsworth was a particularly impressive service and one of the largest that I have attended. The clergyman did a tremendous job. Many former members of Parliament attended, and I believe everyone went away knowing just what a contribution Sir Alan Fletcher had made to Queensland. Opposition members express their sympathy to Lady Fletcher, to his immediate family and to his extended family, and wish them well in the future. I hope personally that Lady Fletcher continues to live in that area in which she has a tremendous number of friends and supporters. That was clearly demonstrated by the assistance that she received when Sir Alan was so ill in hospital. I should record the efforts of those friends who drove her in and out of town and generally gave up their time to assist her, indicating the support and respect that they had not only for Sir Alan, but also for Lady Fletcher, who backed up her husband all the way. She was always there by his side at meetings and functions throughout the whole State. With those words, I join the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier, the Leader of the House, and the Leader of the Liberal Party in this condolence motion today. Legislative Assembly 1729 22 October 1991

Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (10.35 a.m.): I wish to join in this condolence motion. I am not going to speak so much about Sir Alan’s activities here in the House, because I was not here while he was a member. I knew him as a friend and adviser, and as a fellow dairy farmer and mixed farmer, and it is in that context that I wish to speak about him. I believe that he was a man of great common sense. He always had a hand of friendship to extend. As the member for Cunningham said, on numerous occasions when I was associated with the dairy industry, I was often in Pittsworth and I accepted the hospitality of not only Sir Alan and Lady Fletcher, but also the McIntyre family, particularly Ken. Sir Alan did not always get his own way. I saw him cop plenty in public, and he sat there and copped it. That is a trait that some of us are not fortunate enough to have. We tend to flare, but Sir Alan would sit there and cop a fair amount of abuse and wait calmly until he had his chance. I do not think anybody could say that Sir Alan ever tried to stamp over him in any shape or form. He was a great battler for the farmers, particularly smaller farmers. I think he received some criticism because he was not always a battler for the big farmer. The outstanding things I remember about Sir Alan were his hospitality and his accessibility. He was an easy man to approach. There was always a friendly welcome from both Sir Alan and Lady Fletcher. I wish to express my sympathy to Lady Fletcher and the family—and I knew all of them. I believe that they can be justly proud of the part that Sir Alan Fletcher played in the development of the State of Queensland. Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (10.37 a.m.): I speak with very great admiration for Sir Alan Fletcher. Whenever I am taking people through Parliament House I always point out his portrait and indicate that not everybody who comes in here lacks moral courage, as most people seem to think these days. Sir Alan was a man who did not become Premier and did not become famous because of his moral convictions and his great courage and commitment to the things in which he believed. When I was a young lad up in the northern part of the State most of the gulf country was owned by English interests. The Vestey family owned a fair proportion of the entire gulf country. I can recall as a child seeing a lot of people I had never seen previously with very white, pale skin and pink pinched cheeks, and I said, “Who are they?” My father explained to me that they were the land-owners who owned all the country; we did not actually own it at all. As I grew older, I realised the significance of what he was saying, that is, that we did not own any of our country; it was all owned by foreigners. At that time, it was owned by the English. Later, to some degree the Americans began to own our land. Alan Fletcher was probably one of the few people who did anything about rectifying that position. In doing that—whether the criticism of him was fair or not—he trod on many corns. At present, in my electorate more than 100 families are owner/operators of their own stations. They play in our football teams, contribute to charitable institutions in the area, attend local schools and are part of the community. We do not now have the situation prevailing in which the foreign landlords come out to Australia to oversee their estates and treat Australians as mere wage slaves. Alan had a tremendous commitment to his belief. I remember the then Mr Bjelke-Petersen claiming that Alan used to say “owner/operator” all the time. That term was his lodestar. In saying that, Mr Bjelke-Petersen reflected very much the sort of philosophy to which most members of the National Party—I would like to say all of them—aspire. The reason Alan Fletcher never became Premier of this State was because of the trenchant efforts made by the established land barons in the State who left no stone unturned in their desire to prevent him from becoming Premier. Even though Alan knew that it would probably cost him the Premiership of this State, he stuck to his guns at all times. If he later became a martyr, he was a martyr to a great cause. I pay tribute to a man not only of great integrity but also of towering moral courage. Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset) (10.40 a.m.): I am one of the very few members who were in this House when Alan served as Minister for Education. As has been stated, Legislative Assembly 1730 22 October 1991 he was born in 1907 at Pittsworth and operated a dairy farm at Mount Tyson. I knew his property very well. In common with many people who have entered this place, he had spent 10 years working for a shire council. From my information, in common with me, he remained shire chairman for a couple of years after entering this place. He then became Speaker, Minister for Lands and Minister for Education, and in 1972 he was knighted. I first met Alan Fletcher, the politician, when I, as a member of the Laidley Shire Council, led a deputation to Parliament House. At that time, he was Minister for Education. We came to discuss the provision of a high school for Laidley. Unfortunately, we did not obtain that high school until approximately 19 years later when I was Minister for Education. However, he gave us a good hearing. Included in that deputation was a rather brazen local government member whom I did not control very well in that particular council. He started to lead off with Alan. At that time, the Minister’s facilities were poor. He had a room on the ground floor of Parliament House which contained a little table and a little bed. The facilities at the new gaol at Wacol would be better than the facilities that were available to the Minister. I remember thinking that my office at the Laidley Shire Council contained better facilities than the Minister had available to him. However, that particular person led with his chin, and Alan cut him off at his ankles and silenced him for the remainder of the day. People always say that first impressions are the most durable. My first impression of Alan Fletcher on that occasion was borne out later. Six years after I led that deputation, I entered Parliament. Alan Fletcher helped me campaign for the seat of Somerset. The occasion of the deputation was not my first visit to Parliament House. At that time, there was another Bill Gunn who was a member. He was not of the same political flavour as I was, but he was still a pretty decent fellow. Like most of the Gunns, he was a pretty easygoing fellow and a really decent chap. I often hear members whingeing about meals provided at Parliament House. I am reminded of the menu that was presented on the occasion that I had lunch with Alan Fletcher. We were offered either corned beef and cabbage or cabbage and corned beef. The sad point about the matter is that I did not like cabbage. However, on that occasion I filled myself on corned beef. Early in the piece, I was warned not to challenge Alan Fletcher at billiards because he was a great billiards player. He would muck around at the start and then, if he could entice his opponent to gamble a casket ticket on the result, he would take the person on. I do not think that Alan was ever beaten. It was a pleasure to watch Alan introducing a Bill into this place. He was an excellent debater. He rarely had to call on his officers in the lobby for assistance. Alan always studied the legislation before presenting it to the Parliament and was aware of what it contained. He also answered questions without notice well. When a younger member tried to take a rise out of him, his favourite saying was, “Now look here, lad”, and he would continue from there. Alan Fletcher was an excellent politician, an excellent Minister and an excellent person. I developed a great friendship with him and often sought his advice. The Leader of the House, Mr Mackenroth, mentioned that Alan was instrumental in the formation of the Griffith University. At that time, the Education Department obtained a piece of land. He told me that he intended to build a new university for Queensland. I said, “That is good thinking.” He said to me, “Would you like to come out and see the land that is being procured?” I agreed to accompany him. I visited the property with him and said, “This wouldn’t feed a bandicoot.” He said, “We are not buying it for bandicoots, lad; we are buying it to educate young people.” Ironically, when Griffith University was built in 1980, I was Minister for Education and I had to eat my words. Griffith University is not only one of the most beautiful universities in Queensland and the remainder of Australia but also in the world. The quality of students who graduate from that university is recognised all over the world. So I was wrong and he was right. Legislative Assembly 1731 22 October 1991

When I became Minister for Education, Alan was a frequent visitor to my office in the old Treasury Building and was always very popular with the staff. I could well imagine that he would have been the perfect boss. Throughout his political career he had the great advantage of having Lady Fletcher standing by his side. She was a perfect lady, a perfect wife and a perfect mother. On behalf of my wife, Lorna, and me, I extend deepest sympathy to Lady Fletcher and her family. Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (10.45 a.m.): I rise briefly to extend my personal condolences to the family of Sir Alan, but more particularly to place on record the work done and the support given by Sir Alan Fletcher both as Minister for Education and later as a patron of the Isolated Children’s Parents Association. As a former State president of that organisation, I came to know Sir Alan very well during that time, and it was during his term as Minister that that association rose to prominence in its endeavours to support those who were less fortunate in their daily access to education. Sir Alan Fletcher recognised the needs of the association and more particularly the people who were represented by the association—the isolated students throughout this State. He recognised them to such an extent that, upon his retirement from Parliament, he became the patron of the organisation. To the best of my understanding, he remained so until the time of his death. On behalf of all of those who were associated with Sir Alan during that time, I extend the appreciation of those isolated families and more particularly those isolated students for the support he gave. To Lady Fletcher and the family of the late Sir Alan, I extend my deepest condolences and, on behalf of the Isolated Children’s Parents Association, I extend its condolences. Mr NEAL (Balonne) (10.47 a.m.): I join with the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier and other members in extending my condolences and expressions of sympathy to the wife and family of the late Sir Alan Fletcher. During my first term in this House, I served with Sir Alan, who was then Minister for Education. Before I was elected, I had known him in his role as Minister for Lands. As other speakers have already indicated, Sir Alan did a great deal in opening up the brigalow belt of this State. Although that has been a great success story, there were always those who disagreed with his views. Sir Alan Fletcher always stuck up for what he believed was right. He was a great supporter of the battler. As other speakers have indicated, he did not like land being held by absentee landlords. He believed that the owner of the land should operate it. As the member for Burdekin has indicated, he was also a great supporter of isolated children. I recall quite clearly that, in my first term, the pupils of the School of the Air were given an opportunity to attend the beach camp at Tallebudgera. If my memory serves me correctly, I think that children in the normal primary school system could attend that camp for something like $30; but the pupils of the School of the Air had to pay $60. I was apprised of that anomaly, so I took the matter to Sir Alan Fletcher and he made a submission to Cabinet. As a result of that, the Government reduced the rate that parents of pupils of the School of the Air had to pay to the same rate as that paid by parents of pupils in the traditional school system. I think that is an indication of Sir Alan’s feeling for those people in isolated areas. I also recall that he carried a keepsake in his pocket and that it was quite a conversation piece. It was a piece of leather about two inches long, about an inch wide and about an inch thick. It came from the shoulder of a buffalo that he had shot in the Northern Territory. I recall that, one night in my electorate, he was showing it around and someone was ignorant enough, I suggest, to ask him if it was a piece of a politician’s hide. Sir Alan said, “After you have been Minister for Lands for as long as I have and run into the problems that I have had, I think you probably would have a hide that thick.” Legislative Assembly 1732 22 October 1991

I always found Sir Alan very readily accessible. He was always willing to help. He was a very friendly man. He stuck up for what he believed in. I always found him to be very, very sincere and a thorough gentleman at all times. I extend my deepest sympathies to Lady Fletcher and to the entire Fletcher family. Mr D’ARCY (Woodridge) (10.51 a.m.): I offer my condolences to the Fletcher family. During the 1972 Parliament, I served with Sir Alan when he was Minister for Education. The one thing that we in the Opposition at that time could say about him was that he was a true gentleman. He really understood his portfolio. He realised that Education was a particularly difficult portfolio at that time, but he was always prepared to listen. I think that, during the 1972 Parliament, there were the greatest number of teachers on the Opposition benches that there had been for a very long time. He was prepared to listen to each and every one of us. Mr Gunn mentioned that Sir Alan was very fond of pool and snooker in particular. If someone had a problem and wanted to talk to him, Sir Alan always said that the time to catch him was after tea at the pool table. He would sit and listen, and sometimes one would talk with him for hours. For a Government Minister, he became a reasonably close friend of mine. As I said, I found him to be a gentleman. He guided Government policies in ways that attempted to give the highest propriety to certain matters. As I said, Sir Alan knew that the Education portfolio was difficult and ever-changing. However, he was prepared to listen. All of us could probably learn from the way in which he conducted himself in his role as Education Minister at question-time. He was not a point-scorer in this place; he was a debater. I think that is something we sadly miss from the old-style gentleman that Sir Alan was. He certainly was a debater and there was a lot of meat in what he put forward. To my knowledge, he never point-scored during question-time. When he left the Parliament, he also made the point that he disagreed with some of the ways in which the Government had done business. I extend my condolences to the wife and family of a man who I believe was a great Queenslander and a great gentleman. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs) (10.53 a.m.): I extend to the family of Sir Alan Fletcher my condolences. In the early days when I was learning about politics, I met him and he taught me a lot. In fact, my first impression of Sir Alan has remained. When he met with the Emerald Shire Council, I was astounded at his enormous wealth of knowledge and his ability to answer any questions that the various councillors asked him. I really want to express my sympathy to Sir Alan’s son Mostyn and Mostyn’s wife Margaret. They have moved to the electorate of Peak Downs, where they have cotton farms. They have been particularly close friends of mine. By the way that Sir Alan and his wife raised Mostyn and the rest of their family, they were obviously pretty good people. I offer my condolences to Lady Fletcher, Mostyn, Margaret and their family. Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Minister for Education) (10.54 a.m.): The Premier and the Leader of the House referred to some of the significant contributions made by Sir Alan Fletcher as Minister for Education, particularly in relation to higher education and the abolition of the public examination system, which was changed to a system of assessment. It should also be recorded that Sir Alan Fletcher was Minister for Education in 1973 at the time of the introduction of preschool education in this State. Previous speakers, including, I believe, the Leader of the Opposition, mentioned Sir Alan’s interest in preschool education through the creche and kindergarten movement. Prior to the introduction of preschools in 1973, there was no Government preschool education in this State. The introduction of that system has been of inestimable value to the students of Queensland. I reiterate that, in 1973, Sir Alan was the Minister who introduced preschool education into this State. Legislative Assembly 1733 22 October 1991

Sir Alan’s interest in regionalisation also extended to the regionalisation of the Education Department. During his time in office, significant contributions were made to the extension of secondary education regionalisation as well as the extension of education regions. Sir Alan Fletcher made a significant contribution to education in this State. I record that on behalf of the Parliament, and extend my condolences to his widow and family. Motion agreed to, honourable members standing in silence.

QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE

Jury Law Reform Mr COOPER: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to comments made by him and the Justice Minister relative to the perceived need to reform Queensland’s jury laws in the wake of the result of the recent trial involving Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. As the Premier is a person learned in the law, I ask him: if he intends to allow greater scrutiny of jurors through a questioning process, do we as legislators not run the risk of creating a situation in which, by a process of elimination, juries will literally be stacked against an accused by virtue of race, religion, occupation, politics or for some other reason? If the objective of this Government is to remove the chance of ever having another hung jury, does the Premier agree that this can be achieved only by literally stacking a jury? If that is the case, who in the court or legal system gets to play God? Mr W. K. GOSS: In relation to high issues of theology—I will leave that to the Leader of the Opposition to resolve for himself. In relation to the question of the jury system—there is a review under way which involves a number of people. It commenced after the recommendations contained in the report of Sir Max Bingham. For example, it includes people such as Mr O’Gorman from the Civil Liberties Council and other members of the legal profession. We will act on the results of the review in a considered way. The Special Prosecutor has expressed the view that changes should not occur prior to the conclusion of any proceedings in respect of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. We will certainly respect that view. I believe that there is a need that has been demonstrated to avoid the sort of conflict of interest situation that occurred in relation to that recently completed trial. While that is my view and that of a number of other commentators, we will be guided by the outcome of the review. Mr Katter: What rubbish! This is a disgrace. Mr W. K. GOSS: In relation to interjections about disgraceful comments—the most disgraceful comment that has been made and the most outrageous contempt of our judges and the justice system is that evidenced by the Leader of the Opposition when approached on the weekend by media in relation to the outcome of that trial. Mr Cooper said that this was McCarthyism in Queensland. Mr COOPER: I rise to a point of order. I find the remarks offensive and false, and ask that they be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will withdraw those comments. Mr W. K. GOSS: I withdraw them. I read from a print-out of 20 October 1991 from the AAP— “Queensland National Party leader Russell Cooper today described recent prosecutions of party colleagues as ‘Queensland-style McCarthyism’.” I table that document. Legislative Assembly 1734 22 October 1991

Mr COOPER: I rise to a point of order. Those remarks are still false and untrue. I ask that they be withdrawn. The Premier is using false quotes. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Premier was quoting from a statement. I cannot ask him to withdraw the comment. Mr W. K. GOSS: The person who is more responsible than anybody else in this Parliament for the predicament of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen is Russell Cooper. He was a member of the Cabinet that appointed the Special Prosecutor. He approved the legislation guaranteeing the independence of the Special Prosecutor. This Government supports that independence. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not appreciate being told how the Chair should run the House. The time allotted for questions has now expired.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

McCarthyism in Queensland Mr COOPER (Roma—Leader of the Opposition) (11.00 a.m.): Honourable members will be familiar with the McCarthy period in the United States. In the early fifties, through his committee dealing with un-American activities, Senator Joe McCarthy created a reign of terror across that country. Mr Katter interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Flinders! Mr COOPER: Allegedly, Senator McCarthy was rooting out communists. It was at the height of cold war tensions and there was a readiness among a large measure of the American public to accept that Senator McCarthy’s efforts were a good thing. However, as the campaign developed, it became extremely sinister. People who were presumed to be communist—who had once met a communist, who had once walked past a communist on the street or, indeed, who were simply not liked by Senator McCarthy and his cohorts—were put through the wringer. Jobs were ruined. Careers were ruined. Families were ruined. Lives were ruined. An indication of how off the rails that exercise became is that one of the people targeted was Ronald Reagan. Now in Queensland we have our own brand of McCarthyism. It is being run in the public service. The attack is on public servants who are presumed by the Government to be sympathetic in some way to the National Party. As in the McCarthy era in the United States, the Queensland Government is seeking to play off an emotional break and also to play off its own alleged righteousness—its own moral correctness. Yesterday, the Attorney-General highlighted one of the more insidious of the McCarthyist tendencies of the Government by claiming that its management of the public sector was in line with the Fitzgerald recommendations. All we hear about is Fitzgerald—the all-powerful, all-knowing and awe- inspiring Fitzgerald. The fact is that, as a result of his inquiry, Commissioner Fitzgerald recommended the establishment of two bodies—EARC and the CJC. They were put in place by the National Party Government—I repeat, the National Party Government. No recommendation was made for a public sector management commission. It was the decision of the Labor Party Government to embark on that fiasco. The effort yesterday by Mr Wells to suggest that the facts are otherwise is part of the disease that he and his administration, in common with Senator McCarthy, suffer from, that is, a very bad, chronic case of hubris. As with Senator McCarthy, the crimes of the Government are clothed in holier- than-thou rhetoric—a typical symptom of that disease. Legislative Assembly 1735 22 October 1991

Government members say that appointments to the public sector are made solely on merit—merit being “Mates Elevated Regardless of Intellect or Talent”. That is all very high sounding, very admirable and very acceptable. However, the reality is that behind the rhetoric a reign of terror is being waged, the likes of which this State has never seen. It began as soon as the Government took office and it continues today up and down George Street and in the Government offices spread throughout the State. It began with the creation of a Queensland gulag. Some of the State’s formerly most senior public servants were literally transported outside the central business district and dumped into rooms without telephones. The Government did not feel safe with them around. Paranoia is another common ingredient of McCarthyism. For heaven’s sake, they were public servants who loyally served the Government of the day. They were victimised simply because they happened to be a generation who worked under a National Party Government and because the ALP could never win the votes of 50 per cent of the people. Somebody had to pay for the frustration of Government members. The media said that it was okay, that it was just real politics and that it was expected. I do not deny an incoming Government the right to make some changes, and of course it will. Just watch the National Party after the next election. There is a difference, however, between making changes and embarking on a witch-hunt. Those public servants—those early victims—were not only stuck into the gulag but also denied their natural rights. Robbing them of their dignity and their careers was not enough; they had to be ground into submission. Mr Foley interjected. Mr COOPER: The honourable member ought to know. Those public servants had to be ground into submission. If the Government had any sense of decency, it would have had the guts to sack them outright. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr COOPER: Civil liberties—they have never heard of it. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members on my left, and the member for Yeronga, I would like to listen to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr COOPER: As I said, if Government members had a sense of decency, morality and intestinal fortitude, they would have sacked those public servants outright. Instead, those people were sent into limbo in the hope that they would crack, resign and therefore forfeit some of their rights. In the end, the Government’s goons were largely successful. A couple of the victims contemplated taking legal action. They thought that they were living in a democracy and that they had some rights. What false hope! Ultimately, they did not have those rights because the Government made it clear that it would fight them every inch of the way and that it would eventually beat them. That would have been a very expensive exercise for the taxpayer, but that certainly did not worry Government members. They were not trying to cheat those public servants to save money for the taxpayer; they were cheating them for the fun of it. They made fools of those public servants. Government members knew that their actions were hurting those people personally, and that is why they did it. Government members were driven by hatred. They wanted to rub salt into the wounds of those public servants. They wanted to make them grovel and they wanted to humiliate them. When those people were finally humbled and put out, the Government even forced them to sign secrecy agreements. That was necessary, of course, to maintain the myth—to keep the halo in place. If those people had spoken out then, it would have pricked the balloon, so they simply had to be silenced. Those facts are quite widely known and they are certainly embedded in the minds of all Queensland public servants. They will never forget the actions taken by Government Legislative Assembly 1736 22 October 1991 members. What might surprise some people is that that pogrom continues today as we speak—two years on. Today, the commissars are out there fingering people. Right now, people are sitting in rooms with nothing to do. At this very moment, the next lot of victims are being lined up. Mr Palaszczuk: Ha, ha! Mr COOPER: I suggest to the disgraceful member for Archerfield that it is no laughing matter. One day, they will come to get him as well. People are still being harassed and humiliated. They are being cheated just for the fun of it. The result of that, and the truth of that, is known to anybody who has any contact whatsoever with the public service and the public servants themselves, and Government members should know it. One only has to read the article by Hedley Thomas in the Courier-Mail last Saturday week to see the impact that it has had. I wonder if they have found Hedley’s body yet. I wonder how many calls he has had from the “Thought Police”. He has painted a picture of a public service that is almost totally demoralised. The reality of what it has been up to has not yet sunk into this Government’s collective brain. The Government’s McCarthyist intellectual arrogance still suggests that it is doing the right thing, but it cannot see that it is creating a rod for its own back. It might have had the desired effect of the terrorisation of the public sector, but the Premier should ponder the fact that in recent times he has expressed grave concern about the rate of implementation of his programs. He has ranted and raved at collective directors-general. He has keel-hauled his Ministers to try to get them to make their departments work. The Premier should consider exactly what he has done. On the one hand, he has gone to the public sector with a massive workload of changes, and on the other, he is overseeing the dismemberment of the sector for the obscene—and I mean “obscene”—pleasure of crushing perceived enemies. This is the same program as McCarthyism in the United States. The EARC should not only look at the list of cronies that the Opposition has tabled and put before it, but it should also look at the McCarthyist reign of terror that is being conducted in Queensland’s public sector. Honourable members can ask any of those public servants who have been put through the denigration and humiliation of having their careers brought to a halt and their lives and families crushed. They have been thrown into total disarray by the actions of this Government and the man sitting opposite. He has introduced a program of McCarthyism in order to carry out the Labor Government’s policies to politicise the public service. The Premier stands condemned, together with the so-called civil libertarians who would not know what a civil liberty was. This Government will not be forgotten for the way it has treated these people. The Premier should hang his head in shame.

Government’s Reform Process Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts) (11.11 a.m.): I was not going to enter this debate today, but I feel compelled as a matter of principle to defend the reform process from what has been a disgraceful and contemptuous attack. I will finish what I started during question-time and quote from the AAP printout, which states— “Queensland National Party leader Russell Cooper today described recent prosecutions of party colleagues as ‘Queensland-style McCarthyism’. . . . ‘What appears to have happened since this government’ ”—— Mr Cooper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition was listened to previously. Legislative Assembly 1737 22 October 1991

Mr W. K. GOSS: The quote continues— “ ‘. . . came to power is a certain brand of McCarthyism . . . that is pervading our society,’ he said.” What this represents in terms of a comment in relation to the outcome of the proceedings before the court last week is contempt of the court, contempt of the Special Prosecutor—— Mr COOPER: I rise to a point of order. I find the remarks referring to contempt of court false and misleading and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr COOPER: I am not going to have those remarks—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. Mr COOPER: I am not going to have those remarks reflected at me, I am telling you now, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I call the Premier. Mr W. K. GOSS: It is, thirdly, contempt of the Fitzgerald—— Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. Mr W. K. GOSS: This is spurious. Mr BORBIDGE: Sit and cop it, Waynie boy. Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member will make his point of order, I will listen to it. Mr BORBIDGE: I am endeavouring to do so, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that under Standing Order Nos 119 and 120 the Leader of the Opposition was perfectly entitled to ask for certain comments to be withdrawn. That is in black and white in the Standing Orders book. I respectfully request that you, Sir, enforce the Standing Orders of the Parliament. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have given my ruling. The matter referred to should personally reflect on a member. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier said that such processes could be in contempt of court. He is allowed to talk about processes being in contempt of the court. That is my ruling and I call the Premier. Mr W. K. GOSS: What is occurring—— Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. I refer you, Mr Speaker, specifically to Standing Order 119, which states— “A Member shall not use unbecoming or offensive words”—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. I know Standing Order 119. The honourable member does not have to read it to the House three times. I have made my ruling. I call the Premier. I will not countenance any more interruptions. Mr W. K. GOSS: I believe that what I have quoted is contemptuous of those three institutions to which I have referred. I refer members of the House to Hansard of October 1988. The National Party Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, when introducing the Special Prosecutor legislation—introduced by this National Party and supported by the Labor Party and the Liberal Party—referred to the legislation and the system of justice that was to follow in this State, and said— “Its corner-stone is the independence of the special prosecutor.” Legislative Assembly 1738 22 October 1991

For any member of this Parliament, but in particular someone in the responsible position of the leader of a party, to describe the process being pursued by the Special Prosecutor—not by the Government but by the Special Prosecutor—as McCarthyism is contempt of the Special Prosecutor appointed by the National Party. I rise in this place to defend the reform process. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, this morning I made a point in response to what the member for Fassifern said about interjections and I will not allow this House to degenerate into grave disorder, which means members on my left yelling out in unison. I call the Premier. Mr COOPER: I rise to a point of order. On that issue, I listened to your ruling this morning and in your ruling—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr COOPER: In your ruling you referred to being provoked. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member who has just resumed his seat that I am on my feet. He is holding up the debate. I call the Premier. Mr W. K. GOSS: I rise to defend not only the reform process—— Mr SPEAKER: You’d better be careful. Mr W. K. GOSS: —but also the professional integrity and good faith of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Drummond and his colleagues, and the professional integrity and good faith not only of Mr Drummond, but also of Mr Fitzgerald, Mr Gary Crooke, Mr O’Sullivan and all of those people who were integral in cutting out the cancer of corruption that so pervaded our society under this previous Government. Page 9 of the Fitzgerald report states—— Mr Cooper interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: The report states— “It is for the Special Prosecutor to determine who should be charged. While this Commission should not be deflected from its duty by any unavoidable obstruction of the effective performance of the Special Prosecutor’s functions, it should not unnecessarily impede his task. This Commission should do what it can to avoid complicating the trial process.” Opposition members interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: Mr Speaker, they do not like this report because they do not support reform. I also quote from page 10, which states— “The matters brought to the attention of this Inquiry were bound to be politically controversial, if only because they bore upon the administration of a political party which had been in government for decades. Once the personal conduct of individual politicians and political parties came under scrutiny, political controversy became certain. Yet governments, politicians and their parties should not be placed beyond scrutiny and so beyond the law. Therefore, inquiries such as this, which the disaffected can impugn as ‘political’, must remain one of the options which the community reserves to itself in order to supervise and control public administration and the exercise of power.” For the Leader of the Opposition to compare Doug Drummond and Tony Fitzgerald with the likes of that disgraceful grub McCarthy—— Mr COOPER: I rise to a point of order. The remarks just made and the comparison just made are false and misleading. I ask that they be withdrawn. Legislative Assembly 1739 22 October 1991

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Premier to withdraw. Mr W. K. GOSS: In deference to you, Mr Speaker, I withdraw. I simply quote again—— Mr COOPER: I rise to a point of order. I demand a withdrawal—an unequivocal withdrawal. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr W. K. GOSS: Let Mr Cooper’s words speak for themselves in relation to the comparison between Senator McCarthy and Mr Fitzgerald and Mr Drummond. Dr Watson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Moggill under Standing Order 123A. Mr COOPER: I rise to a further point of order. The Premier still persists with the comparison. My remarks were directed, as far as McCarthyism is concerned, to the public service and to the treatment of the public service in this State—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr COOPER: —and I will not accept remarks of that nature. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr COOPER: They are totally unacceptable and false. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition! I really am becoming exasperated. Mr Littleproud interjected. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: Let the public, the people in the gallery and honourable members make the comparison for themselves. I make no comparison in this place. Mr Cooper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition! I warn the Leader of the Opposition under Standing Order 123A. Mr W. K. GOSS: The Leader of the Opposition was describing the recent prosecutions of party colleagues as Queensland-style McCarthyism. As Mr Fitzgerald stated in his report— “Once the . . . conduct of individual politicians and political parties came under scrutiny, political controversy”—— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Warrego under Standing Order 123A. Mr W. K. GOSS: Mr Fitzgerald continued— “. . . became certain.” Mr Elliott interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Cunningham under Standing Order 123A, too. Mr W. K. GOSS: Mr Speaker, the time has come for all decent and honourable people in this community to defend—— Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Burdekin under Standing Order 123A. Legislative Assembly 1740 22 October 1991

Mr W. K. GOSS: —and, indeed, respect the independence of the Special Prosecutor, which is absolutely vital to the completion of the Fitzgerald process and to cutting out the cancer of corruption—— Mr Veivers interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: —for which the honourable member and his colleagues were responsible. I conclude on this note: typically—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Southport to leave the Chamber under Standing Order 123A. He has been warned. Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, I rise—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for Southport to leave the Chamber under Standing Order 123A. He has been warned under that Standing Order. Mr COOPER: I rise to a point of order. On what grounds is the honourable member being asked to leave the Chamber? We are entitled to an explanation. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. He was not warned. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have warned the member for Southport under 123A. Mr VEIVERS: This is my final warning, Mr Speaker? Mr SPEAKER: Order! One warning is enough. Mr COOPER: Mr Speaker, he was not warned. He has not been warned. Mr Speaker, you keep a list, and you will see that he has not been warned. Mr W. K. GOSS: Mr Speaker, my time is running out. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Southport was not warned? Mr VEIVERS: No, I was not. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Southport will resume his seat. Mr W. K. GOSS: Opposition members seek to avoid the charges from me because the charges are true and they hurt. The Leader of the Opposition engaged in a despicable attack on the Special Prosecutor’s independence and the Fitzgerald process. He is an opponent of reform and an opponent of change and, therefore, a defender of corruption. Mr COOPER: Mr Speaker, I find the last remarks offensive, false and untrue. I ask that they be withdrawn. He is turning his back. I ask that they be withdrawn. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr COOPER: I have risen on a point of order in relation to the remarks made by the Premier before he left the Chamber. I believe those remarks are false and offensive, and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Debate interrupted. Legislative Assembly 1741 22 October 1991

PRIVILEGE

Mr Speaker’s Remarks to Member for Surfers Paradise Mr BORBIDGE: I rise on a point of privilege. Earlier, during the Premier’s misrepresentation of the Leader of the Opposition—— Government members interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: This is about a threat being made to a member of Parliament. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BORBIDGE: I rose to take a point of order and you, Sir, threatened me. You said, quite clearly, “Be very careful.” I did not proceed to take that point of order, but I suggest that your comments were made in a tone indicating that they were designed to threaten me. I therefore move— “That Mr Speaker’s threat to the member for Surfers Paradise be referred to the Parliamentary Privileges Committee.” Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would like to remind the member for Surfers Paradise that at a time when a member—the Premier—was trying to make a speech and points of order were being taken under Standing Order 119, my comment to him to be very careful meant that I was not going to take another point of order under Standing Order 119. Mr Littleproud: He can take a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! He was entitled to take it. Mr Littleproud: You wouldn’t let him. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. He was quite entitled to take the point of order. I said for him to be very careful, because the time for a member’s speech was being wasted by spurious points of order and by repetition of a particular point of order, and I had a right to protect that member from that type of conduct. There was no threat. I suggested that the member should be careful, which is quite a reasonable suggestion for me to make. Therefore, I do not believe that there was any threat made to the member for Surfers Paradise. However, if he wants to test the wishes of the House, I have no choice but to allow him to move a motion that what I said—that is, for him to be very careful—be referred to the Privileges Committee. If he wishes to do so, that is fine; but there was no threat under any circumstances. I was suggesting that he ought not take a point of order that had already been taken. Mr BORBIDGE: Under the circumstances, I accept your apology, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Surfers Paradise! I think that comment is outrageous. I did not apologise. I just explained to you what I said. I do not accept that; it is contempt of the Chair. Mr BORBIDGE: I therefore move— “That the matter be referred to the Parliamentary Privileges Committee.” Legislative Assembly 1742 22 October 1991

Question put; and the House divided— DIVISION

Resolved in the negative.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Debate resumed.

Unemployment Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (11.30 a.m.): Today, I want to talk about the cynical and dishonest political manoeuvres—— Debate interrupted.

PRIVILEGE

Alleged Contempt of Parliament and Mr Speaker by Premier Mr COOPER (Roma—Leader of the Opposition) (11.30 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have called the member for Merthyr. Mr COOPER: I was on my feet, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Is something arising, Mr Cooper? Mr COOPER: I am rising on a matter of privilege. Mr SPEAKER: What is the matter of privilege? Mr COOPER: I am rising on a matter of privilege in relation to the Premier’s actions this morning when he walked out of the Chamber while you were on your feet and I had sought to take a point of order. It is a matter of contempt of the Parliament and contempt of the position of Speaker. The Premier actually walked out of this Chamber while you were Legislative Assembly 1743 22 October 1991 on your feet. I ask for a ruling on this, or I will simply ask that this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I rule that there is no matter of privilege. Mr COOPER: I move— “That this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.” Question put; and the House divided— DIVISION Resolved in the negative.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Debate resumed.

Unemployment Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (11.36 a.m.): I want to talk today about the cynical and dishonest political manoeuvres of a Premier who, in an obviously increasingly desperate mood, seeks to regain political kudos and momentum by trading in the emotions and the misery of thousands of unemployed Queenslanders. He is a Premier who is very fond of portraying himself—albeit these days quite ineffectively—as a caring, concerned member of this place who will stop at nothing when it comes to improving the lot of people who look to Government for the leadership, the initiatives, and the hard decisions which they promised would be forthcoming upon their election. As a result, we often see this Premier seeking out the headline, the favourable media angle, the slick picture opportunity, the favourable and public association with the real achievers in our community—all this with a view of projecting the image that he is a caring person who is doing all he can to assist the unemployed. This image is manufactured and projected by the efforts of those in the only growth industry in Queensland, the Premier’s personal and his Government’s propaganda machine, the growth rate of which will soon require the installation of a new lift in the Executive Building, let alone the refurbishment of the existing ones. By now, honourable members have probably guessed that I am talking about Wayne Goss, and it will be remembered that last week he earned another cheap headline with an Legislative Assembly 1744 22 October 1991 attack on his old mate, Bob Hawke, and the Federal Labor Party. When you have nothing else to do, become un-Australian, turn on and tackle and bite your mates. Wayne thundered some bold advice to Bob Hawke: throw away the text books and get out there and make some decisions. “Clear the decks and let’s get some projects going,” preached Wayne Goss. All that is very wise advice; but honourable members on this side of the House are wondering: when will the day ever arrive when the Premier practises what he preaches? Wayne Goss is like all other Labor politicians in this country who shed a lot of crocodile tears over the unemployed but do very little in real terms to assist them. Clearly, the Premier believes that Canberra-bashing is a substitute for decision-making by his Government. That very practice so heavily derided by the Labor Party in Opposition is now the favourite economic tool of the Premier and his Government. Cheap words indeed! Can any member on either side of this House remember any real and sustainable initiative by the Goss Labor Government? I note that there is silence in the Chamber. I invited interjections and, for the first time, honourable members are all silent. What a moot point when honourable members cannot even tell me—— Mr Fenlon interjected. Mr SANTORO: I am still trying to provoke them. They cannot tell me of one sustainable employment initiative. I would have thought that they would have said, “Well, the Government’s capital works program.” I offer that by way of stimulus to Government members. However, they should be aware that people in the construction industry are wondering where all this work is. Government members cannot believe this; they are stunned. I think that they are still wondering about that lacklustre, dismal, trembling, hysterical performance of their Premier. They know that they are in trouble. Last Tuesday, Mr Andrew Steward, who is reputed to be a confidant of the Premier, told ABC radio that the capital works program was proceeding very slowly and was providing little stimulus for the State's economy. Indeed, we know that this Government is continuing to hold back on that capital works program so that it can release and repackage it just prior to the next election. The Premier has been dobbed in by his mate who, unlike him, seems bent towards telling the truth. A Government member interjected. Mr SANTORO: Was that the mouth from the mount? No, it was not. Let us look at the record of Wayne Goss on jobs. When he came to power in December 1989, 95 000 Queenslanders were registered as being out of work. Two years later, another 60 000 are out of work—a disgraceful record by any measure! In my electorate of Merthyr, unemployment is up by almost 40 per cent. Unemployment has cut down people of all ages and from all walks of life—from the factory-worker to the chief executive. This Government has a lot to answer for—24 000 jobs lost in the manufacturing industry; 17 000 jobs lost in the agricultural, mining and fishing industries; 8 000 jobs lost in the communications industry; 6 400 jobs lost in the construction industry; 3 000 jobs lost in the electricity, gas and water industries; and a further 500 jobs lost in the mining industry—gone! Mrs Woodgate interjected. Mr SANTORO: I take the interjection from the honourable and hopeful member for Strathpine. I will tell her whose job will be lost shortly when her Government has the guts to call the election. It will be your job. You will be on the unemployment scrap heap. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I know that the honourable member for Merthyr is answering an interjection, but I ask him to direct his comments through the Chair. Mr SANTORO: Those comments were directed through you, Mr Speaker. Of course, the story could go on. What is really very worrying is that there are now predictions that unemployment will continue to grow and that it will be stuck around the 10 Legislative Assembly 1745 22 October 1991 per cent or 11 per cent mark. It is no use members opposite saying that that will not happen. The confidential Federal Cabinet briefing note from the Federal Department of Employment, Education and Training forecasts a 1.75 per cent decrease in employment in 1991-92 and the unemployment rate to increase to 11 per cent. No amount of bleating from Industrial Relations Ministers and Employment Ministers across Australia will invalidate that prediction. The latest Business Council survey of business conditions during September has found that there exists no prospect of a recovery this year and only a slow and patchy recovery is expected next year. And, of course, local surveys of business confidence and expectations show precisely the same trends. Unemployment in Queensland will remain at historically record levels. MIM's annual report detailed in this morning's Courier Mail clearly reinforces that. One of the reasons why unemployment will continue to remain high is the opportunities that Wayne Goss and his Government have allowed to slip through their fingers. Queensland is going to sleep under Wayne Goss and the reasons are obvious—lost opportunities. Remember the multifunction polis? Queensland had the chance to host this future city that could have attracted billions of dollars of investment to the State. But, because he lacked the guts to make a tough decision to secure a site for the project, Mr Goss lost that project. After Queensland lost the multifunction polis to South Australia, there was a lot of public relations activity in an effort to again disguise the true extent of the loss. Mr Goss promised that his Government would attract investment for high-tech industries that would compete with the multifunction polis. Nothing has been heard of that since and nothing will be heard of it in the future. Then there was the opportunity to allow a billion-dollar expansion of the Boyne Island aluminium smelter. All Wayne Goss had to do was to sell the Gladstone Power Station to ensure that the operators of the aluminium smelter had a reliable power supply. The former National Party Government had agreed to a price and the project, which would have created more than 1 000 jobs and would have been a major export-earner, was lost. However, for the Labor Party, the major obstacle to that is the attitude of the leadership of the Electrical Trades Union—the old stamping-ground of the Minister for Industrial Relations—which is totally opposed to privatisation. It is disappointing that Wayne Goss chose to pander to union interests to kill off that project. The arguments over the price of the power station were simply a smokescreen. Everyone knows that. Then we look at the north Queensland nickel refinery, whose future is still under a cloud because the Goss Labor Government cannot make a decision on port facilities for the refinery. Instead, Mr Goss has flick-passed the issue into the hands of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to reach a decision on port sites, which will cost the taxpayer up to $7m. Goss has also run away from labour market reform. He abolished voluntary employment agreements at a time when the rest of the nation and the world were embracing them. That decision has cost two Queensland companies, Power Brewing and Metway Bank, millions of dollars to protect the private agreements they have with their employees. Wayne Goss is against abolishing land tax, even though every day huge hikes of hundreds of percent in tax are closing small businesses down, especially on the Gold Coast. The story is the same with rail freights. If honourable members have any doubts about that, they should ask MIM, if they have the courage to hear an honest and emphatic answer. So there we have it! We have the worst recession in Queensland and the rest of Australia in 60 years, yet Wayne Goss has no economic policies, and no positive initiatives. All that we know is that Wayne Goss is anti-tax reform, anti-industrial relations reform and anti-Canberra. Well, if Wayne Goss is fair dinkum about sending a message to Bob Hawke, why does he not send Bill Ludwig down to Canberra with specific proposals about what the Federal Government needs to do? Legislative Assembly 1746 22 October 1991

Perhaps the Premier can have such economic advice accompanied by the threat that, if Hawke does not deliver on an economic reform package that will relieve unemployment, he can expect the loss of support from Queensland MPs in the undoubtedly imminent and further showdown with Keating. Now, if the Premier is really fair dinkum, and if he is really concerned about the plight of unemployed Queenslanders, let us see him wield the big stick rather than mouth wishy-washy platitudes and bleatings down Canberra way. Or does Mr Goss think that Keating in the Lodge may just favour the Machiavellian ambitions of his buddy and chum, the honourable member for Brisbane Central, a well- known supporter of the former Treasurer. The Premier obviously will not go all the way with his threats to Canberra because the union which pulls his strings—the AWU—will simply not allow him to do so. So his exhortations and his threats to Canberra will be perceived by all for what they really are—the mealy- mouthed, hypocritical and gutless utterances that come from a man who is not in charge of his own destiny and free will. Creating job opportunities is the priority of the Queensland Liberals’ “Framework for Economic Development” that was released two weeks ago. We will create jobs through the abolition of land tax and the reduction of the tax burden on individuals and businesses, while at the same time making the tax base fairer, simpler and more efficient. We will create jobs through a commitment to small government, a commitment to reduce Government expenditure as a percentage of State GDP, a reduction in Government red tape, essential micro-economic reform and privatisation of Government commercial operations, and the introduction of genuine enterprise bargaining and voluntary agreements. That is what the Liberal Party will do. Time expired.

Disclosure of Political Donations Mr HAYWARD (Caboolture) (11.46 a.m.): Make no mistake, the reform process in Queensland is under threat. The conservatives opposite want to return Queensland to the dark days. If ever there was an example of that, it was in the Chamber this morning. The members of the public in the gallery saw it and, hopefully, tomorrow the press will report on it. Yesterday, the National Party and the Liberal Party really showed where they stand on the issue of reform. They opposed a key Fitzgerald reform measure, namely, the public disclosure of campaign donations. Fitzgerald said— “The possibility of improper favour being shown or being seen to have been shown by the Government to political donors must also be eliminated.” Fitzgerald did not say that it should be eliminated and he did not say it ought to be eliminated. It was nothing wishy-washy like that; it was nothing wishy-washy like the Liberal Party submission. Fitzgerald said that it “must” be eliminated. He stated further— “Evidence before the Commission indicates that there is an urgent need to consider establishing a public register of political donations. Lack of such a register has given rise to community suspicion and lack of confidence in the political process.” He continued— “The requirement for disclosure should extend far beyond those who because of their public positions, ought to disclose financial, political and any other relevant interests. Arguably, there should be disclosure of all donors, and the amounts they give. Alternatively all donations above a minimum sum could be disclosed.” In its submission to EARC, the National Party made the following complaint— “Adoption of the proposals suggested in the enclosed submissions will not make life easy for political parties, including the National Party.” Legislative Assembly 1747 22 October 1991

What a shameful attitude! What a disgraceful attitude! The Nationals are saying that they are against the disclosure of donations because it would make life difficult for them. What about the public? What about democracy? What about being seen to be honest? What are they trying to cover up? The biggest smell about Queensland in the dark days was the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. There can be no argument about that in this Parliament. For years, the Nationals ran a corrupt system. They can see that reforming this life-style would be difficult. Mr Elder interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Manly will cease interjecting. Mr HAYWARD: After all that has been revealed in Queensland, can anyone believe that the conservatives opposite still do not want to tell people where their cash donations are coming from? They still argue that campaign donations should be made in anonymous brown paper bags. The amazing thing about all this is that they do not even want to reform their corrupt ways. Their submission says that the party has historically opposed disclosure of donations, and it is still opposing the introduction of such disclosure. We know the history of that party in Government in Queensland. Why does it not want disclosure? Who is going to be embarrassed by having donations made public? Can the Liberal Party answer the question: who is going to be embarrassed? The answer is: on the one hand, the white-shoe businessmen who make secret donations in brown paper bags and, on the other hand, the political parties opposite, the conservative parties, who promise secret deals as a result of those donations. Yesterday, the Liberal Party spilt the beans in its submission when it said— “The reality of disclosure laws would be a substantial reduction in moneys raised by political parties by way of donations.” That is what the issue was all about: support corruption—and that is what the Liberal Party was talking about—or the potential for corruption. Mr SANTORO: I rise to a point of order. As a member of the Liberal Party, I find—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. He cannot take a point of order on that issue. Mr HAYWARD: The issue was to support corruption or the potential for corruption. We have seen that. Certain members of the honourable member’s party who no longer serve in this place have seen that. Mr SANTORO: I rise to a point of order. I find offensive the comments by the honourable member suggesting that I support corruption, and I ask they be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Merthyr will resume his seat. I warn him under Standing Order 124 for not listening to the rulings of the Speaker. I ruled that the honourable member cannot take a broad objection to what the member for Caboolture is saying about the Liberal Party generally. I will not allow the member for Merthyr to ask for a withdrawal. Mr HAYWARD: The honourable member opposite would know, because a number of his supporters have suffered as a result of this. If he spoke to any of his business supporters—if he has any left—they would soon tell him that they suffered because of the previous Government. One needs only to look to the United States, where the issue of political funding and the disclosure of donations has become huge. It has led to politicians being driven by the donations that they receive. I cite as an example the spending of $150m on a congressional election this year in California. I will quote the words of Senator Alan Dixon, Legislative Assembly 1748 22 October 1991 because they are very important and because they apply to exactly what happens in Queensland. He said— “The enormous amounts of money flowing into campaign coffers cannot help but leave the impression that influence is being purchased.” That is the real issue. That is what is happening. It happened in Queensland under the previous National Party Government and, if the member for Merthyr likes to include it, under the National Party/Liberal Party Government as well. Today, honourable members spoke in this place about the reform process and about the myth of the victimisation of certain public servants. When members opposite speak about victimisation, they speak from experience. The National/Liberal coalition Governments were experts at victimisation. There is a long list of people and companies who were victimised in Queensland. If Liberal Party members have any business contacts—and I doubt that they do any more—those contacts would tell them that during 1986-89 they were victimised. We should be talking about the future. We are talking about reforming electoral and administrative laws and procedures so that this sort of victimisation is either not possible or, if it occurs, it becomes exposed. The checks and balances being put in place by this Government will ensure that people do not have to fear victimisation of the sort that was highlighted yesterday in the Liberal Party’s submission, nor the victimisation that was suffered in this State between 1983 and 1989. Yesterday, Mr David Russell presented the submission on behalf of the National Party. In that submission, Mr Russell showed what has changed. As far as the Nationals in Queensland are concerned—nothing has changed. In that submission, as his justification for hiding political donations, Mr Russell said— “ . . . no finding of illegality was made and no prosecution of the National Party personnel has been commenced which relates in any way to contributions to the Party or entities under its control.” What does that mean? What was he talking about there? From those comments, one could infer that it is okay for people opposite to receive $200,000 in a brown paper bag, because no-one was charged and no-one raised with the National Party the source of the contributions under their control. According to all the conservatives opposite, that is a perfectly acceptable way of operating. Millions of dollars were spent on the Fitzgerald cleansing process, but those conservatives opposite learnt nothing. Mr Russell really has a problem. Yesterday, as vice-president of the State National Party, Mr Russell opposed disclosure by the Queensland branch of the National Party. But in his role as Federal National Party vice-president, he supports disclosure. He has different rules. He is right on to those people opposite. He knows how they operate. That is how they have operated for years in this State. Obviously, Mr Russell is a man of very flexible principle indeed. The EARC issues paper says— “Any hint of corruption undermines public confidence.” That paper said that the Fitzgerald report had referred to a number of incidents where there was a coincidence between donations to the National Party and favourable Government decisions. What wonderful phrasing in that Fitzgerald report! The facts are plain; corruption did take place. One of the reasons it took place was that people and companies could make secret donations. People become cynical about the political process. They believe that more and more people are elected on the basis of their qualifications—— Time expired. Legislative Assembly 1749 22 October 1991

Jury System Reform Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (11.56 a.m.): I was going to speak about another matter, but as a result of events that occurred this morning in this House, I must now speak about the attack made on the jury system by the Honourable the Premier. For the past 400 or 500 years, under the British system of justice people have believed in judgment by their peers. Apparently in Queensland, judgment by a person’s peers is judgment by those peers unless one of them is a National Party member. In that case, that person is to be removed from any body that assesses people who have something to do with the National Party. This is a new concept of jury service. The Premier is mouthing one of the great aspirations of his lawyer friends who are keen to line their own pockets. For a long time, those people have wanted to abolish the jury system and replace it with a system in which a number of legally trained people make the decisions. That is what they want to do. However, to put forward seriously a proposition that we should eliminate people from juries simply because they have a particular political affiliation—heavens! There must be something like 300 000 or 400 000 electors in Queensland who have an extremely strong political affiliation and at some time have been involved one way or the other with a political party. As to corruption—as the last speaker said, over $60m has been spent trying to find out about—and get at—corruption in this State. Originally, that $60m was to be spent on an inquiry into police. However, I do not believe that anyone would question the fact that almost all of it was spent on assessing the performance of the Bjelke-Petersen Government. However, we have discovered that, at the most, $120,000 has gone astray, and almost all of that sum is attributable to the misuse of Government vehicles. The Government now says that it is misappropriation and a criminal offence to use those vehicles for private purposes. Every senior public servant in Queensland now has a piece of paper that says it is totally legal for him or her to use those vehicles for private purposes. Believe me, it is my bounden duty and responsibility to say that every Minister laboured under the apprehension—perhaps under a misapprehension—that at all times those vehicles could be used for private purposes. It cost $65m to discover that $120,000 has been misappropriated. The Fitzgerald inquiry proved that the former National Party Government was probably one of the most honest Governments in Australia’s history. Government members interjected. Mr KATTER: I hear guffaws from the Government side of the Chamber. The Labor Party has commissioned three royal commissions in the southern States. So far they have proved that, under Labor, $9,000m has gone astray in three States. Unquestionably, direct corruption was involved in the misappropriation of a large proportion of that money, and criminal negligence was involved in all cases. What we proved in this State—under very dubious concepts of law, in my opinion—is that $120,000 has gone astray. It has been said definitively that $9,000m has gone astray in those other States, but not one charge has been laid against a politician in those States. The most important thing that I wish to say today is that the story doing the rounds of the press is that, in Cabinet, Mr Goss has chided Mr Wells because no charges of corruption have been laid against the former Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. This is a very serious matter. It behoves the Premier of this State to come into this place and deny the charge that I am now making and which is doing the rounds of the press. It must be said that although the court of appeal legislation has been introduced, the concept of that court is very dubious. Time expired. At 12 noon, In accordance with the provisions of the Sessional Order, the House went into Committee of Supply. Legislative Assembly 1750 22 October 1991

SUPPLY

Estimates—Eighth and Ninth Allotted Days

Estimates-in-Chief, 1991-92

Employment, Training and Industrial Relations Hon. N. G. WARBURTON (Sandgate—Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) (12.01 p.m.): I move— “That there be granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year 1991-92, a sum not exceeding $24,628,000 for Law, Order and Public Safety, Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations (Consolidated Fund).” My department fulfils a significant role in this State’s economy, making an important contribution to the enhancement of Queensland by ensuring that its most important resource—its work force—has the necessary skills, education and training demanded by modern industry. Accompanying the establishment of a viable economy are those tenets which underpin a modern work force and contribute to the wealth of society—I refer specifically to relevant, meaningful occupational health and safety standards, harmonious industrial relations and a fair and equitable workers’ compensation system. The major goal of the department’s Industrial Division is to promote industrial harmony. The broad objectives aimed at achieving this goal include— conducting an inspection/investigation program to ensure award provisions are being observed; providing a consultancy/advisory service designed to meet community needs; investigating, researching, analysing and enhancing industrial relations; and providing effective representation of Government agencies in State and Commonwealth Industrial Relations Tribunals. Major activities to be focused on by the Industrial Division’s Inspection Branch in the 1991-92 financial year include— an intensification of the general inspection program to ensure awards are observed. In this program, significant emphasis will continue to be placed on the observance of occupational superannuation benefits for employees; the delivery of education courses to give employers and interested personnel an awareness of industrial relations conditions of employment; a general inspection program to upgrade the standard of accommodation; and improving the efficiency of the branch through the concept of regionalisation. Under the general inspection program, inspection activity has increased dramatically. The increased probability that an industrial inspector will visit employers’ premises at some time in the future has caused many employers to come to accept the importance of keeping records in accordance with legislation and ensuring award compliance. During the last 12 months, approximately 2 600 employers were visited by industrial inspectors in the program. Those employers employed over 15 000 employees. Out of the total inspected, 912 employers representing 34.5 per cent failed to comply with award provisions which necessitated monetary adjustments of over $530,000. The number of employees who benefited from the above adjustments totalled 1 339. To date, Legislative Assembly 1751 22 October 1991 the program has targeted areas of commercial activity. It is anticipated that inspections will be broadened in this financial year. I expect that the general inspection program, together with educational courses being conducted by the inspection branch throughout the State, will have a positive impact on the level of compliance with awards by employers and, at the same time, reduce the number of complaints received by my department for investigation. The development of the short appreciation course designed to give the participants an appreciation of the important provisions of the Industrial Relations Act and of State awards is an important new initiative of the Industrial Division. This course, in conjunction with a more detailed course, will promote an awareness of important industrial conditions and thereby contribute to harmony in the workplace. Both courses are regularly held in Brisbane and will be extended to the larger provincial towns this financial year. In an effort to improve the efficiency of the inspection branch, an extensive review carried out during last financial year resulted in the activities of the branch being regionalised. The concept of regionalisation is seen as a positive step towards enhancing the delivery of services to the public. Steps towards regionalisation began last financial year with the final stage of the concept—the establishment of four regions—being implemented in the current financial year. It is anticipated that this will lead to greater flexibility and ensure that client needs are served expeditiously. Under the new Industrial Relations Act, the Industrial Relations Consultative Committee has been established and members have been appointed. The work of this committee, in conjunction with the research and policy development activity of the department, will assist the process of ongoing review of the effectiveness of industrial relations related legislation. The final report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of Particular Queensland Unions—the Cooke inquiry—was received in July. All of the recommendations have now been assessed. A number refer to responsibilities of various other Ministers who are examining these recommendations relevant to their portfolios. Recommendations dealing purely with industrial relations matters have ramifications for all industrial organisations and will be best dealt with by a process of consultation. This will be undertaken using the Industrial Relations Consultative Committee. The recommendations of this committee will be taken into account in the Government’s ultimate decisions on the recommendations. It could be expected that there will be a need for legislative change. The recruitment function of my department is responsible for— recruiting, testing and placing base grade administrative officers for the public service; providing employment opportunities for underrepresented groups; managing the Australian Traineeship Scheme for the Queensland public service; and coordinating redeployment activities for staff deemed surplus because of organisational change. The number of youth offered traineeship positions will increase significantly during the forthcoming financial year. This is due primarily to the Government’s commitment to youth employment in subsidising salary costs during the 12-month period of traineeship. The five-year Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment strategy will enter its first full year of operation. A particular focus of the strategy is the regional structure, which will facilitate employment opportunities in rural communities. With the introduction of revised redundancy arrangements from 1 July 1991, a small unit has been established to coordinate redeployment of staff who have elected to continue in the public service following reorganisations of departments. This process will ensure that existing staff are considered for transfer to vacancies at the same or lower Legislative Assembly 1752 22 October 1991 level prior to departments going to open competition. Given the extent of organisational change in departments, it is anticipated that significant numbers will be involved in the redeployment process. There was a need to upgrade the material used in the selection of base grade staff. The expansion of testing arrangements across the State on a more regular basis provided greater equity in the recruitment and selection processes. The costs of these enhanced services have been offset by a fee of $200 per vacancy charged to departments for the supply of quality tested applicants. Departments have been satisfied with the improved service. With the downturn in the economy, greater pressure is being placed on testing arrangements which will continue to be offered on the current basis. My department is continuing with implementation of the Human Resource Management System—HRMS—in the public service. At the present time, approximately 7 500 employees have been transferred from existing systems to the new HRMS. Further implementation is planned in a staged process over the period through until April 1992, by which time the balance of employees on existing systems and teachers’ payroll-processing will be effected, a total population base of around 75 000. Whilst some departments will have incorporated wages employees on the system, some further work is envisaged in investigating whether a common wages system can be adopted across the board. Due to a variance in the implementation plan to provide for a more staged approach to implementation, some additional costs will be incurred in system development. This, coupled with scope variations, will mean a projected development cost of approximately $5.8m as compared with the originally approved figure of $4.7m in 1990. The necessary ongoing operation support environment for the system is presently being established within the department as it is the desire for system support to be undertaken by Government resources rather than continuation of the significantly more expensive option of using external consultants. My department also has the responsibility for the functions of representation, negotiation and industrial consultancy in matters affecting employees of public sector units. Specific industrial activities of national importance include representation on behalf of the Government at ongoing hearings relating to reform in the waterfront and building industries and in the national wage case hearing and subsequent reviews of the wage-fixing system. Particular public sector activities that are being undertaken include the continuation of award-restructuring in accordance with the State and Federal Industrial Relations Commission’s wage fixation principles. Award-restructuring is one of the key elements in the total reform of the Queensland public sector and complements the standards and initiatives of the Public Sector Management Commission. As a result of the consultative process developed, unions and Government have been able to put in place a number of initiatives which will provide these necessary outcomes. Considerable work has yet to be done before all proposed initiatives can be implemented, but with the unions’ involvement and continued commitment successful outcomes will result. Following lengthy negotiations in conjunction with the Public Sector Management Commission, the State Industrial Relations Commission has inserted a new classification and remuneration system in the Public Service Award and in awards covering employees of regional health authorities. This is the first step to the implementation of a unified remuneration system for the public sector and will be progressively presented in most awards at the time awards are amalgamated, restructured and modernised. Commonality of conditions of employment across the public sector will ensure that all employees receive similar benefits with improved mobility between various units. The introduction of the new Workers’ Compensation Act 1990, which took effect from 1 January 1991, has provided for— Legislative Assembly 1753 22 October 1991

increased and additional benefits for injured workers—including weekly, lump sum and fatal injury benefits; the extension of medical benefits to include treatment by psychologists, podiatrists and speech therapists; incorporation of mining diseases into the ordinary provisions of the Act; and the use of simple, gender-neutral language in the Act. The average net premium rate in Queensland for the 1990-91 financial year remained at 1.4 per cent of total wages costs per employee and continues to be the lowest rate in Australia, with the other States ranging from 1.8 per cent to 3.8 per cent. During the year, the board engaged actuarial consultants, Trowbridge Consulting, to undertake an independent review of various aspects of the board’s operations. The general outcome of this wide-ranging analysis was very positive and the board is currently addressing several of the recommendations with a view to ensuring the most professional, prudent management of the board’s operations. The merit bonus system, which has been in place since 1962, continues to be an important risk- management incentive to employers. The bonus is a tangible reward for employers who have achieved a satisfactory claims-to-premium performance ratio. For the 1990-91 assessing year, an amount of $97m was returned to eligible employers. The actuarial review confirmed that the provisions held for outstanding claims were more than adequate and that the fund was in a healthy state. The management of statutory benefits claims was seen to be of a high standard and should continue in this vein with the claims management and rehabilitation initiatives that have been adopted. These initiatives are personal injury management and workplace-based rehabilitation. Personal injury management is an integrated team approach to claims management utilising the three areas of injury management: claims, rehabilitation and medical. The PIM teams, comprising claims officers, a rehabilitation counsellor and a medical officer, work in close cooperation with the injured worker, employer and treating medical practitioner to plan an individual rehabilitation program tailored specifically for the injured worker. The introduction of personal injury management teams throughout all the board’s district offices during the 1990-91 year and the completion of their introduction into the Brisbane metropolitan area in 1991-92 has greatly assisted in achieving early return-to-work outcomes for injured workers. A workplace rehabilitation education program was launched in May 1991 and is designed to encourage employers to implement their own workplace rehabilitation programs for the benefit of their injured workers and to assist in reducing the cost of their workers’ compensation claims. To make the board’s services more accessible to its clients, a detailed study of the geographical location of injured workers was undertaken during 1990-91. Following the analysis of statutory benefits claims numbers, a new suburban office will be opened at Logan City next month. I now turn to the activities of the Division of Workplace Health and Safety, which is charged with the responsibility for the maintenance of safe and healthy working conditions in Queensland workplaces. Last year, work-related accidents and diseases affected 80 000 employees in Queensland. The combined physical, mental and financial harm suffered by Queensland workers and their families is enormous. Some individuals and some small businesses never recover from the costs of a single accident or disease incident. Reducing this human and financial cost is the prime concern of the Division of Workplace Health and Safety. The division’s new title reflects the changed focus with the inclusion of workplace health in the division’s activities. An integrated Workplace Health Branch was formed with the transfer of the occupational health unit and the occupational health section from the Health Department. This branch develops strategies to ensure Legislative Assembly 1754 22 October 1991 that health-related risks in the workplace are minimised and, where practicable, potential causes of accidents are removed. The Workplace Health and Safety Act encourages industry to self-regulate by developing health and safety management programs through workplace consultation. Manufacturers, employers and employees must assume responsibility for controlling the hazards they create. One point I particularly want to reinforce is that the Act continues to comprise statements of minimum standards for the protection of employees and others in the community who may be affected by work activities. Controllers of workplaces or work processes are required to understand and adopt these minimum standards. Breaches of standards, when detected, may be prosecuted. In some cases, other sanctions such as prohibition, improvement or seizure notices may be more appropriate. In cases where employee safety has been put at risk to gain some commercial advantage, prosecution will be given priority. A key divisional activity continues to be the development of self-regulation in the workplace. In keeping with the legislation, the advisory role of inspectors has been emphasised and the special role of adviser has been created. In the last financial year, visits to workplaces by inspectors/advisers increased by a massive 142 per cent—a very significant increase. The division continues to consult widely with business, industry, unions and the community generally to ensure that workplace health and safety initiatives meet the needs of Queensland workplaces. The tripartite Workplace Health and Safety Council, representing Government, employers, and unions, continues to provide me with valuable advice on workplace health and safety issues. In addition to the council, 12 industry workplace health and safety committees meet regularly to address industry needs. Subcommittees are formed as necessary to work on specific projects. In May 1991, the Rural Industry Workplace Health and Safety Committee met for the first time. This tied in with a major innovation in workplace health and safety. From 13 May this year, rural workers have the protection of the Workplace Health and Safety Act. Australia’s rural industry has one of the highest rates of workplace fatality rates, with 22 deaths per 100 000 workers per annum. The division is committed to reducing the high incidence of injury and death on farms in our State. Diving continues to be an important workplace health and safety issue. Some sectors of the diving industry expressed concerns about the application of the new Australian standard for occupational diving. In response, I directed that a full review of diving industry regulation be undertaken. As a result, an information paper on diving industry regulation has been prepared and distributed to industry. Comments were invited and the deadline for reply was yesterday, 21 October. Recommendations will now be formulated by the Diving Industry Workplace Health and Safety Committee. On a national and intergovernment level, the special Premiers Conference commitment to recognition and reciprocity on goods and services has dramatic implications for the operation of the Division of Workplace Health and Safety. Intergovernment cooperation is demonstrated by my department's membership of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, which has resulted in two major developments. Firstly, last week, a memorandum of understanding between Queensland and the Commonwealth was signed to implement a system of notifications and assessments under the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act. Secondly, negotiations are in train to put in place certain administrative arrangements which will enable State workplace health and safety inspectors to conduct occupational health and safety investigations of Commonwealth workplaces in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991. Looking to Queensland’s future industrial development, I point out that the division continues to emphasise strongly industry and community education about workplace Legislative Assembly 1755 22 October 1991 health and safety. In addition to financial assistance for training of workplace health and safety officers and representatives, the division also places special emphasis on post-secondary workplace health and safety education to ensure our workers are trained with safer futures in mind. The Queensland University of Technology Bachelor of Applied Science (Occupational Health and Safety) degree is Queensland’s first degree course in occupational health and safety, and was established with the division’s assistance. A total of $450,000 has been allocated towards this project. The first students were accepted into the degree course in February this year, and only last week I made a second contribution of $150,000 to the QUT. Part of the funds have gone towards the creation of a centre for applied occupational health and safety research. The Division of Workplace Health and Safety has also assisted with two major workplace health and safety initiatives at Griffith University. Firstly, the division is helping to establish a bachelor of technology education degree and, in addition to $50,000 in funding, the division is assisting with the course’s development to ensure the training is relevant and practical. Students of this course become manual arts teachers who are equipped to train the next generation of workers in workplace safety. The division is also supporting Griffith University efforts to integrate occupational workplace health and safety into environmental science and behavioural science streams. TAFE is another important training ground for workplace health safety professionals. The division is assisting in TAFE’s review and reaccreditation of the Associate Diploma in Occupational Health and Safety to ensure it is relevant and reflects current industry needs and legislative standards. I now draw to the attention of honourable members an area which has attracted significant Government attention. In many respects, this financial year is a watershed for vocational education, training and employment in Queensland. This Government has allocated record funding of $405.5m to my department for the provision of vocational education, training and employment—an increase of $70m, or 21 per cent, over the previous year’s funding. Moreover, the Government is giving a major priority to vocational education and training. It recognises that enhanced competitive labour force skills are an essential prerequisite to economic prosperity and employment opportunities. In particular, it has placed a major priority on improving the employment prospects of youth through a greater commitment to access and vocational education programs. The specific training needs of disadvantaged groups have also been given special consideration; in particular, youth, Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, migrants, women and the disabled. Years of underfunding by previous State Governments has resulted in participation rates in vocational education and training courses in Queensland being 20 per cent below the national average. Through increased funding and enhanced operational efficiency, the Queensland TAFE participation rate will be increased by about a third over the next three years and will be, at least, that of the anticipated national level. The Government will target those industries that are essential to economic development, or where needs are greatest. To ensure that vocational education and training is relevant and responsive to the needs of stake-holders, last year the Government instituted a comprehensive review which resulted in legislation establishing a Vocational Education, Training and Employment Commission, or VETEC. With the proclamation of the Vocational Education, Training and Employment Act 1991, as from 28 October a new structure responsible for vocational education, training and employment in this State formally comes into being. The commission will provide policy advice to ensure that TAFE and training are developed to meet the Government’s economic and social objectives. My department will ensure effective implementation and delivery through its TAFETEQ directorate. The latter will be responsible for the effective operation of the department’s 32 TAFE and senior colleges. Legislative Assembly 1756 22 October 1991

I am pleased to announce that inaugural members to VETEC, that is the commission, were appointed recently, with their appointment and associated infrastructure becoming operational from 28 October 1991. This body, which comprises representatives of the major stake-holders of vocational education, training and employment in the State, including employers, unions, general community, education community and the Commonwealth Government, will provide me with strategic policy advice aimed at improving the total vocational education, training and employment system in the State, irrespective of whether such services are offered by the public or private sector. This focus alone represents a significant innovation. The commission, and its three legislated standing committees, the State Training Council, the State Planning and Development Council and the Accreditation Council, are also responsible for certain regulatory functions which impact on vocational education, training and employment services offered by both public and private sectors. These functions include regulated training (apprenticeships and traineeships), accreditation of vocational education and training courses, ratification of those locations at which such courses are offered, and formal recognition of training providers. Through the commission and its standing committees, we will achieve for the first time in this State a level playing field with respect to regulatory functions. This, of course, is a crucial step in winning the confidence and co- operation of the private sector and in increasing the commitment of that sector to improving vocational education and training in Queensland. All of the three standing committees will have a membership representative of the major stake-holders. Competency-based training is being introduced throughout Australia to improve the quality and effectiveness of training. Queensland has already implemented a major pilot initiative in the metal trades. TAFETEQ will continue with this initiative, expanding the use of competency-based training in its college network. Through the process of award-restructuring, industry is developing skill standards which define the skills and competencies needed for particular occupations or range of work. Training will then be assessed against such standards. VETEC will be responsible for the accreditation system which ensures the training programs meet these standards. Accreditation processes will be available to the private sector as well as the public sector. The Queensland Government will fund a range of initiatives in 1991-92 that will play a pivotal role in Queensland's social and economic development. These initiatives will have a special focus on skilling the work force and enhancing youth employment opportunities and fall into five major categories as follows— enhanced competitive labour force skills; improved access to vocational education; increased tertiary places; employment initiatives; and stimulation of enterprise training. More than $6m has been committed to enhancing competitive labour force skills— nearly $4.7m to increase full-time and part-time initial skills vocational education and training by 5 000 places to meet key micro-economic reform and regional development requirements. Industries to be targeted are tourism and hospitality, business, computing, construction and community services; $1m for learning resources, including college training equipment and library resources. These resources will help to meet standards for industry skills and accreditation; and $496,000 to increase part-time advanced vocational education and training by 1 000 places to enhance the skills of those already in the work force and providing Legislative Assembly 1757 22 October 1991

retraining for those seeking employment opportunities. Key industries to be targeted are those that I have listed. Improved access by Queenslanders to vocational education will be achieved by initiatives costing more than $1.5m— $746,000 to increase full-time and part-time access courses by 1 000 places to enhance employment opportunities and to improve workplace literacy skills for underrepresented and disadvantaged groups; and $924,000 to meet Queensland's contribution to a joint funding arrangement on AEP—that is Aboriginal Education Policy—with the Commonwealth. As part of its commitment to improving access by regional students to vocational education, $1.9m is being spent to increase tertiary places through increasing full-time TAFE associate diploma places by 1 000 annually with a focus on the key industries outlined above. These additional full-time associate diploma places will target youth in regional communities. Smaller colleges will offer first year subjects and major regional colleges will offer second year and elective subjects. Employment initiatives to the value of $3.5m are planned to provide— vocational training for 1 000 disadvantaged youth ($1m); an additional 200 trainee places for particularly disadvantaged youth in the Queensland public sector and in local Government ($1m); and regional coordinators to assist Queensland disadvantaged youth in seeking employment at a cost of $1.5m. Initiatives designed to stimulate enterprise training are also planned. These include— funding of $235,000 to provide a skills audit service for enterprises and industry; and seeding funds of $515,000 to encourage enterprise and industry to establish training activities. The TAFE capital works program will increase by 30 per cent to $60.1m in 1991-92 to provide infrastructure where it is needed, rather than in response to any political wish-list. A total of $53.9m has been allocated in conjunction with the Commonwealth Government for the construction and refurbishment of TAFE and senior college facilities, together with an additional $6.2m for capital equipment. The major projects will be completed at Cairns, Sunshine Coast, Applethorpe, Toowoomba and Townsville. The estimated student seating capacity of capital works projects for the 1991-94 triennium is 10 700 seats. Allowing for refurbishment, the net increase in student seats will be 6 300 by the end of the triennium. The net increase in 1991-92 will be 2 400 seats. During 1990-94, an estimated total of $300m will be spent on establishing new TAFE facilities or refurbishing existing facilities to keep pace with the needs of Queensland communities. In order to quickly gain effective use of new facilities now coming on line, the Queensland Government will allocate an additional $5.95m in 1991-92 for the recurrent operation of new facilities at Airlie Beach, Bowen, Caboolture, Gold Coast, Maryborough, Rockhampton, Thursday Island, Toowoomba and Townsville. Salaries and associated labour costs will increase by $20m in 1991-92, primarily as a result of a new award for TAFE teachers negotiated between my department and relevant unions. In conclusion, it is intended that TAFE operate within five regions—northern, central, Wide Bay/Sunshine Coast, downs and south-west, and Brisbane areas. Under the three-year program I have outlined which has been introduced this financial year, I believe that industry will be serviced by a training system that is more relevant and responsive. People already in employment will have greater scope to upgrade their skills and those seeking Legislative Assembly 1758 22 October 1991 work will have more opportunities to develop the skills they need in order to enter the work force. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I desire to inform honourable members that on the Vote proposed I will allow a full discussion on all the Minister’s departmental Estimates (Consolidated Revenue, Trust and Special Funds). Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn) (12.33 p.m.): The nature of the appointment of the acting director-general within this department raised a number of questions which must surely be exacerbated by the text of his covering letter to the Minister indicating— “This year’s Report is somewhat more substantial than those of previous years, reflecting our commitment to openness and full accountability”. It is a matter for regret on my part that, without involving the appointee, I am unable to level at the Minister and the Goss Government the criticism they deserve as a result of their politicisation of this position. I note that in his review within the annual report, Mr Nutter corrects that comment by referring to “the Government’s commitment to open government and greater accountability”. Whilst I have respect for Mr Nutter’s ability, and stress that my comments are in no way directed at him personally as an individual—and I note that earlier in this Chamber some Government members had no such inhibitions in criticising individuals unable to respond under privilege—I must record the Opposition’s concern at the politicisation of senior positions within the public sector—not only within this department, but within the public sector generally. The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have made that point many times. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I must ask the honourable member to confine his speech to the Minister’s Estimates. There cannot be a general debate about the whole public sector. Mr HARPER: Despite its blatancy, there has been little—in fact practically none—media criticism. This is not surprising, I suppose, when one considers the political persuasions of those academics who were so ready to criticise in the media every move of the conservative Government. As an integral part of the politicisation within this department and within the public service, since 7 December 1989, we have witnessed in Queensland the nonsensical, blatant and unwarranted harassment of officers within that sector, at all levels, but particularly in the middle-to-senior areas—officers, female and male, whose ability is beyond question, but who committed the sin of being loyal to the Government in power and of working in accordance with the policy directions of that Government in keeping with the best Westminster traditions. Never to my knowledge did those officers claim to be implementing their policies—nor should they. Yet they have been hounded relentlessly, and they continue to be hounded, by a Government headed by the Goss-Warburton team, hell-bent on what they misguidedly perceive to be an errand of revenge for the sins of loyalty in officers truly demonstrating the first essential of public servants—to serve well the policies of the elected Government irrespective of their own political persuasions. Undoubtedly, this department’s acting director-general will serve well the policies of the Government. Given the Government’s predisposition to embrace the views of its colleague trade union gurus, and of course the Goss Government’s fascination with committees and advisory councils, I find it odd indeed that the Minister continues to reject the training program recommendations of the Construction Industry Training Council (Queensland) Inc. This tripartite industry advisory body, which claims to have the total support of all major sectors of the building and construction industry in Queensland, includes no fewer than 19 employer associations, numbered among whom are BOMA, the Housing Industry Association, the Associations of Master Bricklayers, Painters, Decorators and Signwriters, Plumbers, Metal Trades Industry and the Queensland Master Builders Legislative Assembly 1759 22 October 1991

Association. Included in the employee associations having membership of the advisory body are the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation, the Australian Workers Union, the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia, the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association, the Federation of Industrial Manufacturing and Engineering Employees, the Operative Painters and Decorators Union and the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union. Here is a body representing major employer and employee associations bringing forward a worthwhile and meaningful training program supported by the trade union movement, and the Minister prevaricates, apparently over the support it has among employer groups. The Minister commissioned a survey by the Government Statistician’s Office but refuses to disclose details basic to a real understanding of that survey. Why? Labor’s Accord with the ACTU has brought both award superannuation and imposition of an industry training levy with a $200,000 wages threshold as a result of which only 10 per cent of the building construction industry has an obligation to the Commonwealth Government’s 1 per cent training levy. In other words, it does not place any training responsibility on the smaller operators, many of whom avoid training obligations. I must say that my personal experience of country builders—indeed, of country employers generally: electricians, engineers, motor mechanics and the like—is that they do accept a training responsibility to a high degree through apprenticeships. Be that as it may, CITC has put forward a proposal for Queensland to replace the Federal training levy with its own training scheme, as have Western Australia and Tasmania. The training council has proposed a Queensland training guarantee for notifiable building and construction projects. The proposal is for an industrywide activity-based training levy to replace the very sectionalised Federal levy, in accordance with the intergovernment agreement in principle that State levies will be eligible as offsets to obligation under the Federal training guarantee. The proposal includes a compulsory levy of 0.2 per cent of the value of notifiable projects and declared works with the establishment of a trust fund, under the control of industry—that is important—from which disbursements would be made to meet the current and ongoing training needs of the industry. For the life of me, I cannot understand the Minister’s refusal to move in that direction, to accept the recommendation of the industry itself through CITC. Even on the statistician’s somewhat secretive survey, a 32 per cent positive response was received to the proposal in the light of only limited community awareness. There was not a full understanding on the part of those who were questioned. However, as I mentioned earlier, the ramifications and the basis of the statistician’s inquiries and survey remain rather secretive. We all know where the Federal Minister, John Dawkins, stands in regard to phasing out Federal funding for industry training. Indeed, I think we all understand the Federal Government’s determination to take over the constitutional rights of State Government in the area of training and education generally. The Premier has described Dawkins’ plans as a half-baked stunt. Of course, funding for training is acknowledged as being critical. I take the opportunity to commend the Minister and the Government for the additional allocation, to which the Minister referred, of 20 per cent more than that allocated last year for vocational and educational training, an increase of approximately $70m. That is commendable and it is only right that we recognise that fact. John Dawkins has claimed that Queensland is not pulling its weight in regard to funding allocations for technical and further education. Although he claims that the Federal Government does not wish to take over TAFE colleges from the State, he clearly indicated that the Commonwealth wants to set the curriculum as well as directly provide the funding. Once it achieves that, it would seem to be axiomatic that, effectively, the Federal Minister and the Federal Government would have control of technical and further education—vocational education—throughout the nation. Bearing all that in mind, does Queensland not accept the Industry Training Council’s proposal, a proposal supported by unions of both employees and employers, by Legislative Assembly 1760 22 October 1991 major sectors of the building and construction industry in this State? I am unable to recognise any aspect of the proposal which justifies continued refusal of its implementation. How does the Minister reconcile his bloody-mindedness—or is it merely procrastination—with comment in the BEVFET restructuring update of January/February 1991? It stated— “Given the constraints on public resources the Bureau cannot meet all the demands arising from Award Restructuring. In general, the Bureau has a greater responsibility for: the whole domain of entry-level vocational education and training; basic education and access; and training that is general rather than job specific. Vocational Education and Training beyond these categories will require a greater individual or industry contribution.” Bearing in mind that very fact in that restructuring update, how does the Minister reconcile his attitude? Of course, training achieves little if there are no jobs for those who gain skills through that training, at whatever workplace or institution it may have been gained. The construction industry is in the doldrums. Unemployment could well rise to 12 per cent by the end of 1992. At the Federal level, it is being claimed responsibly on factual statistics that it could well continue into 1993, but it is quite a possibility that unemployment could rise to 12 per cent by the end of 1992. Bannon and Carr, the Minister’s Labor colleagues in southern States, are both on record as saying that the 10 per cent unemployment level is indefensible as well as unacceptable. To overcome unemployment meaningfully, long-term strategies and policies are essential. More than an additional 50 000 Queenslanders have gone into the dole queue since this Government and this Minister came into office. Those numbers are in themselves misleading, because increased enrolments at vocational education institutions effectively reduce the number of Queenslanders looking for employment opportunities. Again, we have heard Federal Minister Dawkins talking about 300 000 people who, over the next few years, will be denied such an opportunity. But the fact is that those students who are taking places at our vocational education institutions are effectively reducing the numbers being shown statistically as out of work. I ask: what is this Government doing to provide jobs for those hundreds of thousands presently unemployed and those thousands presently training in TAFE colleges alone? This Government has been very vocal with its Budget claims of job creation, but we are yet to see any worthwhile initiatives. I was interested to hear on a recent ABC radio talk-back program a student in her final year computer science course at the Queensland University claim that not one of the 120 students anticipating graduation at the end of this year had prospects of employment—not one! What is the Minister for Employment doing to develop a climate which will once again give those graduates meaningful job prospects? I had long ago despaired of ever finding the writings of Courier-Mail reporter, Peter Morley, worthy of quote in this place, but it would seem that the old adage of waiting long enough came true last Saturday, for Morley’s words of wisdom in “Monitor” are well worthy of being quoted in this debate. He said— “The economic climate means that Queensland is stagnating and businesses are rolling over into bankruptcy. The only big job-creation projects Labor has delivered are those that were in the pipeline when the Nationals ruled and there appears little care for small businessmen, the biggest employers. Legislative Assembly 1761 22 October 1991

One in every 10 Queenslanders is out of work, but the best the Government can offer is legislative reform—and you cannot live on that—nor on the new laws to protect the environment, which are throwing more people on the dole queues.” I would challenge Morley’s interpretation of legislative reform, because I believe that the legislative process introduced by this Minister cannot possibly be called reform; it is a turning-back of the clock. However, in what the Premier has admitted to be a pig-headed approach, this Government has not only turned back our clocks but also has taken Queensland's industrial relations into a time warp through that same pig-headed approach which refuses to acknowledge that Queensland wanted and needed the industrial policies of the National Party. Our policies are all about the rights of the individual. Mr McGrady: Rubbish! Mr HARPER: The member for Mount Isa may well say “Rubbish!” because he has no respect, and the Government of which he is a member has no respect, for the rights of individuals. Their respect is for the trade union dictators, but our policies are all about the rights of the individual. Mr Elliott: His colleagues are going in that direction. They are going absolutely diametrically opposed to the way the Federal people are going. Mr HARPER: As the member for Cunningham rightly said, the Labor Party in this State is diametrically opposed to the path which even now its Labor colleagues are admitting is the right road down which to go. I repeat that our policies are about the rights of individuals—as people and enterprises. We pioneered the right of individuals to enter into employment agreements with their employers, unfettered by the dictates of heavy-handed trade union officials. The success of the voluntary employment agreement policies which the National Party introduced to Australia is apparent in many business enterprises—Powers Brewing and Metway Bank being notable in Queensland—and of course the SPC experience at Shepparton in Victoria is proving beyond doubt that productivity gains and resultant benefits for both employer and employee flow from realistic workplace bargaining. On the return of a coalition Government to Queensland, those policies will be reinstated, as will be the right of the individual to determine whether or not he or she wishes to belong to a trade union. Indeed, that right will extend to allow minimum groups of individuals to register as unions, if that is their choice. Why should the individual employee be forced to accept this Government’s and the Federal Labor Government’s philosophy of having trade unions no smaller than 10 000 or 20 000 individuals. We on the conservative side of politics say that any number of individuals have a right to group themselves together to achieve not only productivity for their employer but also improved working conditions for themselves. That is the road down which we will be moving. We will be acknowledging the rights of individuals to do their own thing in consultation with either their employees or employers. As I have said, our policies are all about the rights of the individual. When is this much-heralded Goss Labor regime going to recognise the rights of the individual, the rights of individual employees and the rights of individual employers? When is this Goss/Warburton team going to recognise its responsibility to get development in this State moving again? Undoubtedly there is an investment freeze in Queensland which the Goss Government and its multitude of committees cannot thaw because they have been responsible for its development. It is time for a return to the conservative Government which rightfully gave Queensland recognition as the development State of Australia. In his column in Saturday’s Courier-Mail, Peter Morley, of course, was only echoing the sentiments of the business community in Queensland when he acknowledged that the Legislative Assembly 1762 22 October 1991 only big job-creation projects Labor has delivered are those that were in the pipeline when the Nationals were in Government. Mr Littleproud: They have lost some of them. Mr HARPER: That is right; some have been lost. There were a lot more projects in the pipeline. As the member for Condamine rightly said, Labor has even lost some of those initiatives. The so-called Accord Mark VI has been an abject failure insofar as improving the productivity so essential to this nation's recovery from Labor's homespun recession—the home-made recession that Paul Keating claimed Australia had to have. No productivity improvement has occurred under the so- called structural efficiency principles. Indeed, surveys conducted by the Confederation of Industry indicate increased business costs without matching increases in productivity—and, of course, that is to be expected when the self-interest of union officials is allowed to intercede between the employee and the employer in their recognising meaningful objective workplace reforms in individual enterprises. The fact is that award-restructuring, which has been identified by BEVFET as creating demands beyond its capacity to meet, is an issue with which industry is now confronted. The effect of the training requirements within the restructuring could be beneficial in the longer term—and even in the shorter term—if only the totality of those involved would be sincere in their approach to improved productivity in real terms. Unfortunately, far too much comment which I hear indicates otherwise. One has to have the will in order to gain the productivity benefits that have been claimed with the so-called Accord Mark VI. Within the process which award-restructuring is intended to initiate, the need to improve literacy within our work force has been identified as probably a first—if not the first—step towards improved proficiency and, therefore, the efficiency and increased productivity upon which increased wages and improved working and living standards as well as the total economy of the nation are dependent. It is a sad fact of our educational system—in an age of technology which has given us incredible tools, including personal computers and word-processing—that literacy skills have probably deteriorated. Certainly, the understanding and use of our language—both written and oral—has not kept pace with development in the scientific fields. In increasing funding for vocational education and training, it is important that the Minister and his officers recognise the need—and I am sure that they do—to improve the literacy skills of those for whom the training is intended. I turn now to licensing legislation, which the Government is planning to introduce. It has two obvious spin-offs for the Government. Firstly, it will be a revenue-raiser, although apparently some Ministers have indicated that the revenue raised by the licence fees, which will be quite significant, will be directed into training activities. Secondly, under the present regime, particularly small subcontractors will tend to become employees, and will find that they have to join trade unions. When the conservative parties return to Government, that situation will be resolved. In the interim, those small subcontractors who tend to become employees will have to join trade unions or face all sorts of blackmail and bans. Those people who are not licensed for whatever reason also will become employees and again boost union membership. I question the need for this proposed licensing and certainly fear the possibility of it leading to a proliferation of building workers having very limited training and a resultant deterioration in overall standards of workmanship. However, I do have sympathy with a view that a carpenter or building contractor in the field of dwellings does not need the same skills as does a tradesman working on larger-scale industrial contracts. I acknowledge strong argument for categorisation between domestic- type and industrial-type contractors. Legislative Assembly 1763 22 October 1991

We hear of the Fitzgerald-inaugurated, non-elected EARC considering accountability and responsibility in matters of donations to political parties, despite the premeditated decision of this Government to remove such accountability requirements from the trade union movement through its industrial legislation, including the repeal of political objects fund provisions. What a farce! What a waste of taxpayers’ money, when the Government of the day has clearly signalled that it has no intention of requiring Labor’s accountability to be tested by public scrutiny and refuses to act on the accountability recommendations of the Cooke inquiry! What a farce it was also earlier today to listen to the member for Caboolture in this Chamber. The Minister indicated that this Government intends to shunt off to endless committees the recommendations of the Cooke inquiry for further recommendations and consideration by yet more committees. It is the old, perpetual-motion theory to ensure that nothing is done. This morning in this Chamber, the Minister indicated that is the track down which he intends to proceed. Responsibility for job creation does not rest with Government alone. Government can provide the climate in which development takes place. It can also provide the climate for expanded business activity, which in turn leads to job creation. Private enterprise also has a responsibility, particularly in relation to customer service. A few months ago, I was appalled to hear that K mart was going to dismiss two employees from each of its stores throughout Queensland. What peanuts—to dismiss or retrench two employees from each of those stores! K mart, Coles and Woolworths mainly employ juniors, anyhow. It is incomprehensible for a company such as that not to accept the responsibility to keep those people off the dole and in employment. It is certainly not acceptable to my philosophy. Stores, banks, other financial institutions, Myers, David Jones and other private enterprises are not accepting the responsibility of job creation. Within Australia it is foreign—and it should be foreign—for people to have to queue. I have talked about this matter with so many people, and they agree with me. When I walk into Myers to buy something, I have to chase around to find where it is. When I find the article that I want to buy, I have to wait for five minutes before someone can serve me. And then I will probably have to queue up. The Japanese have the right idea about this. They create employment, which takes people off the dole, gives them a sense of self-satisfaction and something meaningful to do. In the longer term, because of taxation savings, that probably costs very little to the employer. Larger companies and some other institutions should certainly expand employment opportunities rather than adopt this negative attitude by retrenching staff. Taxation payments on profits made by some of those companies would be much better directed to employees’ wages and improved customer service. That improved service could well result in expanded returns for those companies. I would like the Minister to address that important issue. I turn to the Anzac Day Trust. I find the report of the Anzac Day Trust very, very worrying. When the trust was introduced in 1965, an undertaking was given by those bodies that would profit from their being open on the afternoon of Anzac Day that a share of their income would be provided for ex- servicemen—for organisations such as Legacy and the RSL. What do we find when we look at the income received? Most of it comes through Government agencies—through the TAB and through a share of the licensed victuallers’ fees. That is not good enough. I see that hotels are not mentioned in the list. Many RSL sub-branches, bowls clubs and golf clubs make donations. The Ascot Taxi Cooperative makes a donation. The picture theatres, through Birch Carroll and Coyle, donate $500, which is not a lot. We see no contributions directly from the hotel-owners, nor from race clubs. We see a contribution through the licence fees that are being paid to the Government, but that is not the same as the hotels making a donation. I would like to see action taken in that regard. Legislative Assembly 1764 22 October 1991

If time permits, I will deal with waterfront reform, which is briefly touched on in the report. I would also like to touch on sections of the Workplace Health and Safety Act, which the Minister introduced. He has deceived the rural community by some of his misleading statements. Although codes of practice have been introduced, the Minister makes misleading and deceiving claims. The Act says that a court may hold that failure to comply with a code of conduct constitutes proof of a breach of a duty of care unless the court is satisfied that the person adopted standards of care which were at least equivalent to those described in the approved code of practice. That must be understood. Sitting suspended from 1.04 to 2.30 p.m. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes) (2.30 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to rise in this debate on the Estimates of the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. In doing so, I have pleasure in witnessing the continuation of Labor’s industrial relations policies which represent a very profound contrast to the alternative proffered by the Opposition and the Liberal and National Parties within this State. I wish to refer to one area in particular, that of industry consultation, which is a great hallmark of this party’s policy in the industrial relations sphere and which is in contrast to the confrontationist approach of the Liberal and National Parties. The Workplace Health and Safety Council represents the continuation of Labor’s policies in this respect, and that council is the peak advisory body under the Workplace Health and Safety Act. It advises the Minister on policy matters relating to workplace health and safety across industry. The council is also responsible for advising the Minister on the number and composition of industry workplace health and safety committees. Honourable members might wish to cast their minds back to the original enactment of the relevant legislation and remember the great hysteria and forecasts of doom and gloom that came from the Opposition benches which obviously have not materialised. The council comprises representatives from employee and employer organisations, senior Government officials and experts in the field of workplace health and safety. The Workplace Health and Safety Council advises the Government on the adoption of standards and strategies for Queensland. It considers standards developed on a national level and those which are more appropriate for conditions in Queensland. For example, recently the council recommended the adoption of a national standard for manual handling, but it may consider a Queensland specific standard for working in the heat, which would indeed be very appropriate. Mr Ardill: Mr Santoro doesn’t like the heat, does he? Mr FENLON: No, and I will come to the honourable member for Merthyr very shortly. The industry workplace health and safety committees provide input to assist the council in making recommendations. Twelve industry workplace health and safety committees have been established under the Workplace Health and Safety Act. Their primary role is to make recommendations to the Minister and the Workplace Health and Safety Council with respect to workplace health and safety legislation, education and community awareness concerning health and safety and workplace health and safety issues relating to various industries. The committee structure is designed to represent a broad cross-section of interests within industry. The membership of each committee consists of four employer, four employee and one Government representative. In addition, two expert members assist with advice on technical matters. Industry committees attempt to discuss and suggest means of resolving health and safety issues in industry, and they are able to provide a link between workplaces within an industry and the Government which has a responsibility to administer health and safety legislation. Industry committees also try to raise the awareness of employers, employees and others of their responsibilities under the Workplace Health and Safety Act. Health and safety seminars, information sessions and industry visits have been organised by some industry committees for this purpose. Industry committees have been formed in a number of Legislative Assembly 1765 22 October 1991 industries, including building, chemicals and chemical production, community services and public administration, diving, electricity, gas and water, engineering construction, finance, property and business services, manufacturing, recreational, personal and other services, retail and wholesale trade, rural and transport and storage industries. The Liberal Party member for Merthyr, Mr Santoro, has made repeated allegations in the press that the Goss Government has engaged in a policy of cronyism when making appointments to statutory authorities and committees. The allegations include various members of the industry committees to which I have just referred, especially union representatives. However, the Workplace Health and Safety Act requires that each industry committee have four employee representatives. These must necessarily be comprised of union representatives because, by definition, they are employee representatives. In an initial list released to the media and published in the Courier-Mail, Mr Santoro’s allegations simply listed the union members of certain industry committees. The Minister’s office responded to the allegations with a press release dated 2 August 1991 and entitled “Santoro should buy a street map”. The requirement of union representation on advisory committees to the Minister is a necessary prerequisite for fulfilling the need for industry consultation under the Workplace Health and Safety Act. It should be noted that an equal number of employer representatives is also appointed under the legislation. The growing list of initiatives emanating from these committees suggests that the appointment process continues to be most effective. The attitude of the Liberal Party can only be seen as absolutely patronising in its approach to working people in this State. On the one hand, the Liberal Party is purporting to support unionists; yet, on the other, it is denying them involvement in the fundamental decision-making processes that affect their lives. The Liberal attack is not an attack against cronyism but an attack against the participation of working people in the processes which directly affect their life, health and safety. That is absolutely clear, and history will record this greatest episode in hypocrisy ever to come out of that pathetic party in its attempt to discredit the Government over this matter. The model which has been adopted and which continues to be pursued under the health and safety legislation is a tripartite model. It is very difficult for the Liberal Party to understand the model and the fact that the model itself actually requires trade union people to be involved in it. If this is the alternative proposed by that party as an alternative Government, we in the Labor Party have little to fear. Members of the public can certainly see through the Liberal Party, and they can see that that is a policy born out of sheer ignorance and dishonesty. Members of the Liberal Party know quite well what the legislation says and what the model purports to be. They have been dishonest, and they go beyond that to attack the basic rights of working people to that type of involvement in workplace organisations. The Liberal alternative is very clear because it is presently being trialled in Australia. In New South Wales, the Greiner Government—the would-be model for Queensland’s local variety of Liberals—is trialling its great alternative in Australian State Government, that is, a model of confrontation. Mr Beattie: That’s right. Mr FENLON: They have nothing else to offer. The Liberals see that the Labor Party is making great gains in reorganising Australian industry and that it is changing the face of industrial relations by its progressive pace of reform. They cannot do better than that, so they have to go in completely the opposite direction and turn to the reactive forces that they represent. They have to go down the road of the good old model of “If all else fails, break, destroy, confront and wreck the gains that have already been made.” The Liberal Party’s proposals have been well reported in the media. The Australian of 24 August reports that the Liberals propose to outlaw closed shops, severely restrict industrial disputes and weaken the Industrial Commission’s power in regard to enterprise Legislative Assembly 1766 22 October 1991 agreements. The proposal is to fix the terms of agreement between one and three years, restrict industrial action during the life of the agreement and impose substantial penalties on those who breach injunctions ordered by a new industrial court. The Liberals have to resort to these desperate measures because they cannot cope with the fact that, as a result of Labor’s achievements in industrial relations, the level of industrial disputation has radically decreased and has been kept down while Australian workers—— Mr Veivers: What about unemployment? Mr FENLON: I am sure the member for Southport will remember that in the last decade Australian workers have actually given away substantial amounts of value in their wages. Australian working people have had the level of their wages substantially reduced within this decade, and they have done that by agreement. Mr Santoro: Under Labor Governments. Mr FENLON: That is right. They have done that under Labor Governments by agreement. They have said, “This is fair. This is reasonable.” Mr Santoro: He has admitted it. Mr FENLON: I take the member for Merthyr’s interjection. Mr Santoro: He has admitted that workers have had their real wages reduced. Mr FENLON: That is right. It is a fact. I can provide the honourable member with the statistical data, but the severity and the extent to which the Liberal/National Party in New South Wales want to take that further is illustrated by the fact that conservative unions such as the Professional Officers Association and the Public Service Association of New South Wales are going on strike. They are doing so because the New South Wales Government proposes to take wage-cutting and an attack on workers’ rights even further in that State than workers have allowed to occur, have complied with, and have agreed to. The people who live in New South Wales can see that members of the Liberal Party want to take that process even further and, in a far more radical way, take away from those workers basic rights. That is the alternative, and that is what is being proposed as an alternative for Queensland’s working people. Having dealt with the Liberal Party—the record is clear—I will move on to another topic. I turn now to VETEC, to which the Minister referred briefly this morning. VETEC contains the Accreditation, Certification and Recognition Division, which ensures the quality of all courses of vocational education and training offered in TAFE and senior colleges, and some courses offered by commercial and enterprise providers on a voluntary basis. In the last financial year, 95 courses were certified as having standards appropriate to the awards for which the courses were introduced. The number will be increased significantly through the operation of the new accreditation council. Colleges that offer accredited courses are also assessed to ensure that they have appropriate staff to teach the courses, and that those teachers have the minimum physical resources, that is, equipment, library facilities, computer software and so on. As a result of the increase in the number of accredited courses, more and more colleges will undergo this type of assessment this year. Time expired. Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (2.53 p.m.): I will respond fully and specifically to the comments that have been made about me and the Liberal Party by the honourable member for Greenslopes not only in the course of the comments that I am about to make but also towards the end of my speech. In the brief time available to me today, I wish to address several issues arising from the annual report of the Department of Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and from statements made recently by the Honourable the Minister. What I will mainly seek to do is to analyse some of the mischievous—some have Legislative Assembly 1767 22 October 1991 even said fraudulent—claims made by the Minister and particularly by his Labor and union colleagues, both within Queensland and interstate. They are claims and statements the Minister says find legitimacy and back-up in some of the research findings detailed within the abovementioned annual report. The claims being made by the Minister and reiterated by his Labor and trade union cohorts across Australia include, firstly, in the one breath, a rejection of the concept of enterprise bargaining as espoused by the Liberal party, the Business Council of Australia, and even revered organisations such as the HR Nicholls Society—— Mr Fenlon: You’re a member, aren’t you? Mr SANTORO: No, I am not a member of that society, but the honourable member will be very interested to hear that I have asked for an application form. The second claim is the quoting of so- called “non-compliance with award conditions” statistics as the main reason why this rejection of true enterprise bargaining by the Labor and trade union movement is justified. These figures are presented in the annual report and will be commented upon shortly. The third and perhaps most interesting claim by the ALP—including this Minister and his Government—is that the ALP and the union movement are indeed the players within the Australian industrial relations system who are responsible for the introduction and the flourishing of the concept of enterprise bargaining. With all due respect to the Minister and members opposite, the above claims and the impressions that they create are, in my view, intellectually dishonest, not based on the reality of the workplace and seek to take the credit and the goodwill for the good aspects of genuine enterprise bargaining and its acceptance in the general community. When addressing the recent annual conference of the Industrial Relations Society of Queensland, the Honourable the Minister said about enterprise bargaining that “the majority of workers are confused and concerned about the inconclusiveness of the debate”. I interrupt the quote by saying that the Minister is referring to enterprise bargaining. He continued, “I find this disturbing.” How funny that the Minister claims to be disturbed, for the confusion—indeed the devastation—of the industrial relations environment in Queensland's workplaces is the result of the Minister's and his Government's actions and the blatant attempts to muddy the true course of history. The Minister's definition of enterprise bargaining as enshrined in legislation and therefore practised and brought down by the industrial courts of this State is rooted in a system that is antiquated, out of touch with economic and marketplace realities and one which, in the opinion of the Liberal Party, precludes the operation of the principles of true enterprise bargaining. This system found its genesis in the great constitutional conventions at the turn of the century which saw the concept of conciliation and arbitration blossom within the rarefied atmosphere of heavily centralised and, in most cases, remote industrial courts for which the Minister has responsibility these days. Conciliation and arbitration had three major objectives which were put forward as advantages by its proponents. These are— (1) an end to strikes— which the honourable member for Greenslopes referred to extensively— (2) the provision of an independent judicial process to the industrial relations system; and (3) an acceptance of the decisions of such a judicial process. As I said before, time is short, and in the time available to me I will not go into great detail about my belief that the system has failed to deliver in relation to the above objectives. Over a period of 90 years, attempts to channel industrial conflict have clearly failed. Legislative Assembly 1768 22 October 1991

Strikes and other forms of industrial militancy still occur, mainly through the lack of adequate penalties and because the centralised system encourages unions to create disputes in order to put the ball back into the employer’s court. It is the employer to whom the conciliation and arbitration system and commissions automatically look to for solutions or at least responses. At this point I will answer one of the claims made by the honourable member for Greenslopes who said that Australia is strike free. I wanted to draw the honourable member’s attention, and that of the Chamber, to the headline and the direct quote—— Mr FENLON: I rise to a point of order. I did not say that Australia was strike free. I said that under Labor the level of strikes had significantly decreased. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): I accept that point of order. Mr SANTORO: I do apologise to the honourable member. He is correct. That is what the honourable member said. However, the incidence of strikes in this State and across Australia is so bad that Lord Mayor Soorley has claimed that one of his justifications for going to Japan and South East Asia is so he can explain to people that in fact Australia, including Queensland, is not as strike-torn as people believe it is. The other point is that judgments of industrial courts, I would suggest, are not always independent in the true sense of the word because industrial commissions invariably believe that it is their responsibility to settle disputes and therefore, wherever possible, they go for soft options. The third point is that the decisions of the centralised industrial courts are the result of the interaction of the big players of the industrial relations system rather than the small players, and vital individual contributors are being rejected. This is very obvious to all who, during the past five years, have seen and experienced the intellectual and practical pressure of the genuine enterprise bargaining argument. The crux of my major argument is that enterprise bargaining has come onto the industrial relations scene as a saving beacon but its intent, let alone its effectiveness, has been blunted by the hysterical resistance of practitioners who have their feet and their values deeply embedded in a system which rejects true enterprise bargaining—true enterprise bargaining which should be sanctioned and, where necessary, presided over by an independent judicial umpire with enforcement powers. I say to the Minister that we do believe that the system must contain a strong independent umpire and should be based on the voluntary interaction of the main and vital players in the industrial relations scene, these being the employees and the employers in enterprises. That is the system that the majority of the players in the marketplace want—a system which has equitable and enforceable bottom lines, but which is free of the legislatively coercive role of unions and union officials and, in some cases—I do not mind admitting it—employer organisations. The system that the Minister administers through his department, as detailed in the report, is certainly not the genuine enterprise bargaining system which I have sought to describe in such a few words and which I have previously described in much greater detail. The Minister mischievously tries to convince the Queensland public that this is the system that is really in operation because he knows that it is this system that the public truly supports. One has only to look at the statistics which show the degree of union membership, both within the private work force and the public work force, to see the eminently sensible truth and validity of the statement that I have just made. The vast majority of the members of the work force do not want to be in the system that the Minister, through his legislation, clearly supports, and that Labor Governments right across Australia seek to support and enshrine in legislation. Thirty per cent of the overall Australian work force—and only 30 per cent—seek to belong within organised union structures. The rest are quite happy to be free from the Legislative Assembly 1769 22 October 1991 coercive role that unions seek to bring into the workplaces where most people work free of union interference. I will take the interjection from an honourable member opposite who referred to the figure of 43 per cent. When one includes the coercive input of the public sector unions where these days in Queensland people cannot join the public service unless they sign on the dotted line that they will join a union within two weeks, the average of union membership of course goes up. However, that percentage is only bumped up because of the coercive influence that this legislation brings to bear on people who intend to make an honourable career within the public service. What the Minister does not say and does not stress is the exact nature of his enterprise bargaining equation. It entrenches the legally enforced role of the big players who often do not have the real interests of the workers at heart. To justify this legally enforced departure from true enterprise bargaining, the Minister quotes from a survey conducted by his inspectorate—his growing inspectorate, I should say—which has allegedly found that a great number of employers are not complying with award provisions for workplaces within the Queensland economy. The figures contained in the report are interesting, and they do refer to breaches of award in relation to contraventions of an award, or the Industrial Relations Act, for example, in relation to wages. They refer to employers who were inspected and had failed to keep wages and time records as prescribed by the Industrial Relations Act, and there is no doubt that these particular findings are in fact correct. I have not sought to dispute the validity of the findings about which the Minister has spoken both within and outside this place. In his speech to the industrial relations conference, and also within this place, the Minister has used these findings to justify his opposition and that of his Government to genuine enterprise agreements—that is, those agreements struck directly between employers and employees without the intervention of a middle man in the form of an industrial organisation, be it either a union of employees or a union of employers. The answers to these objections are as simple as they are clear. Firstly, if the Minister cares to release the full details of the survey, many of the so-called breaches will be shown to be technical. Before the Minister says that is not true, I point out that I have admitted the validity of the findings in relation to wages and other breaches. If he releases the details, he will realise that other breaches involve such things as failing to write up time and wages books, or failing to pin up a copy of the award. I suggest to the Minister that these technical failures are a product of overregulation, not a support for centralised bargaining. Secondly, and more importantly—and members opposite should listen—award breaches have nothing to do with whether or not enterprise bargaining would be successful and to the mutual advantage of employers and employees. They only indicate that in certain cases award conditions are not being delivered. We admit that. Surely the parties to a registered bargain, a contract, are in a better position to know if the conditions they have bargained for are being met, and, if not, to take appropriate action. This is indeed one of the true advantages of genuine enterprise bargaining. Employees will be fully aware of their obligations as well as their rights because they will have been fully involved in the negotiations right from the start. Right from the word go they will be able to monitor the performance of their contract, and if there is any breach of provisions, they will be able to go to an independent arbitrator, a judicial body with the legal clout to enforce the contract. It should be obvious that the Liberal Party rejects the attempts by the Labor Party in this State and elsewhere in Australia to take credit for a concept of enterprise bargaining which has not been accepted by the Government and is clearly evident within their legislative efforts to date. I wish to turn my attention to a few other specifics. Within the Courier-Mail recently—and I invite the Minister to respond to this in his summing-up remarks—there was a report which suggested plans for the expansion of the Kelvin Grove campus of the Legislative Assembly 1770 22 October 1991

Queensland University of Technology include the acquisition of land currently occupied by the facility within the department designed at the moment to provide accommodation for those intrastate and interstate apprentices and trainees directed to Brisbane metropolitan colleges of TAFE for their block release training. I ask the Minister to advise the Committee in his reply as to what arrangements are being made to provide alternative accommodation for the approximately 900 apprentices and trainees who make use of the TAFE hall of residence each year? If he really wants to assist people to become trained, and comfortably so, he should be aware that some people have put it to me that they will be severely disadvantaged by those particular plans. I ask the Minister for a response. In relation to the point on cronyism made by the honourable member for Greenslopes—I do not profess to come into this place and say that all the appointments that are being made are not being made validly under current legislative provisions. All I am doing is just what Government members used to do when in Opposition, that is, detailing in the Chamber the political and union affiliations of every appointee. That is what those members used to do, and I will continue to do so. I will be tabling plenty more in the forthcoming two weeks. The honourable member can rest assured that I will be doing it and, if it hurts, he can cop it, because I am not going to stop. The other point I wish to make is in regard to the bleating by Premier Goss about funding hand- outs and the way the Commonwealth has cut funding to TAFE. If he is fair dinkum, let him listen very clearly to the message I gave him this morning. Let him start threatening Hawke, who is so blatantly disadvantaging this Government; let him start threatening him with lack of support of Queenslanders; and, therefore, let him truly deliver the Federal support that is wanted by the young people, the hundreds of thousands of unemployed people and the TAFE students of this State. Time expired. Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton North) (3.00 p.m.): I used to be one of those people who subscribed to the theory that overseas travel broadened people’s minds. Having listened to the speech from the globetrotting member for Merthyr, I will have to rethink my perspective on that. I suppose that in his case constant stoning does not wear away a drip. I have heard that speech recycled more times than the whole recycling program conducted by the Brisbane City Council. Mrs Woodgate interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes. If he were to make the appropriate application to the Honourable the Minister for Environment, he would probably receive the recycling award for the year. Leaving aside those negative comments—— Mr Santoro: Devastated yet again. Mr SCHWARTEN: Demonstrated yet again? Mr Santoro: No, “devastated”. Mr SCHWARTEN: I thought the honourable member said “demonstrated yet again”. I can see how devastated he is and that he is as short on facts as he is on rhetoric. I place on record that, although Mr Santoro’s predecessor, Sir William Knox, was at the helm of employment in this State while the coalition was practising in Queensland in the early 1980s, we had record unemployment of more than 11 per cent. At that stage, a window of opportunity was open to that Government to counteract that unemployment. Mr Santoro: That is just simply not true. We never had 11 per cent. It is not true. Mr SCHWARTEN: The honourable member should investigate the matter before he starts bickering with me about facts. The fact is that unemployment was over 11 per cent, that his predecessor was at the helm and that he did nothing to counteract it. In fact, at that time education spending in this State was cut significantly. If he so desires, the Legislative Assembly 1771 22 October 1991 honourable member can check that out. We need to contrast that performance with what this Government is putting into place at a time of dire economic hardship for everybody. Mr Harper: Who brought that on? Mr SCHWARTEN: Of course, the end result of that economic hardship has been an intolerable unemployment rate. I certainly do not have any joy in speaking about the poor devils who cannot find work. It seems to me that members opposite find a great deal of glee in the hardship of those people. I certainly do not. Through its recently released Budget, this Government is trying its best to do something about the problem. We want to make sure that, when we come out of this recession—which is predicted to be next year—we do not have the skill drain or absence of skill that occurred in 1983-84 and have to look elsewhere to build up our skill base. That is why this Budget has allocated an additional $80m—21 per cent more—for training in this State. On this side of the Chamber, we understand that we have an obligation to the young people who cannot find work to cushion the blow of the recession, that is, to give them the best capacity to find work, which is to make them as skilful as we possibly can. Mr Veivers: When are we going to be out of this recession? You’re the Messiah. Mr SCHWARTEN: I will share some statistics with the loud-mouthed member from Southport who was almost thrown out of the Chamber this morning. Mr Veivers: We’ve been listening to this sort of garbage for about two years. Mr SCHWARTEN: For the benefit of my learned overweight friend, I will recite the facts of the Budget. An extra $14.1m will be spent on new initiatives, with a special focus on Queensland youth. If Opposition members do not like the Government’s spending money on our youth, that is fine. As well, $9.8m has been allocated to create an extra 8 000 TAFE places. Obviously, the honourable member will also deride that effort. It is clear to me that he had never been unemployed until he entered this place, but he soon will be. The Budget will provide 5 000 places in pre-employment and prevocational courses, 1 000 places for people already in the workplace but needing retraining, 1 000 places for disadvantaged and underprivileged people in courses including numeracy and literacy, and 1 000 full time places in associate diploma courses in the fields of tourism and hospitality, business, computing, community services and buildings. They are the types of initiatives that the Government is providing to youth. The overall employment statistics tend to confuse the fact that, throughout Australia, if we pluck out the unemployment rate for youth, it is considerably higher than that which is the average for all unemployed. That is the group that we need to target. I do not believe that anybody denies that that is the case. I turn now to the Rockhampton College of TAFE. Out of the $54m that has been allocated for extra capital works, the Rockhampton College of TAFE has snared $5m for a new building. I refer specifically to the new technology building to house apprenticeship and middle level building trades courses, computer-aided drafting, electronics, and studio ceramics. It is very important that that facility be available at Rockhampton. I am a great supporter of Rockhampton TAFE, which has 3 737 students currently on the vocational roll as well as others in adult education. It has five campuses, including Yeppoon, which is important to the people who reside on the Capricorn Coast. Unfortunately, at this stage the region has insufficient demand to warrant more facilities. The major college is in Canning Street. I applaud the director, Mr Keith Jordan, on the fine job that he has carried out since he was appointed to that position. He has put his shoulder to the wheel. His staff of 167 are more than competently discharging their duties. Overall, we have something to be proud of in our TAFE college facility in Rockhampton. While the National Party was in power, there was no great willingness to throw money towards those initiatives in Rockhampton. Legislative Assembly 1772 22 October 1991

The other issue that I wish to raise relates to the target group—our youth—and the need for cooperation between the various educational forums that look after the 15 to 19-year-olds. When the Education Department and TAFE went their separate ways, there was a great deal of reluctance on the part of both of those bodies to cooperate. Thankfully now, this Minister, Mr Warburton, and the Minister for Education, Mr Braddy, are tick-tacking with each other on a whole host of issues. The winners out of that have to be our youth, who can now access the various forums. Rockhampton is a classic example of just how well that can work. A memorandum of understanding is about to be signed between the University of Central Queensland and the Rockhampton TAFE College to run a hospitality course between the two groups so that the accreditation will cross-flow. It makes absolute sense to me that that occur. It makes maximum use of the facilities in Rockhampton. A similar operation is taking place between the secondary schools and the College of TAFE in Rockhampton. They are putting together a green-keeping course on the TAFE facility opposite the North Rockhampton High School. The fact is that the 15 to 19-year-old group is the group that we have to look after. If we are to do anything about resolving our future problems, we have to ensure that, by the time they are 20, people in that group are employable. Once they reach the age of 20, or are between 20 and 25, and are unemployed or have never had a job, it is quite likely that they never will get one. There is plenty of statistical evidence to back that up. The longer people are unemployed, the less skilful and the less employable they become. That is a fact of life. That is borne out by all sorts of research. It is not only a Statewide or an Australiawide trend but also a worldwide trend. We have to ensure that the people in the 15 to 19-year-age group have relative skills. Providing competency-based training is one way of enhancing the training program. TAFE colleges in this State are already responding in that direction. It is the way to the future. Of course, multiskilling is the way to the future. We have to ensure that our colleges are responding—and, indeed, they are. If we went along the track that we were following previously, we would not have been able to respond in that way. The solution to the problem lies in the higher education institutions, such as the universities and the TAFE colleges, interfacing with secondary schools. There is no earthly good in having those three institutions operating in vacuums, which was previously the case. Mr Veivers: He’s saying that’s where our livelihoods stand. We can’t place the people in these institutions. There’s not enough gaps. Ask your Minister about that. Mr SCHWARTEN: There are not enough what? Mr Veivers: There are not enough positions for the children, the young people going into tertiary education. Mr SCHWARTEN: This Government has provided 8 000 more places, which should be contrasted with what the National Party Government did. There are now 8 000 more positions. Under this Government, 8 000 more people have been given an opportunity to be trained or retrained. They would not have been given that opportunity under the National Party; that is for certain. Members opposite do not like that, but that is the reality. The reality is that more young people today will have an opportunity to be retrained or trained than would have been the case under the National Party Government. Take, for example, the very innovative program at Rockhampton TAFE, the skill development program, which has taken long-term unemployed—— Mr Veivers: We must be more advanced in Southport than in Rockhampton. Mr SCHWARTEN: The honourable member should just sit there. Even he might understand this. Ms Robson: I doubt it. Legislative Assembly 1773 22 October 1991

Mr SCHWARTEN: I doubt it, too, but I will try to explain it to him. Mr Veivers: I’m going to the TAFE tonight. I’m going to tell them exactly what you said. Mr SCHWARTEN: I think the honourable member ought to go and see his psychiatrist. The aim of the skill development program is to get long-term unemployed people from the CES office, through the TAFE system and out onto the Stanwell project. Those people will start in some labouring position and, hopefully at the end of the day, will end up working at the Stanwell Power Station. That is a terrific program. There is actually one such program in the honourable member’s electorate, down at the university—— Mr Veivers: Griffith. Mr SCHWARTEN: No. It is at the university in the honourable member’s area. In fact, I went down and opened it. I noted that he was not there. Mr Veivers: I wasn’t invited. Mr SCHWARTEN: The honourable member was invited. He tendered an apology. It was frightening to see the number of people who had been on the unemployed scrap heap. The good thing about it is that it is a retrieval program. This Government is about addressing recession through retraining and restructuring and through reinforcing the education model in our training schools. With those few words, I support the Minister for the intestinal fortitude that he has shown in the restructuring of TAFE in this State. It is the way forward. It is working. The dividends will probably not be evident in my life-time, but they will be evident in my kids’ life-time. I applaud the Minister accordingly. Mr COOPER (Roma—Leader of the Opposition) (3.15 p.m.): I have taken on board a few of the points made by the member for North Rockhampton. I am sure that he made them with the best of intentions. He mentioned training schemes and TAFE colleges in the Rockhampton area. As all members know, those facilities exist throughout the State thanks to the former National Party Government. Government members interjected. Mr COOPER: I challenge Government members to deny that. I recognise that training programs are necessary both in this State and around the nation, but there must be jobs at the end of those programs. There is a lack of emphasis on job creation. The most damning factor is that unemployment in this State is virtually out of control. In the past 20 months, 50 100 people—about 620 people a week—have gone onto the dole. I ask honourable members to stop and think about that. That figure of 620 would probably represent the population of a town such as Goombungee. Mr Veivers: There’s 2 per cent who don’t even apply for the dole. Mr COOPER: Many people prefer not to go onto the dole. I understand how they feel. Obviously, they must be sustained. Nevertheless, they do not necessarily want the stigma of going onto the dole. Many of them go back to mum and dad to be looked after. The level of unemployment is a major factor, and will remain a major factor throughout 1992. Unemployment is rising at a totally unacceptable rate. It is staggering that 50 100 people have gone onto the dole in the past 20 months. As I said, 620 people probably represents the population of a town such as Goombungee—or many other towns throughout the State—going onto the dole each week. That is absolutely disgraceful. The level of youth unemployment—the 15 to 19-year-old group—is 28 per cent. Those people, who are probably our most important resource because they are just starting out after leaving school, are developing into a culture of unemployed. That must worry many people. The longer those people remain out of work without the benefit or dignity of a job, the sooner they will lose their confidence and accept failure—or their belief that it is failure—as the norm. I am sure that none of us could tolerate that. Legislative Assembly 1774 22 October 1991

I do not believe that the Government has done enough in relation to job creation. In fact, I would say that it has done next to nothing. I believe that it has been preoccupied in other sectors, such as social justice and public sector reform. This Government has been brutalising the public service and concentrating with vehemence and vindictiveness on people who have served the public well over a long period. The Government should be concentrating on the real problems of which everybody is aware. Whereas some people—thankfully—can say that they have some sort of job, others have nothing to look forward to because there is no emphasis on job creation. I am not saying that this Government has to spend all the money and do all the building and construction. The Opposition agrees with the need for a capital works program, which is gradually coming into place 12 months to 18 months too late. However, it has not been accelerated quickly enough. The message going out to the private sector is not one of confidence. Therefore, the private sector is pulling back. Every week, more and more people are being put out of work. That is a tragedy. By its very actions, the Government can telegraph a message of confidence to the private sector, which then has a responsibility to get on with the job. At the moment, the private sector has no confidence. The Government must set the example. It is no use belting the private sector and saying that it should be doing this or that. This Government is not setting that example. Scores of multimillion-dollar developments around the State are still on the drawing board from the time of the former National Party Government. Those developments would encourage the private sector. But this Government chooses to do negative things such as dismantling the industrial relations system in order to keep faith with its union mates. Industrial relations legislation and legislation relating to power workers has been repealed. Legislation that provided for voluntary employment agreements has also been repealed. In the field of industrial relations, Queensland has gone back at least 40 years to the period described as the Dark Ages. There has been one law for unions and unionists and another law for the rest of the State. The level of accountability of unions and unionists has gone out the door. When the National Party returns to office, it will immediately redress that situation. I do not know what on earth was wrong with voluntary employment agreements. They were very acceptable to employees and employers. Both did very well from them, as did the State. Yet, out of sheer vindictiveness and bloody-mindedness, those agreements were repealed by this Government solely to do a favour for its cronies in the union movement. For example, under voluntary employment agreements the productivity of employees at Power Brewing increased quite incredibly. The average employee at Power Brewing was earning an additional $203 a week or $10,000 a year more than his union counterparts in any other brewery. Power Brewing’s productivity rose by 100 per cent. Although the productivity of the employer and employees increased, that agreement was wiped out of sheer bloody-mindedness. Mr Lester: Is it right that the Power workers worked 10 hours a day and only had to work four days a week instead of five? Mr COOPER: That is correct. They were able to make their own arrangements as long as they kept within their award. They lost nothing. In fact, they gained through flexible working hours. The whole idea of the agreements was increased productivity. That is what we should be talking about. Unfortunately, this Government is out of step. It is well and truly behind the times, even in relation to its Federal counterpart. While the Premier and the Minister were dismantling voluntary employment agreements, Paul Keating was in Japan telling businessmen that enterprise agreements and enterprise bargaining were the way to go. As for human rights—Mr Keating could perhaps be compared with Ceausescu. Keating had a similar relationship with unemployed people, but for once he got it right. In more Legislative Assembly 1775 22 October 1991 recent times, such sentiments have been endorsed by Senator Button, who is the only economic rationalist in Canberra amongst a mob of economic muddlers. As for the Boyne Island smelter and the sale of the Gladstone Power Station—Senator Button said that the Government should get on with the job of selling that power station. It would mean that a $2 billion expansion of the Boyne Island smelter could get off the ground. One thousand jobs could be created. Over the life-time of the Weipa deposits, it would be a $6 billion industry. That would telegraph to private enterprise and to people in general a tremendous message of confidence that things were moving, yet still it does not happen. Queensland has also taken a giant step backwards in industrial relations. The provisions that were removed by the power workers legislation will have to be returned as soon as the National Party returns to office in order to assure people and industry that they will have a continuous and reliable supply of electricity. The problem with the Federal Government is that so many Labor policies have failed, but the Labor Party in Canberra is starting to wake up. So many of its policies on employment and industrial relations have failed that, at last, the Federal Government is starting to embrace some of the more realistic measures that are needed to turn our nation around. It is beginning to recognise that increased productivity is the linchpin of our economic aims, yet the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the Premier, Mr Goss, are going in totally different directions. The Federal Labor Government backs enterprise agreements in order to lift productivity while the Queensland Government denies Queensland workers the right to benefit from the fruits of their efforts to increase productivity by being able to form a working relationship—a working agreement. In this day and age in this State, although it is legal for two people to engage in homosexual activity, two workers cannot enter into a legal working agreement. The priorities of the Government are way off the rails. The National Party Government was advanced in its thinking on voluntary employment agreements. It recognised the need for enterprise bargaining, and it was the initiator of those agreements. Queensland was the first State in the Commonwealth to introduce voluntary employment agreements. It was a bloody-minded act by the Labor Government to remove those agreements but, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, they will return. Voluntary employment agreements are the way to go. They are the only practical approach to industrial relations. Throughout 1992, the rising unemployment figures in Queensland are likely to have a very dramatic effect on industrial relations. Therefore, the problem will simply not go away and no amount of wishful thinking will send it away. A tremendous amount of work must be done. It is sickening to see the ganging-up of Labor Party Premiers against the Prime Minister while he is overseas at CHOGM in order to put the boot into him and blame him for all of the unemployment when the States themselves could have done, and still can do, so much more. The tragic fact is that in 1992 this State will undoubtedly see double-digit unemployment figures. No-one looks forward to that, but advisers to the Federal Labor Government predict those figures. The most damning evidence of that is the leaked Cabinet document, which predicts that, by the June quarter next year, Australia will have 11 per cent unemployment. I sincerely hope that unemployment in Queensland will not reach that figure, that it will not break 10 per cent, but that the figure will be reduced. What price, then, our industrial relations environment? That environment is helping to cause so much unemployment. When the emphasis should be on enterprise agreements and VEAs, as is recognised now by nearly all political parties in the nation, how will the Queensland Government explain its old-fashioned industrial relations policies? Let us look at the awful spectre of unemployment as outlined by Labor’s own advisers to the Federal Cabinet. They say— “It seems that the more recent labour market figures have confirmed pessimistic forecasts. We are looking towards the end of 1992-93 for any significant improvement in unemployment in the number of long-term unemployed.” Legislative Assembly 1776 22 October 1991

That is an awful admission to have made. The number of people who are classified as long-term unemployed, that is, they have been unemployed for 12 months or more, is likely to increase by 350 000. This country faces the chilling prospect of hundreds of thousands of people who have been unemployed for more than 12 months. That creates another culture for this country, a culture that no- one on either side of the political fence can tolerate. Governments should direct their attention to those major issues of employment and industrial relations and move away from actions such as terrorising the public service. The high number of those permanently unemployed people is a result of policies and mistakes by bankrupt State Labor Governments and the Federal Government. I reiterate some parts of National Party policy that will be put into place upon the National Party’s return to office. Most certainly, employers and employees will be able to negotiate mutually agreeable working arrangements, if they so choose. Having been made, those arrangements will become legally binding and enforceable on both parties within prescribed parameters. In essence, that is the voluntary employment agreement. Queensland will have no compulsory unionism. There will be no monopoly privileges of employee or employer representation. That will be terminated. Secret ballots of all employees in an enterprise will be required before any strike may be called. I commend the shadow Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. He has had a tremendous amount of experience in that field. In the past 12 months, his contribution was of great value to all parties, and I commend him for the work that he has done. Mr ELDER (Manly) (3.30 p.m.): In the last three minutes of the previous speaker’s speech I waited with bated breath to find out if he would tell us what the National Party’s prescription would be for an industrial relations policy if and when it ever comes to power. It has not changed. The National Party was in Government for 32 years and it has not changed or learnt anything. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about VEAs and other such agreements, he should go down to Power Brewing and have a talk to Bernie Power about the VEAs, which are recognised by the Industrial Commission. He will find out just how beneficial they are to Bernie Power and his work force. All the National Party Government was responsible for was some of the most draconian legislation that was ever introduced in this State. The members of the National Party have selective amnesia. I am pleased to join in this Estimates debate. Fortunately, this Government recognises that much needs to be done to help foster and develop training programs at workplace level. We need to increase the skills and training of our most important and vital resource—our work force. The Government’s prime economic objective is to develop this State’s economy by attracting new industries, allowing for the modernisation of existing industries, and developing our export base and value-added industries. Mr Harper interjected. Mr ELDER: This Government is doing far more than the National Party ever did. The National Party had a wish list containing 90 programs and none of them ever came to fruition. All the National Party did each year was publish a wish list of projects in this State. Can the honourable member name one project out of the 90 that the National Party Government implemented? I can take him to my office and show him the previous Government’s list. Not one project did that Government ever bring on board or on stream before this Labor Government was elected. To achieve that objective we must ensure that our work force has the skills and training required by modern industry to meet that need. It is interesting to note that in the past year there were 13 100 full-time and 149 200 part-time enrolments in access and vocational educational courses and 88 300 enrolments in adult and Legislative Assembly 1777 22 October 1991 continuing education courses in Queensland TAFE and senior colleges. Full-time and part-time enrolments increased by 16.5 per cent and 23.7 per cent respectively and enrolments in adult and continuing education courses increased by 6.4 per cent. The fact that so many people have elected to undertake formal vocational education is an indication that the Queensland community as a whole—the employers, employees and community at large—recognise that prosperity must be earned and that life- long learning is an important means of coping with the rapid technological developments in our industries in this State. In order to meet this Government’s dual objectives of improving the skills of the Queensland work force and increasing vocational education and training opportunities for Queenslanders, we are pursuing three broad strategies for the vocational education and training system. They are as follows— increasing the provision of vocational education and training; improving the quality and relevance of that provision; and improving access. I commend the Minister because this year the portfolio of Employment, Training and Industrial Relations has received a record $405.4m Budget allocation for vocational education, training and employment. As the member for Rockhampton North said, this is a 21 per cent increase and a $70m increase on last year. Mr Harper: What are they going to do when they finish training? Mr ELDER: I do not recall those increases being included in the National Party Government’s Budgets. Mr Harper: That is right. Mr ELDER: I do not ever recall seeing increases of that type in National Party Government Budgets. The National Party had its opportunity, but, as the saying goes, it missed the boat. The Government is now at the end of an 18-month reform process which has seen the system placed on a new legislative footing to enable it to service industry needs right across the State. We are now able to significantly increase the level of TAFE training and employment services. It is worth noting the key initiatives brought forward by the Minister. A sum of $9.8m was provided for an additional 8 200 places in access, initial vocational skills, advanced vocational skills and associate diploma courses. I wish to point out—and the member for Rockhampton North emphasised this point—that places will be allocated throughout the State with special focus on the 15 to 19-year age group, the unemployed and key industry needs. The simple fact is that for too long very little has been done in the area of TAFE education in this State. Members of the Opposition continually complain during debates in this House and say that this Government is not doing enough. This Government has done far more than the National Party ever did during its entire 32 years in office. The National Party must have had some vision as to what would occur in this State, yet it practised Vince Lester’s old tactic of walking backwards. The National Party Government had the old turtle-neck syndrome; it kept its head in its shell and had no vision of what would happen in the State. It never spent money in this area and ignored it. That was the problem. It accepted the status quo and did not look beyond it. Mr Nunn interjected. Mr ELDER: Yes, white-shoe manufacturers. Mr Nunn interjected. Mr ELDER: Yes, they trained a lot of them, and where are they today? The sum of $3.5m has been allocated to provide training opportunities for 1 200 young people who are seriously disadvantaged in the labour market and to permanently employ employment coordinators in TAFE sectors and senior colleges. The sum of $750,000 will provide seeding funds to stimulate the establishment of enterprise training and provide industry Legislative Assembly 1778 22 October 1991 with a skills audit service to identify specific training needs. In addition, in conjunction with the Commonwealth, there is an increase of $14m in funding for capital works to establish new TAFE facilities and refurbishment of old and existing facilities. It is anticipated that this will create an extra 2 400 places in the TAFE system. In addition, there is an increase in recurrent funding of some $6m to provide staffing and resources to fully utilise these facilities when they come on stream. It is anticipated that the new facilities will be completed after the implementation of this Budget. The Government has targeted areas where improved skills are paramount. This will ensure that Queensland emerges with a labour force that is well placed to take advantage of the inevitable upturn and that the short-term unemployed in Queensland do not become long-term unemployed. The recent review of adult literacy titled Open Doors outlined the problems of functional illiteracy in the workplace. As the Minister stated in his ministerial statement in this Chamber, it is estimated that this affects at least 10 per cent of Queensland’s population. The seriousness of this problem can be appreciated by the national figures provided by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which estimates lost productivity to the value of $6 billion per year. That 10 per cent equates to some 200 000 Queensland adults who require basic literacy services. Because this review confirms that at least 200 000 Queensland adults require basic literacy services, it does not mean that there are 200 000 Queenslanders who are illiterate, nor does it mean that our general education system has failed. What it means is that workplace literacy skills must be developed sufficiently to enable the workplace and the economy to undergo technological change. Very few unskilled jobs remain, and today almost every activity requires some form of qualification. This means that, because of award restructuring, people in the workplace are facing frequent and regular training. They definitely need to improve their literacy skills in order to cope with a training course. In Labor’s pre-election policy initiatives statement, “Literacy strategy 1990 and Beyond”, an undertaking was given to address the problem of functional illiteracy. In particular, undertakings were given to review the funding and staffing of adult literacy courses offered by the Government during 1990 to develop a State literacy strategy, to coordinate delivery systems, and to ensure adequate provision of literary services in remote areas. As I stated earlier, the review of adult literacy in Queensland has been completed and was released recently by the Minister. This review was completed by an independent consultant under the guidance of a committee comprising 20 representatives drawn from the private and public sectors, industry, unions and community groups. The report confirmed the earlier estimate by the Government of the magnitude of the problem. While it highlighted funding as a concern, the report concluded that the biggest obstacle in solving the problem of adult illiteracy was the chronic shortage of trained staff. I am delighted to report while debating these Estimates that the budget of the Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations contains a specific initiative to address the lack of teachers. Specifically, 15 full-time teachers will be appointed for the purposes of adult literacy courses and placed in strategic locations throughout the State. Five will be located in the Brisbane metropolitan area and the remainder will be situated in the Mount Isa, Maryborough, Gladstone, Central Highlands, Johnstone, Burdekin, South Burnett, Southern Downs and South West TAFE colleges, and the Senior College at Hervey Bay. To reinforce the Government’s resolve to address the problem of adult illiteracy, an amount of $320,000 has been allocated to those 16 TAFE colleges that already have adult literacy teachers. These allocations will be used by the colleges to create additional classes to meet the specific needs of those suffering numeracy and/or literacy deficiencies. Overall, this will amount to an expenditure of some $620,000 in this financial year. Our strategy to address the problem does not end there. A TAFETEQ centre for language and literacy has been established at Cordelia Street, South Legislative Assembly 1779 22 October 1991

Brisbane, and will comprise four units: literacy services; workbase literacy; language education; and adult literacy information. These units will enable the centre to respond to the urgent need for training in literacy and language by industry, labour market programs, TAFE colleges and the community. The functions of the centre are essential for the effective implementation of the Government’s social and economic reform strategies. It will achieve this in the following ways— by supporting industry training measures through delivery of literacy and language services to meet the increased demand caused by industry restructuring; by providing training and support services for the implementation of competency-based training courses and syllabuses into colleges and industry; by supporting college vocational literacy and numeracy programs through program development, implementation, evaluation and with teaching and learning materials; by offering professional development programs for State and private delivery staff, particularly in the areas of workbase literacy and language consultancies; and by consulting with industry on program design and the development of job-specific literacy and communication programs. A detailed strategy has been developed to address the problem of adult illiteracy. I have outlined the first part of that strategy and, as you would appreciate, Mr Temporary Chairman, the task is enormous. Because of the significant funding implications, it will be implemented over an extended period. In all, a specific amount of $746,000 has been allocated for adult literacy in this Budget. This amount, together with the costs of professional personnel to staff the TAFETEQ centre for language and literacy, demonstrates the Government’s commitment to addressing this major social and economic problem. I am pleased that, in particular, the Redlands Community College will benefit from the provision of specialist literacy tutors. As I said earlier, it is the Government’s intention that all TAFE colleges have a specially trained literacy teacher on staff, and provision has been made for 15 teachers in this year’s Budget. The Redlands Community College will also benefit from additional TAFE places. Some 126 places will be provided to boost job skills. Included in this number are 42 associate diploma places. As well, additional funds will be provided for improved library facilities at the college, with the allocation of $50,000 for new electronic and print resources. In addition, I understand that two projects have been planned for the Redlands Community College. The first is the resource materials centre extension, which has been completed recently. The remaining project is the construction of the Business and General Studies block. It is anticipated that construction of the BAGS and administration building will be completed by the second half of 1992 at an estimated cost of $4m. The initiatives in this training area represent a substantial injection of funds into the system, which was severely neglected by the previous administration. In the short time that remains for my speech, I wish to talk a little more about award- restructuring in the public sector of this State. Award-restructuring is one of the main components of the reform process for the Queensland public sector. There are a number of award-restructuring initiatives and, as many honourable members would be aware, they include the establishment of a new classification and remuneration system; restructuring and amalgamation of public sector awards; new working hours arrangements; and, of course, the new job redesign process. The new classification and remuneration system has been introduced for public servants and, in particular, employees of regional health authorities. It will soon be applied to other Queensland public sector employees. The award amalgamation process is well advanced, as honourable members would know. This process will reduce the number of awards and industrial agreements from approximately Legislative Assembly 1780 22 October 1991

140 to less than 10 in the final analysis. In line with the Government’s merit and equity principles, the award amalgamation process will ensure that public sector employees will enjoy similar conditions of employment while the Government facilitates some savings in the administrative costs area. Negotiations with the relevant unions have commenced in respect to a new working hours arrangement proposal tabled by DEVETIR representatives. The aim of this proposal is to increase operational flexibility in the delivery of services to clients and, of course, to reduce costs. Now that the classification and remuneration system has been implemented, the job redesign process can commence. Job redesign is the final step in the award-restructuring process and is vital to the optimal utilisation of the classification and remuneration system. The process of job redesign in the Queensland public sector is viewed by the Government and the unions as a planned participatory process. Workers and management will jointly analyse work organisation, with the objectives of promoting efficiency and productivity while providing fulfilling and interesting jobs with career opportunities. The Government is fully aware that a high degree of consultation and participation is required for any job redesign process to be successful. Time expired. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs) (3.45 p.m.): The very serious problem facing Australia today is the provision of jobs not only, as is so often mentioned, for young people who are leaving school but also for people who have worked hard until they have reached their mid-forties, who have children attending university or going through the latter stages of high school, and who suddenly find that, because of the state of the economy, they are without work. This problem hits people like a bombshell. I am sure that in Australia not enough attention is being paid to those people who are in the 40-year age group and find themselves redundant through no fault of their own. That is horrific, because they are often paying off houses and cars and they think that they are in a reasonable position. Often, these people have children at private schools and they find that the school fees are not easy to meet. This situation often leaves them seriously mentally affected in many ways. Their whole family is affected. These people’s lives are headed in one way, then all those ambitions are cut off. So, that is an area that the Government has to face. This happened to none other than a very excellent director of the administration of the department whose Estimates we are discussing. I refer to none other than Barry Read. He had a job one day, and the next day, through no fault of his own, he was not employed. Barry Read was a career public servant, not just a person plucked from outside and placed in the department. After long deliberations and applying for many jobs, Barry Read ultimately returned to the public service at a very much reduced rate of salary. Redundancy can happen in the public service. Unfortunately, because of the way in which the Public Sector Management Commission is operating, and the way in which the Government is going, nobody is sure any more about his job. Each week, an additional 620 people are finding themselves on the unemployment scrap heap. What this Government has to do is look very seriously at the future. There is more to the future than providing training. Of course, this Government has to provide training and it has to be innovative, but it is facing more than just the fall-out from a depression—and there is a depression. It is facing the fall-out from the financial collapse of big companies, entrepreneurs and people who were so popular just a few years ago. Everybody is probably guilty of looking up to those people. Certainly, the members of the Labor Party were, and I believe that some members of the conservative parties were as well. An honourable member: Who were the Labor people? Mr LESTER: The Prime Minister publicly applauded Mr Packer—he does appear to have survived the economic climate, but he is not the most popular person in Australia—and Mr Bond instead of the railway workers. Legislative Assembly 1781 22 October 1991

Mr Neal: Laurie Connell. Mr LESTER: Yes, the Prime Minister applauded Mr Connell, and Mr Burke applauded Mr Connell, so let us not be political about this. The members of the Labor Party are guilty of applauding those sorts of people. I was at least honest and said that some members of the conservative parties also applauded some of those people. The members of the Labor Party are every bit as guilty as the members of the other parties. What we have to do is learn from our mistakes, be mature enough to admit to our mistakes and then try to get on with the job of rectifying the situation. There has been a fall-out from the Bonds, the Skases, the Connells and their mates, but what has been forgotten—and one can talk to any banker about this—is that the next fall-out will come from medium-sized businesses. This is happening all over the country. It is even happening in Rockhampton. The Chippendale Motor Co. and the Toyota company are in trouble. These businesses are of medium size, but they sell a lot of motor vehicles and employ many people. They are experiencing great financial and receivership problems. Of course, a similar situation can be found throughout the length and breadth of Australia. The next step is that more and more little businesses that are employing two and three people will suddenly find that they can no longer meet the rents and pay the wages and the hidden costs. So, the fall-out will continue. There is another area in which fall-out is occurring, and that is the property market. One only needs to look at what has happened in Western Australia, that great Labor bastion. A great number of public buildings and buildings in the business area are totally empty. The situation is the same in the Labor State of Victoria. An unemployment rate of 11 per cent is being talked about. I hate to say it, but that figure could well blow out to a figure as high as 20 per cent. The members of this Parliament have to make sure that they are doing their little bit to try to ensure that Australians can come to grips with this dreadful problem that confronts them. I hope to goodness that I am not right, but every indication is there that the unemployment rate could reach the figure that I have mentioned. If one were to take the trouble to check with the bankers, the people who should know, one would find that there are many people who are owed money. That question is not being dealt with at the present time. It is said that Queensland is leading the way to economic recovery. It is simply leading the way at present because of what the previous Government did. It created opportunities in the mining industry and the tourist industry. It created job and employment programs. Mr McGrady: What did you do for the mining industry? Mr LESTER: Mr McGrady does not always know what he is talking about. Even though I do not think he is a bad bloke, I hear that a lot of people do not think he is the most popular person in the world. Let us get on with the job at hand. At the moment, Mr Goss is levelling the blame at Canberra. He cannot continue to carry on and blame Canberra, because he is part of that Labor Party machine that is wrecking Australia. Because he has been quite happy to run on the Labor flag, he cannot now get out from under and say, “They are terrible boys in Canberra.” Now that something is wrong, he wants to blame Canberra. I simply say to Mr Goss that it is really about time he got his own act in order, because his levelling of the blame at Canberra is wearing thin. The Premier is doing it in the rural area; he is doing it in the job creation area—he is doing it all over the place—and people are beginning to wake up. They are beginning to say, “Oh, look”—— Mr Beattie interjected. Mr LESTER: Mr Goss is not one of Mr Beattie’s mates, and Mr Beattie knows that; and Mr Beattie is not one of Mr Goss’ mates, either. I hear all the goings-on in the back bench over there. They talk about the red corner and the blue corner. I am not sure who is Legislative Assembly 1782 22 October 1991 in which corner, but the two of them are not getting on very well. The way Mr Beattie is going, there is no way in the world he is going to get into Cabinet. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr LESTER: The honourable member has upset Mr Goss. Mr Goss does not like him, and he do not like Mr Goss. It is well known that the two of them are feuding and that they will be opponents in the next leadership battle in the Labor Party. There is no risk about that at all. The divisiveness and the leadership battles in the Labor Party will help us on our way towards winning the next election. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr LESTER: There is no risk about that. It will be known as the Goss/Beattie affair. To be quite honest and frank, they hate each other’s guts. They do not like each other very much at all. I am not sure who I am supporting in that battle at present, but it does not really matter. The problem is for them to solve, not us. The honourable member is trying to divert me from the very important issue of employment creation in this State. We have to remember that that is what the agenda is about. However, yet again the Labor Party is trying to avoid the issue. The real issue is job creation and what is going to be done about it. I reiterate that, under the previous Government, workers’ compensation in this State was most viable, and that has continued; but for goodness sake do not let us be too complacent about it. I simply say that the Federal Government has its eyes on taking over workers’ compensation throughout Australia. It has similar aims with TAFE. What does that mean? The cheaper premiums and the better deals that we are giving will mean Medicare revisited, because we will have to pay the additional cost. Do not let us kid ourselves. Victoria—a great Labor State—has a $4m debt for workers’ compensation alone! When we become part of a national scheme, we are going to have to help subsidise Victoria’s workers’ compensation contribution. Up will go our premiums. I really mean this in a very serious vein: at the moment we have federalism at its very best. I am glad that the State Government at least has said that at the moment it can in no way take part in a Federal take-over of TAFE. What a hide Mr Dawkins has to say, “Look, I will give you more money for TAFE places, but I am going to take the show over and run it.” Can honourable members imagine TAFE being run from Canberra? All our extensions would be in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne where all the votes are. We would not want that, because it would become far too impersonal. We are dealing with people’s education, and under no circumstances should that be allowed to happen. I am led to believe that the Ministers had reservations, but these Federal people are pretty devious, and they will come back in other ways and place pressure upon our Ministers to let them take it over and promise us a great deal. I would have to make one comment about Rockhampton. I acknowledge that Keith Jordan is trying to do a very good job. I think he is putting his whole heart and soul into his task. My good mate Mr Schwarten—he is a mate, but unfortunately we have to fight each other—said that under the previous Government not too much was done for TAFE. Mr Schwarten should wake up. He cannot deny that the Canning Street campus was an initiative of the previous Government, nor can he deny that the additional buildings were planned by the previous Government. Development is happening now, but the previous Government planned it. In addition, the Victoria Parade complex, which I opened, was constructed by the previous Government. What happened at Yeppoon? The previous Government consulted with the Livingstone Shire Council to make sure the land would be ready for a total new TAFE annexe—an updated one, not the facility we are using as a temporary complex at the moment. What happened? This Labor Government has taken that away. Mr Schwarten cannot say the demand is not yet strong enough to start Legislative Assembly 1783 22 October 1991 developing this project, because there is a very successful TAFE operation in Emerald with fewer enrolments. The honourable member should not sell out the Capricorn Coast simply because his superiors say it cannot be done. There is an opportunity to develop TAFE. I am aware that, at present, enrolments are down. However, that issue can be addressed and overcome. A proper new complex is needed. With vision, the situation can be improved. Time expired. Ms ROBSON (Springwood) (4 p.m.): The Estimates presented by the Minister represent very positive moves forward in education and employment. Obviously, as was alluded to earlier in the debate, they are the major areas that we need to be looking at, particularly the employment of women. I will direct my contribution to the debate to that area and refer to the excellent women’s budget statement which has been produced by the women’s unit of the Office of Cabinet and the Premier’s Department. These Estimates are addressing seriously the inequities that women face in the marketplace and the inequities of access to training, of real educational opportunities and of employment awards. I will be addressing justice and equity issues. The impact of these Estimates on women is very positive. The Minister has accepted the notion that gender equity needs to be addressed in the programs that are being planned by his department, and he has done that in a significant manner. Some of the statistics that I will present to the Chamber deal with female employees in Queensland and reveal that they form an important group amongst the department’s clients. Women constitute 41 per cent of the labour force throughout the State. Due to its direct role in the legislative system of industrial regulation in the State, of particular significance are those employees, including women, covered by awards and industrial agreements of the State Industrial Commission. Compared to other States, Queensland has the highest proportion of women covered by State awards and industrial agreements. Women form a substantial part of the client group of the Recruitment Branch, which is responsible for all base grade recruitment activities of the Queensland public service. In the past financial year to 30 June 1991, 14 737 women out of a total of 20 428 applicants applied for recruitment, which represents 72 per cent. Of the total number of applications received, 11 315 people were tested, of whom 8 265 were women, representing 73 per cent. Administrative decisions regarding workers’ compensation benefits paid are based on the industrial awards under which the workers are employed. The Workers Compensation Division does not, however, provide services to a large number of female employees in Queensland. Furthermore,in many instances workers’ compensation paid to male employees has a flow-on effect to women and children who are dependent upon the compensated worker as the breadwinner to that home. Recruitment is another area that I would like to address and to which I alluded briefly in my opening statement. Women placed in employment as a result of the Recruitment Branch shortlisting for base grade departmental vacancies for the period 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1991 were 962 out of a total of 1 070, which is 82 per cent. That is a very high figure. The Recruitment Branch also administers the Queensland Public Sector Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employment Strategy, a joint Federal and State Government initiative. Women form a substantial client group of that particular strategy. Based on women’s participation in a 12-month pilot program conducted prior to implementation of the five-year strategy, projected participation rates for women would be as outlined in the report. I wish to note a couple of points which are illustrated in the table. There is a definite gender imbalance in representation in apprenticeships, and the break-down refers to the various categories. Almost all of the apprenticeships awarded are to males and all of the student clerks were females, which is a 100 per cent registration. Efforts are being made to correct that imbalance by targeting females for apprenticeships and males for Legislative Assembly 1784 22 October 1991 appointment as student clerks. That is a very positive move by the Minister’s department to reverse the trend that has built up and been accepted in the marketplace for such a long period, especially when the former Government was in power. Nothing was done by the former Government to recognise gender and issues of equity. That statement cannot be denied, because the statistics support it and so does the women’s movement in Queensland and any other authoritative group that one cares to consult. Honourable members can deny it until the cows come home, but the reality is in the statistics and in the marketplace. The statistic for direct recruitment of 80 per cent women is comparable to the mainstream result, which is 79 per cent women, although the Aboriginal participation figures were calculated over a calendar year and the mainstream over a financial year time-frame. There is a slight inequity there. As the agency responsible for all public service base grade recruitment, the Recruitment Branch will play a significant role in the department’s achieving objectives enunciated in its EEO management plans, which I will talk about later. In the industrial sense, under the current wage-fixing principles as issued by the Full Bench of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission and conditional to granting of structural efficiency adjustments, measures are to be implemented to provide workers with access to more varied, fulfilling and better-paid jobs. That is a big plus and a first for women, particularly in Queensland, because women typically have fulfilled the lower-grade, lesser-paid employment positions in the Queensland marketplace. Those measures have the capacity to impact upon female employees. For example, the provision of career paths based on skills acquired and not tasks, access to training, multiskilling, flexible working arrangements, and the removal of discriminatory language and provisions in awards can advantage women in the work force very positively, particularly those in traditional clerical and keyboard operations. In 1991, the Government supported union applications in the Industrial Relations Commission for parental leave. Again, parental leave had been an area in which women had been withheld from equal access and equity in the workplace. That is being addressed, and it is a big plus for the Minister that he is responsible for that. Parental leave will be an important step towards equality of opportunity for both men and women, facilitating their full participation in the marketplace and in family responsibilities. They have the opportunity to be both parents and participants in the marketplace and there is more will and more choice involved in it. By allowing a more equal sharing of family responsibilities, it will assist in further removing the barriers women face in the work force. Social and demographic changes are such that men who wish to play a greater role in child-rearing should be able to do so without jeopardising their job security. Parental leave will contribute to the flexibility and efficiency of the labour market by assisting the retention and development of the skills of employees. Those are major moves forward for women. One of the most important moves forward for women is in the award-restructuring area. The Public Service Award is currently being restructured. At this stage, the new remuneration and classification structure has been approved by the State Industrial Commission. As women in the public service are predominantly employed in lower classifications such as administrative assistants performing keyboard tasks, this restructuring will continue to impact upon women. For example, the remuneration and classification system places administrative assistants in the administrative stream and through the acquisition of skills and multiskilling they will be able to progress through this stream, which goes through to the equivalent of a classification I-19. The restructuring process will be further implemented in 1991-92. At this point, I want to refer to an excellent speech that the Minister made on 3 October when he addressed a conference entitled “Balancing the Gains, Women, Efficiency and Award Restructuring”. In that debate, he talked in a very intelligent and informed sense about labour market reforms. He pointed out that it is important to make Legislative Assembly 1785 22 October 1991 the essential links between women, efficiency and award restructuring and asked that these links be considered. He said— “Firstly, the role of women needs to be recognised in terms of their contribution to the economy of Queensland through their labour force participation, and I might say, through their unpaid labour in the home and in the community. Women must also play a role in determining the parameters of the award restructuring agenda as it is implemented in Queensland industry through participation in employer and employee organisations and in Government’s consultative committees established to introduce award restructuring. Secondly, the efficiency of Queensland industry is a goal which is compatible with the goal of providing equality of opportunity for women in the labour force—it is not a situation of either or, but of developing strategies to ensure both efficiency and equity. And thirdly, the structural efficiency principle, or award restructuring as it is more commonly referred to, seeks greater flexibility in awards to ensure a more skilled workforce with improved career options. The implementation of award restructuring in Queensland must ensure that women workers have full and equal access to these benefits. Thus, the links between women, efficiency and award restructuring, must be developed and strategies implemented by governments, industry and the union movement to benefit both women workers in Queensland and benefit the Queensland economy.” Quite frankly, that is absolute music to my ears because that is what we in the women’s movement have been talking about for years: trying to make people understand that by not allowing women equal access to employment opportunities, to education and to good jobs in the marketplace, a major resource is actually being wasted. I am very pleased to congratulate the Minister on that particular innovation. One of the other matters that I want to speak briefly about is rural women. The area that the Minister has attacked is rural women and workplace safety. A workplace health and safety initiative targeting women in the rural community, particularly with regard to chemical safety, protection of operators and children from hazards associated with the operation of rural machinery, and back care in rural workplaces, will commence. Rural women will welcome this particular initiative because, once again, even though the National Party is clearly intended to represent the rural sector, historically those women have been neglected. There are special initiatives and allocations to which I would like to allude. The “Tradeswomen on the move project” is a very interesting one which aims to introduce young women in schools to a range of trade experiences and to encourage them to consider non-traditional trades as career options. The project also provides women already in non-traditional trades as role models and mentors and conducts women-in-trades programs so that young women can access trade- based prevocational courses in technical and further education colleges. I wonder if the Minister might consider some sort of course to train women for the Parliament. The “Women in trades program” encourages young women to consider a non-traditional trade as a long-term career goal, especially in those areas where there is an unmet labour market demand. A “Women in industry register” is being set up. That is a database of potential trade employers and female employees and it matches employers with suitable female employees wishing to become employed in trade areas. It also aims to raise awareness among trade employers of the need to consider women as suitable employees. I believe that one of the most interesting initiatives is the Equal Employment Project Unit, which has resulted in the setting-up of an equal opportunity unit. The Legislative Assembly 1786 22 October 1991 establishment of this project unit in March 1991 within the department will produce an EEO management plan by the end of the year. This initiative is expected to improve the prospects of women within the department. This is the first time in Queensland that anything like this has been done. I congratulate the Minister on the implementation of this particular strategy. The plan will provide for the incorporation of employment equity principles and processes in all human resource management policies and practices of the department. Additionally, it will provide for those principles to be applied in respect of all employment-related policies and processes for which the department has public sector- wide responsibility. Briefly, I wanted to support the comments made by the member for Rockhampton North about the excellent secondary programs linked with the TAFE programs. In my electorate, two high schools—the Springwood State High School and the Shailer Park State High School—engage in those particular programs. They provide great advantages for students, giving them, as was mentioned before, opportunities for gaining skills, for multiskilling, and for seeking opportunities for employment when they leave school; and it starts to happen when they are actually in secondary school. It gives them choices of subjects and it helps them stream into a real career, something that they can follow when they leave, and not just pursue in an ad hoc fashion a career path. I congratulate the Minister on actually pepping that program up quite considerably. The last thing to which I want to refer and which I think is excellent is the “TAFE set to rock” initiative. The College of Tourism and Hospitality at South Brisbane will be sponsoring an advanced certificate of contemporary music. There will be 28 lucky students who will be able to participate in this course, for which $400,000 has been allocated for equipment and other needs. This is a realistic move into the hospitality area. Rather than just training chefs, travel agents, bakers and waiters, we are now actually including more in this area by encompassing the arts, too. It is important that the arts be considered in all our programs, because we have to actually develop in young children a feel for the arts. I congratulate the Minister on his presentation of the Estimates. Time expired. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook) (4. 15 p. m. ): In joining this debate, I raise the very important issue of industrial relations. The future success of Australia as a trading nation will hinge very much on our ability to increase our productivity. In fact, if we do not make significant inroads into many of our work practices, our critical economic condition will deteriorate further. Management also has a vitally important role to play in our future recovery. It is difficult to comprehend how a country with so many natural resources and an abundance of agricultural and mineral wealth has gone so wrong. Our rural communities generally are recognised as being amongst the most efficient in the world. Deposits of iron and coal and many other metals and minerals are the envy of our trading partners. Droughts, poor seasonal conditions and low world prices have significantly reduced Australia's rural export income. The high value of the Australian dollar is causing great hardship for exporting rural producers and affecting our balance of trade. Manufactured goods have increased their share of export income. In a bid to enable Australian businesses and manufacturers to compete against low-cost labour countries with imports and exports, productivity gains are the only solution if we are to maintain our living standards. I am sure that the other alternative of reducing wages to a level comparable with that of many of our competitors would not be acceptable. The industrial relations Bill that passed through Parliament last year abandoned VEAs and replaced them with enterprise agreements. The requirements of such agreements for small businesses make them difficult to implement. Since the Labor Party took office less than two years ago, approximately 50 000 additional people have joined the dole queues. With predictions of unemployment being maintained at 10 per cent until Legislative Assembly 1787 22 October 1991

1993—possibly peaking at 11 per cent—the position for many Queensland families will be devastating. The Federal Treasurer, John Kerin, admits that this is the worst situation for some 60 years. The group who are being drastically affected now are young people, with unemployment levels of 27 per cent. Irrespective of the qualifications attained by many of the young unemployed, job opportunities are restricted to people who have a high level of experience. Many people who left school last year have been unable to find employment. Shortly, this year's graduates will be looking for work. But their job opportunities will be considerably less than those of last year's graduates who have been unable to find jobs. In the late 1980s, the State Labor Party was very vocal about youth unemployment. But it has not been effective in curbing this disturbing trend. I turn to one of the Budget papers relating to initial skills development. The traineeship intake for 1990-91 was 1 949, which represents a decrease of 35 per cent on the 1989 figure and reflects the availability of traineeship places in industry. It is very commendable that the relevant funding has increased. However, with the increase of $35m and the 800 people who will be involved in the training programs, one must ask: where are we heading with training programs? There must be a degree of consultation with industry to ensure that people who are being trained and retrained can find jobs. That is the bottom line when any Government is considering employment programs and training. If the trend of general unemployment is to be turned around, business confidence must be stimulated through a more productive work force and restraints on excessive Government regulations. TAFE education, which is at the coal face of industry, is necessary. As the requirements of industry change, the disciplines within the colleges must have the capacity to respond. Buildings should be constructed in such a manner that a high level of flexibility is achievable. The shape and size of the learning areas should be designed in such a manner that their dimensions can be varied in accordance with the particular need at the time. Nothing will remain the same in the future. Change is inevitable and unpredictable. The movement to multiskilling will require the transition of previously allotted study areas. Disciplines of close similarity could have their learning areas adjusted and perhaps complemented in accordance with the requirement of the day. If the future construction of TAFE facilities is implemented in the traditional manner of having specifically dedicated learning areas, in the future the facilities could be redundant and incapable of providing a centre for delivery of the best technology of the day. The design of the future for a TAFE facility could be centred around open structures with innovative modular designed components that could literally plug in to energy and modern communications. This concept would, if required, allow upgrading of the module or complete change. In time, the adaptability of such a facility would offset additional costs that might be incurred in the initial stages. Modular designs would enable up-to-date workplace practices to be simulated. If the principle was adopted Statewide, particularly with new constructions, standardised components could be designed to fit any college and would be transferred, as required, to meet demand situations. The ability to be able to change to meet the requirements of industry would produce students who were proficient in their areas of training. A close association with industry is extremely important for the TAFE syllabus, and I am sure that every Government is very much aware of that. The rapid change that could be achieved with the open construction concept would not require structural change to the building. A model of this type of design has been implemented in the Tea Tree Gully college in South Australia, and may serve as a blueprint for future construction. There is still a tremendous level of disappointment with the State Labor Government over its withdrawal from the capital works program until 1994 of the TAFE facility that was Legislative Assembly 1788 22 October 1991 proposed for Ingham. People in the community in the Herbert River district feel cheated by that action and, without provocation, have indicated to me their dismay at the Government’s action. As a result of a visit by the commissioner for training, Mr Harry Haunschild, who was made aware of strong support for TAFE education, there were indications that increased involvement would be recommended for additional courses in Ingham. As yet, the TAFE coordinating committee has not received a clear indication of the promised new courses for the district. It appears that $50,000 will be provided for courses that have now been determined for the Ingham facility, which is an annexe of the Townsville TAFE college. Due to the high level of community support for TAFE in Ingham, the issue continues to attract local media coverage. I congratulate the staff of the Ingham facility for the tremendous job that they do. They have been operational for two years. Many people pass through that facility not only in certificate-level courses but also in adult education courses. The centre has received accolades from the Ingham community. I am sure that the community is looking forward to further TAFE courses being run at Ingham. Any increase in funding to enable additional courses to be run will be gratefully received. Ultimately, I know that the district is looking for a fully fledged facility, and I am sure that the people will not rest until that is achieved. In the instances in which future development of TAFE facilities is likely to occur, consideration should be given by the Government to land acquisition in advance. The amount of land required for a TAFE complex is generally substantial, especially in rural areas. Those areas must be large enough for people to carry out agricultural pursuits. That must be taken into consideration when TAFE colleges are established in rural areas. It would be prudent for the Government to acquire that land well before the required date to allow for town-planning by the local authority and would allow the necessary infrastructure to be set up prior to the commencement of construction. When those types of facilities are established in a town, a number of matters must be addressed. Acquiring the land in advance would allow a local authority to plan for sewerage, water and electricity supplies to developments that might occur around that land. Although it might be argued that purchasing land ties up State funds, the effect of that could be offset by leasing the sites for unspecified periods to recoup interest on the investment. In rural areas, that land is very often sought after and it would not be difficult to achieve an offsetting of the initial costs. I turn to a Budget paper that deals with adult education, which is a very important part of TAFE. The State Government seems to be departing from funding adult education. The Budget paper states that a program rate of up to 15 per cent is anticipated during 1991-92, but it is anticipated that the participation rate in community-based programs will continue to increase by at least 10 per cent with increased Government funding but, expenditure on salaries, wages and administration is reduced by $2.6m. The staff level is reduced by 73. It will be difficult for the State Government to simply pass the ball to the Federal Government and hope to heck that it picks up the tab for additional adult education courses. Multiskilling is becoming very important in the workplace. People can receive additional training and undertake jobs with which they did not previously have great involvement. In common with other Queensland Government instrumentalities, TAFE appears to be part of the trend towards regionalisation. If that is the case, those students who live within a reasonable distance of TAFE facilities and are capable of making travel arrangements should not be unduly disadvantaged by the cost of travel. If a regionalised concept is proposed, it is not unreasonable that a form of subsidy should be considered. A middle-of-the-road cost of $50 a week should attract a 50 per cent subsidy. The cost of travel has been compounded by additions to the fees which, in some instances, could realise a total of $600 per annum for certificate level courses. That is of particular concern Legislative Assembly 1789 22 October 1991 to the lower socio-economic group and rural dwellers, all of whom are experiencing very hard times. I urge the Minister and the Government to give the matter favourable consideration in fairness to those people who are disadvantaged by distance and Government direction. The Federal Government has given indications of a take-over of TAFE facilities. An article in the Australian states— “The Minister for Education, Mr Dawkins, is proposing a revolution for the Technical and Further Education sector at least as dramatic as that which he has wrought in the university sector. He wants the States to hand over full funding responsibility for the vocational and training sections of the TAFE sector to the Commonwealth. In exchange, the Commonwealth would vacate the field of education up to Year 12.” That is very interesting, but it poses some problems for rural areas. Although the take-over of TAFE facilities by the Federal Government would enable the States to shed their responsibilities in regard to the raising of finances for the construction of TAFE facilities, smaller communities would suffer by being distanced even further from the centre of control. Time expired. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (4.30 p.m.): I have a great deal of pleasure in participating in this debate because this Government can take a great deal of credit and satisfaction from what it has achieved. Until the election of the Goss Government, industrial relations in this State had a very sad history. I will read from the report of the President of the Industrial Court of Queensland tabled in this Chamber this morning by the Minister. The Honourable Mr Justice M. P. Moynihan states— “A general assessment of the impact of the new legislation”— that is, the Industrial Relations Act 1990-1991— “reveals that it appears to be working effectively. . . . The Industrial Relations Act 1990-91 resulted from a major review of industrial legislation—the first in some thirty years. It is of great significance that the nature and shape of the legislation derived from the considered views by the review committee after detailed input from the users of the system. In that way their collective perceptions of current and future needs were identified and considered, and reflected in the legislation. This origin may well explain the effectiveness of the new legislation as well as its acceptance and support by those engaged in industrial relations.” The President of the Industrial Court of Queensland is saying that the legislation introduced into this Parliament by the Minister, only after a long period of consultation, is working effectively. That is where we on this side of the Chamber stand when it comes to industrial relations. I turn to look at where the members on the other side of the Chamber stand when it comes to industrial relations. This State has had a long, sorry history of confrontation where industrial relations was used as a political football. In my three and a half years’ involvement in industrial relations both as an advocate and representative, I was appalled at the attitude taken by the Bjelke-Petersen Government, but what have we heard today? When the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Cooper, came into the Chamber to debate these Estimates, did he talk about a new vision for industrial relations? Did he talk about learning any of the lessons of the past that were learned as a result of strikes that lasted for Legislative Assembly 1790 22 October 1991 weeks? Such strikes have not happened since this Government has been in office. Those strikes cost industries in this State millions and millions of dollars. Mr Cooper said that the National Party would reintroduce all its old legislation. It would go back into the dark old days of bashing the employees of this State. Mr Cooper has not learnt a thing. The employees of Queensland ought to be aware that the Opposition in this State stands for industrial thuggery. It has learnt absolutely nothing over the years. Not only was Mr Cooper’s presentation this morning appalling, but also it was deceitful and deliberately dishonest. References have been made to the level of unemployment in this State. Mr Harper: How is the cowyard? Mr BEATTIE: I will tell the honourable member about that. I was waiting for an interjection. Does the honourable member know what Joh said about him? He said that the honourable member was the most overrated member to ever come into this House. He was appalled that the honourable member was here. He said that Mr Littleproud was a fool and he was stunned that the National Party had endorsed him. Joh said that if he had still been Premier, half of the members of the Opposition would have gone, including Mr Cooper. Mr Cooper referred to the level of unemployment, and he deliberately misled this Chamber about it. No-one on the Government side of the Chamber is pleased about unemployment. The figures show that in September 1986 the level of unemployment in Queensland was 9.9 per cent—exactly what it is today. In September 1991, the level of unemployment in Queensland was 9.9 per cent. What a hypocrite and a fraud Mr Cooper is! He has come into this Chamber and tried to suggest that this Government’s policies have led to a significant increase in unemployment in Queensland. Anyone who has followed the levels of unemployment in Australia will know that, under the National Party, Queensland was either first or second in Australia when it came to the level of unemployment. Either Tasmania or Queensland lead the unemployment level. That was the legacy left by the National Party. The Leader of the Opposition need not come in here with his humbug and fraud. He should look at the figures. For the information of the Chamber, I table a full, objective, statistical assessment. I can see that Mr Harper is agitated. I feel sorry for him. He really should take it easy. I table all the recent unemployment figures. There should now be no more dishonesty or humbug from the National Party about the subject. I turn now to other issues that are of some concern. The honourable member for Peak Downs, Mr Lester, referred to bankruptcies. Under the National Party Government, Queensland led the other States in the number of small business bankruptcies. What a lot of humbug! The members of the Opposition come in here and try to rewrite history. Nobody will cop it. The objective statistics speak for themselves. Let me deal with the reality of what confronts us. Today, Mr Cooper turned around and went back down the path of confrontation. I think that businesses in this State will be shuddering at the thought of his becoming Premier, because he stands for industrial anarchy and thuggery. Over a long period, the honourable member for Merthyr has raised the issue of cronyism. Mr Beanland: The expert! Mr BEATTIE: I will come to the pipsqueaks last. One of the things that has disappointed me about this debate is that there has been no objective assessment about the industrial relations appointments that have been referred to. I have read the list, and I will tell honourable members what is wrong with it. The honourable member has repeated two industrial relations appointments twice. He got excited and put them in twice. There are 18 mistakes in the list. I will deal with them. The honourable member for Merthyr has ignored the fact that a tripartite approach is taken. Mr Santoro: Give it away! Legislative Assembly 1791 22 October 1991

Mr BEATTIE: The honourable member does not like hearing this. Under the relevant legislation introduced into this Parliament, not by the Labor Party but by the National Party, a tripartite approach is adopted. Mr Schwarten: A statutory requirement. Mr BEATTIE: That is right, the statutory requirement for a tripartite approach was introduced into this Parliament by the National Party. The 18 people with whom I am about to deal were appointed because of National Party legislation that was brought into the Parliament. One of the important factors in a tripartite approach is that it can achieve consensus. People from all sides of the industrial arena—that is, employers, employees and Government representatives—work together towards adopting a constructive approach to industrial relations. This means that the six-week strikes that occurred under the previous Government will not happen, and that is the important feature of a tripartite approach. The member for Merthyr unfairly named people simply because they were appointed under tripartite legislation. The list includes Helene Abraham, Alan Doodney, Patrick Purcell, John Thompson, Paul Casey, and Ray Dempsey. Even appointments made to the Industrial Commission were mentioned, and if one examines the composition of the Industrial Commission, one can see that it comprises eight members. Two members come from the Government area; there are three employer representatives; and there are three employee or union representatives. Mr Santoro: I’ve heard it all. Mr BEATTIE: I know the member has heard it all before, but it did not get through to him. Unless a tripartite approach is adopted and unless a consensus approach is taken to industrial relations, problems will occur. In the industrial relations area, the commission comprises three employer representatives, three employee or trade union representatives, and two from the Government area, which is a very appropriate blend. The appointment of Harry Hauenschild as the Commissioner for Training was made by the previous National Party Government. It was finalised by the Labor Government, but initiated by the National Party Government. Harry Hauenschild was appointed by the National Party—not by this Government. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr Littleproud: That’s right. Mr BEATTIE: Members of the National Party are proudly acknowledging it, which highlights the fact that this is yet another error in the list. It needs to be understood that the tripartite approach is supported fully by the Confederation of Industry, by employer organisations, and that the people who are appointed to the committees receive a very nominal attendance fee. In a very constructive way, they are actually serving the people whom they represent. That is exactly what should be happening in these circumstances. Mr Ardill: He has been very selective. Mr BEATTIE: That has not been mentioned, which is regrettable. I am happy to mention the other people whose names appear on the list. They include Deidre Swann, Glenys Fisher, Mr P. Ball and Mr John Thompson. Some were mentioned twice by the honourable member in his excitement. He also mentioned Bill Ludwig, Bob Henricks, Nico Bos, John Hogg—who was also mentioned twice—William Trohear, Robert Petie, Chris Woods, and Helen Abrahams. I place those names on the record so that there is a clear understanding that those people have not been fairly dealt with in this debate. They should not appear in a document circulated by this Parliament. Mr Santoro: I am going to top it up very soon. Legislative Assembly 1792 22 October 1991

Mr BEATTIE: The member may well top it up, but he cannot do so legitimately, because the people whose names have been mentioned in the list have been dealt with adversely in a very hypocritical and unfair manner. I believe that I have now set the record straight. One of the problems confronting this State is that there is too much nonsense spoken by the conservatives about industrial relations. It is about time they adopted a more sensible approach. Mr Ardill: If that is not a McCarthyism list, I have never seen one. Mr BEATTIE: I take the interjection made by the honourable member. Another matter that concerns me greatly is that earlier in this debate the member for Peak Downs referred to TAFE. He made ridiculous comments in relation to the statistics and seemed to suggest that the Emerald college was good because there were fewer students enrolled. He did not make sense. He mentioned that 36 students were in attendance at the Yeppoon annexe. He does not know what he is talking about because he seemed to be suggesting that none of the TAFE colleges needed additional enrolments. Surely the member for Auburn can do something constructive for this Parliament by tutoring the member for Peak Downs before he comes into the Chamber, because, if he is let loose, he is dangerous. Unfortunately, my time is running out because I became excited about the contribution of the member for Merthyr and was determined to put it to rest. Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. It would seem that the member for Brisbane Central is implying that those statements were made by me. Of course, as the honourable gentleman well knows—— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Power): Order! There is no point of order. Mr BEATTIE: No. I did not say that at all. Another important consideration is the achievements for which the Minister has been responsible. I think he should be congratulated on extending the Division of Workplace Health and Safety to the rural industry, which has not happened before. The Workplace Health and Safety Act was amended on 22 December 1990, thereby ending the exclusion of rural industry from its coverage. This change took effect from 13 May 1991, and it was a first for this Government. Mr Harper interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I can see how the member for Auburn feels about that, but it took a Labor Government to look after the rural industry. The application of the Act to the rural industry is not intended to have the effect of applying the major portion of the Workplace Health and Safety Regulations to that area. It is proposed to develop various codes of practice and to provide practical guidance for those persons to whom a duty of care applies under the Act. Two codes of practice presently apply to rural industries, that is, the Code of Practice for Manual Handling and the Code of Practice for the Safe Design and Operation of tractors. The codes of practice are approved under the Act and are developed in conjunction with the rural industry workplace health and safety committee and, through it, with the Queensland Farmsafe Committee. A draft code applying to machinery safeguarding is currently with the industry for comment—something of which members of the Labor Party can be justly proud. I also wish to refer to International Labour Organisation Conventions because they specifically refer to Australia’s relationship with nearby countries. A significant function of the department is to coordinate State responsibilities for International Labour Organisation matters. This involves liaison with other Government agencies and the provision of information to the Commonwealth Department of Industrial Relations, as well as the evaluation of international covenants. Already this year, the Queensland Government has provided formal agreement to the ratification of three ILO conventions, which are— Legislative Assembly 1793 22 October 1991

No. 155, concerning occupational safety and health; No. 162, concerning safety and health in the use of asbestos; and No. 167, concerning safety and health in construction. The significance of the ratification is that this Government has taken action in the international arena to assist in improving the standards in those particular areas, which has not happened previously. As the expiration of the time for my speech draws closer, let me say that never again should industrial relations become a political football, but if Mr Cooper becomes Premier, it will. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong—Leader of the Liberal Party) (4.45 p.m.): The policies formulated by this Government, and the Minister in particular, and administered by his department have a profound effect on every citizen of this State. They determine the underlying economic basis of the State’s economy and have a direct effect on the standard of living of people in this State. If one has a look at Labor’s policies to see where they have led in the last 18-20 months since Labor came to office, one will find that there are record rates of unemployment, record bankruptcies—up by 55 per cent—families being placed under severe financial strain, no hope for young people in the future, and more people being thrown out of work than those who have found a job under this Government. If one has a look at the Labor Government’s record, one will see that there has been the abolition of true voluntary employment agreements between employees and employers, and union interference in private workplace bargaining. In the case of the long battle by Powers Brewing, this cost $500,000, and because of the costs involved other companies have been frightened to go down the same track. They see that there is little light at the end of the tunnel. Because of union pressure, Metway Bank is likely to be the last company to go down this particular path. Labor claims that it supports genuine enterprise bargaining. Of course, that is sheer hypocrisy. Labor has done its best to sabotage the system, as the Minister would appreciate, through legislation that he put through this Parliament last year. If one has a look at the effects of Labor’s policy on the people of Queensland, one sees that there is a clear lack of business confidence in this State. If there is not going to be business confidence, then there will certainly not be employment opportunities. The recent Queensland Confederation of Industry survey showed that the slight easing of monetary policy experienced recently has not lifted Queensland companies’ expectations one iota. During the September quarter, a total of 44 per cent of companies surveyed reported below average performance, with 42 per cent of companies recording an average performance level. Only 14 per cent of respondent companies performed above expectations during that quarter. That is a very dismal performance. It is no wonder there is record unemployment. A total of 54 per cent of companies regarded the environment as poor or very poor, while only 10 per cent of the respondent companies regarded Queensland’s economy as good or very good. So much for the hypocrisy coming from the other side of this Chamber! The environment for investment in Queensland was described by 52 per cent of respondent companies as poor, or very poor, with 20 per cent of companies describing the investment climate as good or very good. Trends show the position has worsened since the last quarter. Mr Welford: Where do these figures come from? Mr BEANLAND: For the benefit of the honourable member, I inform him that these figures come from the industry survey by the Queensland Confederation of Industry. When one looks at Queensland industry by sector, the following sectors: retail, 64 per cent; construction, 53 per cent; mining, 50 per cent; and tourism, 45 per cent, expect below average performance. These figures are from the Queensland Confederation of Industry! I know that it was not too many weeks ago that the Queensland Confederation of Legislative Assembly 1794 22 October 1991

Industry said some kind words about the Labor Government’s Budget. It is certainly not saying very many kind words about the state of Queensland’s economy now that it has carried out this survey. The reasons that Queensland industry sees as creating a worse performance level are: fall in demand, 79 per cent; cost of materials and imports, 36 per cent; and interest rates, 34 per cent. Twenty-eight per cent of business respondents expect dollar sales within their organisation to continue to decline. That is hardly a bright future for all those people who are on the jobless queues today. Prominent in that category are the mining sector, with 75 per cent expecting further reductions, and the construction sector, with 37 per cent expecting further reductions. Further problems are seen on the export front, where 25 per cent of respondents expect export revenue to decline over the next six months, so these companies expect things to get worse. When one looks at full-time employment during the survey period, one notices a drop in employment in the mining, manufacturing, construction and retail sectors. Part-time employment in the mining, construction and tourism sectors was also seriously affected. Casual employment in the manufacturing and tourism sector also fell. The most important indicator of future activity within an economy extends from expectation of capital investment. Over the last 12 months, Australian national account figures indicate a reduction in private equipment expenditure of 20.2 per cent, while non-dwelling construction expenditure declined by 12.1 per cent. In Queensland, 52 per cent of companies regarded the environment for investment as poor to very poor. As this situation continues, there is little hope of those people who are without a job today obtaining worthwhile jobs in the work force. It is simply not going to happen. The Labor Government has failed miserably in that area. During September, only 4 per cent of companies surveyed increased expenditure on buildings, compared with 11 per cent just over three months earlier. Thirty-five per cent of respondents had actually reduced capital expenditure during the quarter. September’s results seem to indicate a return to the uncertainty which, in the Queensland Confederation of Industry’s view, results from a number of causes, including wage increases and the decision to boost compulsory superannuation. Eleven per cent of companies increased investment in plant and equipment during the September quarter, which is a decline from the June quarter of 14 per cent. It is well below the expectations of the June survey, when 24 per cent of companies predicted an increase in plant and equipment expenditure. So the sorry saga goes on. Thirty-one per cent of surveyed companies reduced their expenditure on plant and equipment during the September quarter. The current account figures in August reflected a lower level of imports, machinery, transport equipment and components for manufacturing. If investment on plant and machinery does eventually increase, it will take at least 12 months for the new equipment to produce any increase in output for the Queensland economy. That is what the Labor Government ought to be concerned about.The lag effect means this could be too small and too late for many Queensland companies, so unfortunately the jobless queue will grow. In relation to profitability of business, the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures indicate the June quarter figures were some 23 per cent less than June 1990, and 45 per cent less than the June quarter 1989 figures. Sadly, 67 per cent of companies anticipate that their profit level will remain unchanged or fall further. It is time that this Minister, his Premier, his Government and his bumbling Treasurer stopped misleading the people of Queensland on where the Queensland economy is going and where we are heading in relation to business confidence and unemployment in this State. Since this Government came to office, we have seen almost a doubling in the number of people unemployed. In fact, 8 000 fewer Queenslanders have a job today than Legislative Assembly 1795 22 October 1991 was the case 12 months ago. There have been simply no job creation policies at all, only unemployment creation policies. Of course, this Government is big on unemployment creation policies. We see this every day. Apart from the break-down of law and order and the increase in crime figures, the other area in which the Government excels, of course, is the big unemployment creation policies. Nothing positive is being done about getting this State back on the rails as far as employment is concerned. Therefore, people who are unemployed can look forward to a very poor future. The work force participation rate has dropped from 64.3 per cent to 63.4 per cent. This indicates that people are now giving up looking for work. They see their position as hopeless. A further break- down of the figures indicates the extent of the misery wrought on the people of this State by the Labor Government. During the past year, the number of people looking for part-time work increased by 21 000. In the last month alone, 7 000 people joined the queue. Many of them would be students looking for part-time work to pay for their fees, and the fee increases imposed by the Labor Government. For young people aged 15 to 19, the unemployment rate is fast approaching one in three. In real figures, 21 000 young people in this State are looking for jobs, but the really tragic aspect of these figures is that there are still almost 9 000 young people looking for their first job—2 500 more than the number 12 months ago. Labor’s policies have certainly attacked the youth, the young people of our community. This Government has let them down appallingly—and they know it. If we include those looking for part-time work, we get a figure of slightly more than one in three young people aged 15 to 19 looking for work in this State. These figures prove that our young people are bearing the brunt of Labor’s recession, and the situation will only worsen as students enter the work force at the end of the academic year. These young people will not get a decent start in life, because this Government has simply failed them. It has abandoned and forgotten the young people of Queensland by allowing them to bear the brunt of the worst recession in over 60 years. These figures show quite conclusively that Queensland is not leading Australia out of the recession. In fact, in many respects Queensland is leading Australia into the recession. We are being dragged there because of the policies of this Government. Only a couple of days ago we saw more figures leaked in Canberra which showed that unemployment will hit 11 per cent, and the Federal Cabinet has been warned. We know that the State Budget figures for Queensland indicate a brighter prospect than federally, so the question must be asked: what is going to be the effect on the State Budget figures? Are this Government’s Budget figures well out? Is it going to mean that there will in fact be a worsening of the position in relation to the State Budget? Is there going to be a blow-out? Are the departmental figures going to come in as the Minister believed they would, or is it just a stab in the dark? It is quite apparent that that is exactly what it is—a stab in the dark. The drought in Queensland is now having a worse effect on the State Government than first visualised, and unemployment is going to get considerably worse than was visualised in the first instance. It is quite clear from the Federal figures that that is exactly what is going to happen. The leaked figures show that unemployment Australiawide will go as high as 11 per cent by June next year. These are confidential documents, so perhaps the Minister does not have those figures. Even though the Minister and this Government support Bob Hawke and have gone out of their way to ensure that he remains the Prime Minister of Australia, this Government is not allowed to gain access to these figures. I turn to the annual report of the Minister’s department, which was tabled today. No doubt there is a good reason for the shifting around of the figures, but on page 96 of the annual report under the heading “Workers’ Compensation” it is revealed that administrative costs have increased from $182m to $374m. In addition, under the heading “Workers’ Compensation”, the report reveals that there has been an increase in salaries Legislative Assembly 1796 22 October 1991 and wages from $9m to almost $18m. I am quite sure that there is some reason for that—perhaps rearrangement of some figures elsewhere—but I would like some information as to the reason for these huge increases. I am sure there has been a juggling of the figures, but that is not spelt out in the annual report. In regard to TAFE courses and TAFE colleges, I would like some information as to when we can expect greater funding, and what this Government is going to do about getting additional funding from the Federal Government. I hear a lot of rhetoric, but what young people in this State want to know–particularly in view of the recent increases in TAFE fees—is when they are going to get better training opportunities at our TAFE colleges because of the unavailability of adequate positions. Even with the increase in the number of positions, there is still a shortage of positions at these places. I ask: what is the Government’s course of action going to be in seeking additional funding from the Federal Government in this arena? Recently there has been a lot of rhetoric in the media, which we are used to from the Labor Government in Canberra, but again very little action in regard to the provision of additional funding, which is so badly needed here in Queensland to make up for the shortfall. Time expired. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN (Glass House) (5 p.m.): It is my pleasure to participate in this Committee today, and to support the Minister in this examination of the Estimates of the Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations. I say it is a pleasure because it is within the operations of this portfolio that the people of the southern part of my electorate of Glass House, and the neighbouring Caboolture electorate of my colleague Ken Hayward will see during this financial year one of the most significant additions to our daily lives, that is, the opening of the Caboolture College of TAFE. Today, I will speak on that initiative. From the commencement of the first semester in l992, our college will accept students. That is an event anticipated with great excitement among local people. The establishment of the college resulted from a joint initiative of the Caboolture Shire Council; the Federal Member for Fisher, Mr Michael Lavarch; and the former Member for Glass House, Mr Newton, in late l988. Mr Lavarch was instrumental in convincing the Federal Government of special needs of the Caboolture area, which resulted in Federal grants of $13.76m for the establishment of this college. This financial year, $8m of that sum is earmarked under the TAFE Resource Agreement for 1991-92. Page 33 of Budget Paper No. 6, Capital Works, shows that $5m will be spent this year by the State. What this shows, in effect, is that, although construction of the college has been funded by our Federal colleagues, this Minister has been prepared to finance the project in anticipation of the receipt of those funds. I thank him for that on behalf of the people of Caboolture and surrounding districts. The Caboolture Shire Council, which provided the land for the college, must also have its contribution acknowledged in this place. This college has been acknowledged as a critical link in the development of Caboolture and its environs. The Caboolture population growth rate is among the most rapid in Queensland and the remainder of Australia. The current population of around 68 000 is expected to reach 115 000 by the year 2000. Despite this rapid growth, a trend that has been obvious for over 20 years, there has been no parallel growth in employment opportunities in the area. In the introduction to Budget Related Paper No. 2, “Training”, it is noted that “the Government’s prime economic objective is to develop the State's economy by attracting new industries, facilitating the modernisation of existing industries and developing our export base”. Training our work force to meet the needs of modern industries is therefore an important part of the Government’s strategy to achieve that objective. It is anticipated that some 800 students will be enrolled at the Caboolture college for l992, and we believe Legislative Assembly 1797 22 October 1991 that this will provide encouragement for industry to consider the Caboolture area for the establishment of new enterprises. The l992 program will offer courses in business and office studies, management, retailing, computing, child-care, community welfare, hairdressing, hospitality and horticulture. The program will also include adult education under the TAFE Options Program and will provide access education to our community. The college is anticipating a total of just short of 760 000 student contact hours for the year in associate diploma and certificate courses. What that means is that this college, in its initial year, will be placed among the mid-range of Queensland’s TAFE colleges in terms of size. Obviously, it will not be long before it becomes one of the State’s largest colleges. A proposal from the Caboolture Chamber of Commerce has seen the provision by the Caboolture Shire Council of a precinct adjacent to the college for the establishment of close business/college ties to benefit both. Economic spin-offs for the shire are certain to follow the establishment of the Caboolture college, and my constituents look forward to the benefits that will accrue. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister to do all possible to hasten the provision of two much- needed additional facilities for the Caboolture college. The first of those is in regard to the technology facilities for the college. Although statistics show that at present only 14 per cent of courses provided by TAFE colleges relate to trade training, it is without doubt still the function to which the community relates in respect of TAFE colleges. The Caboolture community identified trade courses as a need for the local area and, indeed, a trade building was included in the original plans. However, funding did not allow for that building to be included in Stage 1 of the college. As well, the trade wing proposed was seen to be insufficient for the needs of the community. Those needs have been identified as welding, metal fabrication, carpentry and joinery, bricklaying, painting and decorating, electrical, plumbing, and fitting and machining. As to some of those, the proximity of North Point College at Bald Hills means that the urgency is somewhat reduced. However, that does not diminish the need for trade training to be given high priority at Caboolture. The second of those needs is the purchase of the parcel of land sought in relation to the establishment of the horticultural studies program of the college. The Minister has given a commitment to purchase the land identified by the community council which had the task of overseeing the establishment of this college from the community viewpoint. It seems that an element of confusion has enveloped this transaction, so much so that, to date, a purchase has not been made. As to the land in question—a vendor is anxious to sell to the Government for that purpose. When one considers the urbanisation of the Redland Shire, the importance of horticultural studies at Caboolture is obvious. In 1987, the Department of Primary Industries conducted a study on the Sunshine Coast to identify prime horticultural land and produced a worthwhile document. Earlier this year, the Minister for Local Government, Tom Burns, produced a planning bulletin designed to ensure the retention of prime agricultural lands. The Caboolture area will thus remain a very important food-producing area of this State, with every prospect of becoming more important as the years progress. The TAFE horticultural studies at Caboolture will be an integral part of that increase in importance, and the purchase of a suitable site for horticultural activities is part of that program. The Minister’s assistance in a speedy resolution to both those lingering matters would be appreciated by me and my constituents. I am pleased that the Government’s strategies in respect of TAFE participation, that is, to bring Queensland’s participation rates up to those of the Australian average over the next three years, mean that the future growth of the Caboolture College of TAFE is ensured. I place on record my appreciation for the many hours of hard work undertaken by the Community College Council under the guidance of Mr Derek Stringfellow and for the efforts of Mr Trevor Sterling, the director of North Point College, in helping this project to its current stage of development. The staff of the college are currently assembling at Caboolture under the leadership of Mr Wayne Collyer, and I wish them well in their task of Legislative Assembly 1798 22 October 1991 providing quality education and training for all the students of the Caboolture College of TAFE. With the opening of this college, our community will have come of age. Our potential is unlimited. I look forward to keeping the Minister informed of what will, no doubt, be wonderful progress at this college. Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (5.09 p.m.): In the short time available to me, I want to concentrate on a suggestion that was made recently by the Federal Minister for Education, Mr Dawkins, in relation to what he called the “2 by 2” system in higher education. He spoke about people attending TAFE for two years to gain an associate diploma, and their then having access to universities. I can see merit in that as a way of meeting the unmet demand that exists currently in universities throughout Australia. However, I am focusing on Queensland. The Minister would be very much aware that, this year, approximately 55 000 people in Queensland will apply for a place in a tertiary institution but that approximately only 25 000 will gain a place. If we reflect back a number of years, perhaps to the seventies, it will be remembered that, to some extent, parents were misguided because they saw that it was not quite right for their children to undertake blue-collar employment; they wanted them to have a good office job or a good white-collar job. That has led to the present difficulty. I think Governments of all persuasions reacted to that move. In fact, the actions of Gough Whitlam in trying to make all universities free come to mind. There was an expectation in the public that everyone wanted to go on to university—that that was the thing to do—and that if a person missed out, as a second choice he went to TAFE. I think Mr Dawkins’ suggestion that a bit more emphasis has to be put back into the TAFE sector and that it be used to provide the first two years of certificate and associate diploma training is correct. If people prove their worth and are then interested in going on to more professional training, that training becomes a stepping stone to university. In recent years, big steps have been made—and I am sure the Minister is aware of this—in the accreditation process. It is an articulation process, in which the qualifications gained at TAFE colleges stand a person in good stead for accreditation at university. The groundwork is there. I support any moves that the Minister cares to take in making better use of TAFE colleges. In that regard, I support the moves that the Minister has made this year in providing another 9 400 places in TAFE. However, I have some concern about the distribution of those places. Mr J. H. Sullivan: Caboolture is all right. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I took note of the comments made by the previous speaker. He is obviously very pleased that he has a facility at Caboolture. However, I notice a big change in the social fabric of Queensland. The rural areas are going through a terrible decline. It is quite obvious that more and more of our young people will have to leave the rural areas in order to find employment in urban areas. They will need a new set of skills and a new attitude. The Budget papers refer to equity programs. I urge the Minister to have another look at the distribution of the places that he is providing to make sure that there is an adherence to the idea of equity for those young people who currently live in the not-so-large provincial towns with populations of 7 000, 8 000 or 10 000 people. Dalby is probably the biggest provincial town in Queensland that does not have a TAFE college, but there are many other smaller provincial towns with 3 000 or 4 000 people that do not have such a college. I know that, at present, annexes have been provided in some of the small towns. There is a TAFE link into the high schools, which is doing a good job. A great innovation has been the open learning centres and the use of land lines, satellites and computers to deliver courses more efficiently to the small towns. However, I want the Minister to bear in mind that many people in the small country towns of Queensland are probably in their fourth generation of paying taxes and they have an expectation that they also should Legislative Assembly 1799 22 October 1991 have access to the sorts of prevocational training and advanced training that is necessary in the modern world. They can now see that they are greatly disadvantaged. It is a great burden on a family to send a young person to a TAFE college full time. At present, moves are being made to persuade the Federal Government to change its attitude in relation to Austudy and assistance to students in general. However, I suggest to the Minister that there is a desperate need in terms of equity to make use of modern technology, expand on the TAFE link and provide more annexes in provincial towns, because the people in those areas have a very valid case. They have been out there for generations and they are faced with hard times. The young people have to acquire brand-new skills to come and not only live but also work in the urban area. I believe that, in terms of equity, they deserve those facilities. Another matter that I want to touch on also relates to students. It relates to work carried out during holidays by young students who attend tertiary institutions. At present, there is much discontentment because young students go home and try to find part-time work. Sometimes they are successful. They become most annoyed that no sooner have they found some sort of work than the union organiser comes along and demands a pretty hefty slice out of what might be pay for only six weeks’ work. The students find that a great impost. Surely, the trade union movement, which to some degree comes under the Minister’s direction, could be a little more lenient to those young people. They are the workers of the future. We want them to be well trained. In terms of financial resources, most of them are pretty strapped, and their parents are strapped also. Perhaps the Minister could have some influence on the trade unions that go out and so militantly demand from those students membership fees which are way out of proportion to the advantage they receive by having a job. They are employed for only a short period and on a part-time basis. I am reminded of the experience in the USA, where it is accepted that all of the young people who attend college or university will in fact find part-time work. People in Australia are now doing the same thing. Organisations such as Kentucky Fried Chicken, Big Rooster and Coles all try to give part-time work to students. The private sector is doing the best it can, but I think the union movement wants to have a look at it. Mr T. B. Sullivan: At minimal rates. Mrs Woodgate: Fifty cents an hour. Mr LITTLEPROUD: But they are still getting something. Mr T. B. Sullivan: It is an absolute disgrace. Mr LITTLEPROUD: All right, if they want more money, fair enough. My point is that the union movement should back off and not demand so much in union fees from young people who work for only about six weeks. Time expired. Hon. N. G. WARBURTON (Sandgate—Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) (5.15 p.m.), in reply: I thank each and every honourable member who has shown an interest in and contributed to this very important debate. During the course of my reply, and in the limited time available to me, I will endeavour to touch on some of the important issues raised by honourable members. Firstly, I thank very much the members of my committee and of the Government who quite properly addressed the real issues of my department in a very appropriate fashion. Mr Harper, the Opposition spokesman on Employment, Training and Industrial Relations, commented on the Construction Industry Training Council. Perhaps I should be delighted that the representatives of that council have taken the opportunity—as they indicated to me that they would—to brief political parties and as many people as possible on what they see as an important training initiative. As to the Construction Industry Training Council—as Mr Harper indicated, there are a number of prominent people on that particular advisory council. I am very pleased Legislative Assembly 1800 22 October 1991 that at long last the members of that council seemingly are meeting a commitment that they made to me many months ago. Mr Harper may not be aware that the levy scheme or the tax that they have in mind—— Mr Harper: We wouldn’t regard it as a tax. Mr WARBURTON: The levy scheme or tax—which Mr Harper has publicly supported today in this place—will apply to many thousands of registered builders in this State who are not currently covered by the levy system that applies to the Commonwealth. When representatives of the Construction Industry Training Council said to me that, by a great majority, the industry supports what they proposed to me, I said, “You get me the evidence that that is the case, and we will have another look at it.” They did not get me that evidence, and have not provided it to this date. I certainly undertook my own survey, and I am not about to do their work for them. They know what the position is. As soon as they have carried out their responsibilities, hopefully we will have some sensible discussions about this very important issue. Mr Harper: We wouldn’t criticise you for introducing a new tax in that regard. Mr WARBURTON: I would bet on that. Mr Harper also made some comment—and I was somewhat concerned—about what was apparently a criticism of this Government’s capital works program. Members know what the position is with the State Government’s accelerated capital works program. However, I specifically remind honourable members that the TAFE projects in this State that commenced construction in 1990, and three that are due to start very early in 1992, are costed at something in excess of $70m. That $70m-worth of construction of colleges and ancillary projects is no mean effort towards keeping the building construction industry in this State on its feet. That is what this Government attempted to do. Incidentally, that is in addition to the accelerated capital works program. Mr Santoro raised a specific question about the halls of residence at Kelvin Grove that I believe deserves a constructive answer. It is important that Mr Santoro knows that at this stage my department has received an inquiry from the QUT as to whether the department would be interested in transferring the halls of residence to the QUT for use as student accommodation. I assure the honourable member that any negotiations on that particular inquiry—and there has been no such move to date—would certainly have to be conditional upon the QUT providing the department with replacement premises; for example, for apprentice accommodation. That would have to be at no cost to this Government. I emphasise that the QUT has made only a preliminary inquiry. Many of the comments made by Opposition members applied to enterprise bargaining. In his rendition to this place, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Cooper, clearly was confused. What he purports to put forward as enterprise bargaining—in the form that he did today—is really a form of collective bargaining. Mr Cooper ought to get his facts straight. If he wants to pursue that as an issue, let me warn him that he is running into some very muddy waters. As to enterprise bargaining—let me throw out a challenge to Mr Santoro, other members of the Liberal Party and National Party members. At this stage, I am not suggesting that I can do this in all sincerity—because I have not discussed it with my colleagues, and particularly the Premier—but my challenge is: if those members are so keen on enterprise bargaining, why do they not stand up in this place and suggest an enterprise bargain between themselves and this Government? Why not? If it is such a wonderful thing, I would be prepared to negotiate on the part of the Government. I would look at their productivity and work value. I would also look very closely at their efficiency, effectiveness and general worth to society. Because I am offering to be the negotiator, I will not suggest it; but I know what my colleagues would say. I know what the end result would be. The end result would be that they would probably have to join the long line of unemployed people in this State. That is the genuine challenge. In this place, I have Legislative Assembly 1801 22 October 1991 always found that, if members want to make comments and pursue certain arguments, they must be prepared to put their money where their mouths are. Returning to some of the rare issues raised by the Opposition in relation to my portfolio—Mr Rowell raised the issue of funding for adult education programs, or option programs, as they are now known. I advise him that those programs are intended to be run on a cost-neutral basis across the State. The reality is that the programs in the populous areas of the State where enrolments are high subsidise the programs offered in the more remote areas. The policy of making those programs cost neutral emanated from the recommendations of the QEVET board, and that dates back to the period of the previous Government. I apologise to those honourable members to whom I cannot respond. I thank Mr Littleproud for some of his remarks. As he is probably aware, the Government has entered into agreements with a number of universities. In common with the honourable member, we are interested very much in the future of the individual in the system. The interface that we have very firmly established between secondary education, TAFE and university will ensure that any person who enters the education and training system will have an opportunity to proceed right through that system and go as far as he or she possibly can. Finally, I thank all honourable members once again for their contributions. At 5.25 p.m., The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Power): Order! Under the provisions of the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 1 October, I shall now put the questions for the Vote under consideration and the balance remaining unvoted for Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations (Consolidated Fund, Trust and Special Funds). The questions for the following Votes were put, and agreed to— $24,628,000—Law, Order and Public Safety, Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations (Consolidated Fund). $476,189,000—Law, Order and Public Safety, Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations (Trust and Special Funds). $395,456,000—Education, Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations (Consolidated Fund). $33,055,000—Economic Services, Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations (Consolidated Fund).

Police and Emergency Services Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (5.26 p.m.): I move— “That there be granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year 1991-92, a sum not exceeding $495,087,000 for Law, Order and Public Safety, Department of Police and Bureau of Emergency Services (Consolidated Fund).” The 1991-92 Police budget saw a record $423m allocation, including a $44.389m, or an 11.7 per cent, increase in expenditure primarily to fund extra police. That follows on from last year’s record $378.6m and reflects the depth of the Government’s commitment to the Fitzgerald blueprint and to real and lasting reform in the Police Service. The 1991-92 Budget has a number of key initiatives, including— a further increase in police numbers in order to meet the Government’s pledge to increase the operational strength of the service to 1 200 in its first term; additional funding for capital works, which will see a record number of police stations and facilities upgraded or constructed throughout the State; Legislative Assembly 1802 22 October 1991

$500,000 to establish a household security advisory unit, which will work in conjunction with the private sector to address the increase in break and enter offences; an additional $500,000 to substantially improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the present breath analysis activities of police with the purchase of breath-testing equipment; for the first time, the invaluable service performed by police chaplains will be recognised, with the allocation of $190,000 to fund payment of expenses incurred by the police chaplains during their support role for police. Police numbers Providing sufficient numbers of police is vital in the regeneration of the Police Service and to ensure public safety throughout the State. The Government is committed to reversing the appalling state into which the force had fallen and improving the worst ratio of police officers to population in Australia. Gross understaffing not only affects adversely the morale of officers but also, in areas of high and escalating crime rates, undermines the confidence of the public. In this financial year, the Government will spend a further $11.6m on additional police, increasing the number of extra police by 375. That will continue the process of achieving the Government’s commitment to 1 200 operational police in its first term. Household Security Advisory Service The incidence of breaking and entering of people’s homes and businesses is on the increase throughout Australia. The fight against such offences is seen as a combined effort on the part of the public and the police. Adoption of the community-based policing model has seen an increase in public support for crime prevention programs such as Neighbourhood Watch and Rural Watch. To further promote those ideals, $500,000 has been provided for the establishment of the Household Security Advisory Service. The program has four components— mobile displays at shopping centres to provide advice on home and property security; liaison with victims, providing security advice to help prevent recurrence; a public awareness campaign emphasising ways in which the community can help reduce crime; and setting up of a support unit within the Police Service to develop crime-prevention material and strategies. The first mobile display went on the road this month and two units will be touring south-east Queensland this financial year. A third unit will be added next financial year to tour the rest of the State. Drugs The Government’s commitment to fighting the drug-trafficking problem has again been reflected in the allocation of a further $600,000 to support drug operations. That follows on from last year when an initial $600,000 was allocated. That initiative, in conjunction with the doubling of the State’s Drug Squad and the establishment of dedicated drug squads in Townsville and Cairns, has greatly enhanced the service’s capabilities to apprehend offenders and track the money trails to the Mr Bigs. Drink-driving A sum of $500,000 will be provided to purchase and upgrade breath-testing equipment necessary to fight the incidence of drink-driving on a Statewide basis. The provision of this new and upgraded equipment will supplement the State’s first two booze Legislative Assembly 1803 22 October 1991 buses, which were introduced this month. Next year will see two more booze buses on the road to fight the drink-driving problem. Police welfare The $9m regionalisation initiative, begun in the 1990-91 Budget, has seen welfare officers stationed in each region to assist police with welfare and related problems. To complement this initiative, $190,000 will be provided to compensate police chaplains when they go about their pastoral duties assisting police to deal with the demands placed on them. Capital works The 1991-92 year will see $46.6m spent on capital works programs around the State. The allocation will include funds for new works at the following locations: Ashgrove, $100,000; Aurukun, $2.7m; Cairns, $10.4m; Cooktown, $1.53m; Coomera, $1.1m; Deception Bay, $1.2m; Fortitude Valley, $40,000; Jimboomba, $1.3m; Kawana Waters, $1.35m; Logan, $6.5m; Mount Cotton driver-training centre, $1.5m; Mudgeeraba, $1.2m; Normanton, $1.6m; Warwick, $250,000; and Weipa, $2.1m. In addition, funds are provided for continuing capital works projects at the following locations: Alderley, $132,000; Brisbane headquarters, $1.17m; Capalaba, $952,000; Doomadgee, $117,000; Emerald, $338,000; Innisfail, $163,000; Magnetic Island, $1.59m; Mossman, $1.8m; North Ipswich, $120,000; North Tamborine, $181,000; Petrie, $1.6m; Rollingstone, $297,000; Smithfield, $609,000; and Taroom, $163,000. Funds totalling $4.4m have also been provided for minor works or planning on police capital works projects at Bundaberg, Cleveland, Inala, Mackay, Lockhart River, Sandgate, Toowoomba, Warwick and Wynnum. Fitzgerald reforms For too many years inaction by previous Governments allowed corruption to flourish in Queensland. The Fitzgerald report released in July 1989 states— “For many years, Queensland has had a corruption problem. It is now generally accepted that openness and accountability have been missing from the political process and that there is widespread corruption within the police force, which also has other major problems. Successive Governments and their departments, including the police force, have either failed to eradicate corruption or ignored or even condoned it.” This Government is very much aware of the following Fitzgerald comment— “Delay, obstruction and superficially innocent modifications to what is intended in this report can all be used to defeat reform.” That is why this Government has progressively implemented without delay the major reforms which constitute the thrust of the Fitzgerald recommendations. In fact, 110 of the 125 major Fitzgerald reforms have already been fully implemented and the remaining ones will soon be initiated. These major reforms include the improvement of education and training for police officers, a new command structure, award restructuring, the regionalisation of the service and the start of civilianisation. Civilianisation was first mooted by Mr Fitzgerald as a way of making the police organisation more cost effective by ensuring that duties within the department that are not specifically police orientated are done by public servants. This has seen police carrying out office duties replaced by civilians, allowing experienced officers to return to operational duties. The recruiting of civilian directors and managers for specialist positions has also provided a depth of knowledge and expertise previously lacking in the hierarchy of the police organisation. Already 200 extra civilians have been employed in the Police Service, which further assists the Government’s commitment to 1 200 extra police in its first term. By the end of 1992, there will be an extra 300 civilians and 900 more Legislative Assembly 1804 22 October 1991 police added to the service. This would mean an increase of 20 per cent in the Police Service in the first term of this Government. Last year, there was a record 13.5 per cent increase in police funding, and that has been followed up with an 11.7 per cent increase this year. These increases were maintained despite the Government’s commitment not to introduce new taxes. Naturally, the Government would have liked to have gone further, but budgetary restraints have meant the line has to be drawn somewhere. Mr Fitzgerald’s recommendation that the training be moved to other institutions has been fully implemented. The old seven-month academy-based training program has been replaced by the two- semester university-based program. The new program provides new recruits with a mix of basic work skills, such as police law and duties, knowledge of the criminal justice process, and the foundations of the social sciences. The new tertiary pre-service training course allows police trainees to be exposed to people from other disciplines to ensure the breadth of experience essential to the study and understanding of human behaviour. This month, Queensland’s 5 900 police officers were awarded pay rises of up to 21.3 per cent as a result of award restructuring. The State Industrial Commission granted further increases on top of an interim 5 per cent awarded in April, to bring the total percentage increases in the past six months to between 11.2 per cent and 21.3 per cent. The regionalisation of the service is tied to a greater emphasis on the concept of community policing which aims to forge closer links between police and their immediate communities. A responsive service can only operate effectively at the local level with decentralised command, and only when the command in each region is a fully supported operational entity. Regionalising the Police Service gives each community its own local police, with an assistant commissioner, who operate independently from Brisbane and whose primary focus, therefore, is not the city bureaucracy but their own immediate area of responsibility. This Government is committed to continuing the process whereby the police play a greater role in their community and the community has increased confidence in its police. On the question of resources and law enforcement, Mr Fitzgerald states in his report— “The situation (when comparing growth in crime and police resources) may be much worse than it appears. It is possible that a lack of police to receive reports of illegal activities and a lack of public confidence in the police force and its ability to act effectively are depressing the level of reported crime. As discussed elsewhere in this report, a number of steps should be considered to improve the situation, including increased funding and resources and re- organisation of the Police Department to commit more of its existing staff to law enforcement. However, the problem cannot be solved solely by increasing law enforcement resources, even if such a course was desirable. Nor is there any possibility of obtaining and financing the huge increase in resources which would be necessary for effective law enforcement in all areas.” This Government was faced with the monumental task of rejuvenating the Police Service and has faced that task head-on. Even Mr Fitzgerald pointed out the difficulty of the reform process. In his report, he said— “The administration of criminal justice is intrinsically hard and reform is controversial. That is daunting for politicians, Government and public officials, who do not like problems and are often unwilling to admit they exist. A problem is seen as a possible cause of criticism, embarrassment, loss of electoral support or career setback. Bureaucrats and politicians are naturally predisposed to deflect criticism and avoid controversy. Legislative Assembly 1805 22 October 1991

Despite much recent publicity, crime and its causes, the lack of effective law enforcement and the social and financial consequences get little real attention and are dealt with on a piecemeal basis. The approach is further fragmented by sectional political interests, geography and the complications of a federal system of Government.” This Government has not shied away from its responsibility to the Police Service, which has illustrated its strict commitment to the Fitzgerald reform blueprint. I now turn to the Bureau of Emergency Services. For the first time, the administration of Queensland’s five emergency services—fire and ambulance services, State Emergency Service, chemical hazards and chemical emergency management, and Aviation Division—are under one roof. In September, administrative staff from each service moved into Forbes House, which is the former police headquarters building in Makerston Street, Brisbane. This move is part of a Government policy to streamline the Bureau of Emergency Services and bring all services under one administrative umbrella in the interests of efficiency. Major points of the restructuring, which is already resulting in considerable cost savings, are— streamlined training and certification for all services; shared operating facilities; joint communications; and common regional boundaries. Chemical Hazards and Emergency Management Unit As a division of the Bureau of Emergency Services, the CHEM Unit’s role is to help facilitate public protection against hazardous chemicals. It assists the emergency response agencies to develop emergency plans and access to information relating to hazardous chemicals, and provides joint training on how to deal with chemical incidents. The unit also prepares guidelines for the assessment and management of contaminated land in Queensland and has the responsibility for identifying secure regional landfill sites for the safe disposal of treated hazardous wastes. Through its close liaison with local authorities, industry, environmental groups and the public, the unit’s goal is to create a realistic awareness of chemical hazards. As no single Act or group of Acts currently covers the management of hazardous substances in Queensland, the CHEM Unit coordinates and works closely with a range of Government departments on various aspects of hazardous substances. The unit employs a small number of specialist scientific, research and public education professional staff experienced in a wide range of scientific and technical fields. Contaminated land legislation The unit is developing legislation for the identification, assessment and management of contaminated land in Queensland for presentation to Parliament this session. The proposed Act is a result of wide consultation with local authorities, industry and the community, and will represent an important initiative to help prevent and clean up contaminated sites in the State by providing mechanisms for assessment and clean-up of sites where necessary. The proposed legislation will provide for the establishment of a register of contaminated sites. This register will enable the Government to identify the scope of contaminated land in Queensland and assist local authorities when they are dealing with rezoning applications, particularly for residential purposes. An information program for local authorities and planners will be carried out by the CHEM Unit to explain the requirements under the Act. Legislative Assembly 1806 22 October 1991

Secure landfill Yesterday, Cabinet approved Gurulmundi as the site for a secure landfill for the disposal of treated hazardous wastes in south-east Queensland on the basis of the findings of an independent impact assessment study carried out over several months by geotechnical, hydrological and environmental consultants, AGC Woodward-Clyde. This represents the culmination of several years’ search by successive Queensland Governments for a suitable disposal site to meet the needs of industry and local authorities throughout south-east Queensland. Joint emergency training An amount of $445,000 has been allocated for joint training programs throughout Queensland to assist emergency services personnel in handling incidents involving hazardous chemicals. These courses, organised by the CHEM Unit and Queensland University of Technology, represent the only combined or joint training opportunity currently available for operational personnel within the Department of Police and the emergency services. Twenty 2-day courses on managing hazardous materials will be conducted in Brisbane and 13 regional centres throughout the State this financial year. In addition, three advanced two-week courses are planned for Brisbane. The development of a train- the-trainer package is proposed to be completed later this year. Chemical advisory service The CHEM Unit is currently developing a response advisory service for chemical emergencies project in conjunction with the emergency services and the Queensland Police Service. The service is designed to provide trained, expert personnel at the scene of a chemical incident or fire to provide advice and information to the emergency services on such matters as the dangerous properties of chemicals, occupational hygiene data, plume prediction and decontamination procedures. An amount of $123,000 has been allocated towards the development of this service. Public education One of the roles of the CHEM Unit is to raise public awareness about chemicals and hazardous materials. An allocation of $187,000 has been made for public education and consultation programs concerning hazardous waste disposal, contaminated land risk communication and emergency management. ESMAP Work on the development of a computer-based mapping and analysis project, known as ESMAP, for the emergency services and the Queensland Police Service will be continuing, with an allocation this year of $511,000. When operational, this system will enhance the capability of emergency services in the use of geographic information as an aid to training and decision-making. Queensland Fire Service The Queensland Fire Service has continued to develop and refine its operational and administrative systems since the passage of the Fire Service Act 1990, when a single, unified body was created. The Budget allocation for 1991-92 is $118.221m, of which $2.44m is the funding for the rural fire service. This contribution to the rural fire service represents a 9.8 per cent increase in funding. The service has undertaken a number of initiatives including the introduction of the Australian Fire Accident Reporting Systems, which means Queensland is linked with all Australian fire statistics. This important initiative provides for our own State much-needed uniform statistics, which means that the service can use the information to manage and develop future Fire Service needs. It also provides an indication of fire-spread trends and causes, and allows the service to assess fire prevention needs. In addition, it provides assistance in the development of Australian Legislative Assembly 1807 22 October 1991 standards for buildings, fire safety, transport and storage, and reveals the overall cost to the community in dollar terms. Code of practice The service has refined operational systems by issuing a new code of practice covering standard operational procedures outlining a code of command and regional responsibilities. The code specifies the responsibilities of each section of the service and the duties of officers in charge at fires and emergencies. It also indicates requirements for a change in command structure. The service has improved administrative systems by the introduction of a centralised records section and the total computerisation of those records. Risk-mapping A major task undertaken by the service was the development of risk-mapping. About 90 per cent of Queensland has been mapped on computer and will be completed this financial year. The project will identify the risks within towns and cities to allow for forward planning on standards of fire cover. Training The training section of the Queensland Fire Service is developing Q-Step, which is a total career training system. It will be introduced with the first recruit intake in January and is based on self-paced learning packages which will ensure standard levels of competency for fire-fighters throughout the State. Auxiliary association The Queensland Fire Service has encouraged and supported the formation of the Queensland Fire Service Auxiliary Association. While some funding is provided at the outset to assist this organisation, the association is levying members and will become self-sufficient. A training manual has been developed for auxiliary fire-fighters and they have also been instructed on breathing apparatus and hazardous incidents response through Statewide courses. Another nine courses for auxiliaries have been developed and will be distributed this financial year. New equipment Twenty-three appliances have been ordered and the majority of them will be delivered by January. Twenty-one of these appliances are the new user friendly Firepac machines worth $4.5m and are a departure from previous fire vehicles based on commercial trucks. Eight new chemical response units have been ordered at a cost of $200,000 and have been delivered to Roma, Maryborough, Nambour, Toowoomba, Rockhampton, Tully, Charleville and Mackay. The service will provide greater protection for its fire-fighters with proposed new helmets, which are currently being field evaluated. These helmets have an added feature of providing a visor to protect the eyes of the fire-fighter. New helmets will be progressively issued in this financial year. Queensland Ambulance Service The Queensland Ambulance Service was established on 1 July 1991, following the passing of the Ambulance Service Act 1991. The service, formerly organised and managed through 96 individual Queensland ambulance transport brigade committees, is now managed as a Statewide, decentralised service, commanded by an ambulance commissioner. This new administrative and management structure will provide for more effective deployment of ambulance resources throughout the State; a better coordinated approach to the delivery of prehospital emergency care and transport; an elevated and equal status for the ambulance service within the emergency services group; and greater availability of career development options for professional ambulance officers. Legislative Assembly 1808 22 October 1991

The Ambulance Act 1991 also provides for an active and ongoing role for local community involvement in the establishment, operations and development of ambulance services in their communities. Each community can establish a local ambulance committee, which has the main functions of liaising between the service and the community; advising the commissioner in respect of ambulance service needs and performance; and managing funds held on trust for the benefit of ambulance services in the community it represents. On 1 July 1991, all funds held in trust by the Queensland Ambulance Transport Brigade committees were secured on trust by the Queensland Ambulance Service and can be expended only for specified purposes and managed through the local ambulance committee. In 1991-1992, the service will spend $3.607m on capital works. Whilst the service is still in the process of establishing the realistic Statewide picture of the operational capacity of the service, the Government’s contribution to the cost of delivering the service during 1991-1992 is $33,232,000. This level of contribution is required for the ongoing funding of the development program, outlined in the following initiatives. Patient care and training initiatives Since 1 July 1991, the associate diploma in applied science (ambulance) was the required qualification for all ambulance officers. All new and current officers will be required to complete this qualification, which will serve as a public guarantee of the level of training and expertise of ambulance officers in Queensland. It is envisaged a further 50 to 100 defibrillators will be purchased this financial year. The program will be progressively expanded to a stage where all first-response vehicles in Queensland will have a defibrillator on board with officers trained in its use. There are currently a number of advanced life-support procedures approved for use by the service. During this financial year, a uniform advanced life-support program will be developed and introduced. A multicasualty management course has also been developed, and the first one was conducted this month. Further air attendants courses will be conducted for officers who will crew rotary and fixed-wing aircraft to attend medical emergencies with medical officers. Capital expenditure This year, strategic planning for ambulance stations is being developed as a coordinated State program and the new UHF system for south-east Queensland is being progressively commissioned. A number of initiatives are being developed for ambulance vehicles, including development of a first- response unit; development of restraints for baby capsules in Class I vehicles; provision of additional seats and restraints in Class 1 vehicles for escorts during medical retrievals; research into alternate patient transport vehicles; provision of QAS emergency support units for each district. The QAS award will be restructured in line with the principles established by the Commonwealth Government and in accordance with the new structure determined by the Ambulance Service Act 1991. The service is currently being reorganised into regions and districts and any staff shortages are being addressed by the recruitment of interstate and overseas ambulance officers. An operations manual, providing a standard of procedures and codes of practice for the State, was introduced in July and further public education programs on first aid and advanced resuscitation will be carried out this year. State Emergency Service For the third year in succession, the State Counter-Disaster Organisation and the State Emergency Service have been placed under extreme operational pressure over a protracted period. They have been able to handle this pressure and have proved once again the underlying strength of the Queensland counter-disaster management system. During 1990-1991, the State operations room of the counter-disaster management Legislative Assembly 1809 22 October 1991 organisation was continuously manned from 19 December 1990 to 10 March 1991—a total of 82 days. This resulted from a succession of events, commencing with cyclone Joy in December in the north of the State, followed by extensive flooding in the gulf country, central and western Queensland, and the Fitzroy River basin. There was also major flooding in south-east Queensland in February. These operations involved extensive contributions at the local authority counter-disaster management level and entailed many thousands of hours of voluntary work. The success of these operations was due to the continuing programs aimed at developing, refining and exercising counter-disaster management arrangements at State, district and local levels. The ongoing individual training programs, targeted at the development of key personnel, have also increased the expertise of the service. In 1991-1992, these programs will continue, with particular emphasis on the establishment of regional training support capabilities throughout the State, and the development of trained and skilled executive officers at district and local authority levels. This financial year also sees the commissioning of the new State disaster operations centre at Forbes House. This facility will be staffed by professionally trained and resourced personnel backed by effective and timely management information. There will also be a separation of volunteer emergency service management and counter-disaster management, both of which are coordinated through the State Emergency Service. By early 1992, following amendments to the State Counter-Disaster Organization Act 1975-78, there will be separate divisions of the State Emergency Service and counter- disaster management. This will provide further focus on these distinct but interrelated areas of counter- disaster management. Aviation Division The Aviation Division came into being in July 1990 when the former Ministerial Air Unit was transferred to the bureau. In January 1991, the Government Helicopter Rescue Unit was also transferred to the division. An allocation of $3.85m this year will provide an appropriate level of funding for the larger Aviation Division and the expanded flying commitments. The allocation includes elements of the bureau of corporate services, ongoing support of the North Queensland Emergency Response Group, mainly through insurance of Government assets, and an increasing use of aircraft and helicopters on medical tasks, including organ transplant retrieval flights within Australia and to New Zealand. The emergency services air unit of the Aviation Division is comprised of a fixed-wing element, which was formerly the Ministerial Air Unit, and the helicopter element, which was formerly the Government Helicopter Rescue Unit in the State Emergency Service. The fixed-wing element operates a Westwind II jet which was purchased in early 1991 as a replacement for the BAe-125, which has been sold. In addition, there is a King Air turbo-prop. Both planes perform a variety of tasks, including organ transplant retrievals, search and rescue operations, counter-disaster operations, Governor and ministerial transport, medical transfers and mines disaster support. The helicopter element operates a twin-engine IFR Aerospatiale Squirrel in Brisbane, and a single-engine VFR Squirrel in Cairns. These helicopters are utilised in the same way as the fixed-wing aircraft, as well as being used in police law enforcement and training. By the end of 1991, the Aviation Division will establish an Aviation Division operations centre which will involve a small, streamlined tasking and coordination agency staffed by aviation and other specialist officers. This agency will provide for better utilisation of the Government's aerial assets, as well as providing greater efficiency in the tasking and coordination of Government subsidised and Government accredited aerial resources generally. With further development, the centre will become a more mature agency capable of undertaking the aerial ambulance tasking role as foreseen by the Parliamentary Select Committee of Inquiry into Ambulance Services. Legislative Assembly 1810 22 October 1991

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I desire to inform honourable members that on the Vote proposed I will allow a full discussion on all of the Minister’s departmental Estimates (Consolidated Revenue, Trust and Special Funds). Sitting suspended from 5.57 to 7.30 p.m. Hon. N. J. TURNER (Nicklin) (7.30 p.m.): I rise to speak on the Police and Emergency Services Estimates. This morning in Parliament, the Police Minister tabled the annual report of the Queensland Police Service and it bears out precisely what every citizen of Queensland knows, that is, that crime is on the increase and offences against property and persons will be one of the major issues in the next State election. The police report categorically states that, in 1990-91, robberies increased 30 per cent. Since 1989-90, arson has increased 41 per cent. There has also been an increase of 30 per cent in the number of drug offences, and reported offences against property were up 17.2 per cent, break-and-enter offences up 25.5 per cent, entering of dwellings up 23.6 per cent, motor vehicle theft up 13 per cent, stealing up 16.5 per cent, rape up 13.4 per cent, robbery up 21.1 per cent and armed robbery up 30.6 per cent. Is it any wonder that the average citizen is concerned at the dramatic and rising levels of crime and the declining clean-up rate in Queensland? Under Labor control, police morale has never been lower or the wastage factor higher. That is a sad fact and a shocking indictment of Labor policy and initiatives. Turning to the Estimates—the question that must be asked is: how did the Police Service fare in the State Government Budget? The Police Department Vote for 1991-92 from the Consolidated Fund is estimated at $423m, or 4.7 per cent of the entire Budget and up 14 per cent on the actual budget for 1990-91. It must be noted, however, that the budget of $379m for 1990-91 was underspent by $7.3m. That is quite an amazing result, given the reports of police understaffing, rising crime rates, lack of facilities and resources and cuts in manhours worked from Cape York to Coolangatta. Compared with the 1991 budget, the overall increase dropped from 14 per cent to 12 per cent. The question to the Minister must be: if the $7.3m was not spent in the last financial year, has it been carried forward into the 1991-92 financial year and does the $423m Vote include the $7.3m not spent? Will the real figures please stand up! Departmental advice is that the $7.3m was not spent because suppliers could not supply the Police Service with another aircraft costing $3m, boats for the water police and computer equipment by 30 June. Considering the various program areas—in 1990-91, prevention offences overspent its budget by $9.7m, or 4 per cent; detection offences was underspent by $4.7m, or 7.8 per cent; technical support was underspent by $3.6m, or 6.5 per cent; and training was underspent by $8.6m, or 26 per cent. Would the Minister please advise the Chamber why there was underspending in those programs? Are the funds carried forward? Is it true that the underfunding related to the aircraft, boats and computer equipment that I mentioned? A departmental story with equal credence is that the cuts relate to the Treasurer’s edict that all departments had to find savings of up to 8 per cent. If that is correct, it is quite amazing that the Government would put pressure on the Police Service to underspend its budget when services were being cut across the State. It is unbelievable that, in order to balance the books, the Government would cut law-and-order programs to achieve savings. In the past year, there have been over 193 000 major crimes and $12m worth of property taken from 13 000 homes in Brisbane. In 1991-92, the Estimates for the various programs were: prevention offences, $262m, which is up 8.6 per cent compared with 1990-91 actual spending and up 13 per cent on 1990-91 budgeted spending; detection offences, $67m, which is up 22 per cent on 1990-91 actual spending and up 13 per cent on budgeted spending for that year; technical support, $58.5m, which was up 12.9 per cent on 1990-91 actual spending and 7.3 per cent on budgeted spending; Legislative Assembly 1811 22 October 1991 training, $34.7m, which was up 46 per cent on actual spending for 1990-91 and 6.9 per cent on budgeted spending. I turn now to the individual programs, firstly, prevention offences. According to the program description in Budget Paper No. 3, this policy encompasses the delivery of services associated with operational police activities aimed at increasing the safety and security of the community. The services are provided by 324 police stations throughout the State. Salaries and wages for the program will increase by $4.9m to $171.9m, and full-time employees will rise by 275 persons to 4 976 persons. The entire budget is $262m. As I said, in 1990-91, that program overspent its budget by $9.7m, and the Vote for the coming financial year is up by $20m, or 8.6 per cent. Subprograms include public safety and community policing. Although funding is not disclosed in the subprograms, information has been provided that the community policing unit, which was a key recommendation of the Fitzgerald inquiry, had its budget virtually halved and had been told to raise money elsewhere. The unit had requested a budget of $1.4m, but received $750,000. That unit is responsible for important programs such as Neighbourhood Watch to combat household burglary, and Driver Reviver designed to alert motorists to the dangers of driver fatigue. My advice is that the unit was told to get sponsors to bankroll its community initiatives because there was hardly enough in the budget to cover the salaries of the civilian members of the unit. Instead of being the vanguard of the Police Service liaison with the community, this unit will be reduced to scavenging for money. The unit will not have funds for night and weekend overtime work. Those are the times when the unit’s police officers should be out and about talking to the community about their concerns. The Labor Government is keen to toss the catchcry of Fitzgerald reform around like confetti in the Budget papers, but in monetary terms it receives only lip-service, not hard cash. It looks like the unit will have to augment its funds with chook raffles and meat trays. Community policing should be regarded as an essential program and not treated with dismissive disdain. With the cutbacks in overtime and weekend work, now more than ever, the Labor Government should be supporting the unit with funds. I remind the Minister of the CJC finding that protection of the people was paramount. It would seem from the funding priority for community policing that protection of people is not paramount with the Labor Government. The Police Commissioner’s report clearly states that we are now in the worst State for crime in Australia. Secondly, detection of offences encompasses the investigation and solving of major and organised crime and the detection of drug offences, particularly trafficking, production and cultivation of dangerous drugs. Salaries for that program will increase by $7m to $44m and staff numbers will increase by 99 to 1 051. As I said previously, the 1991-92 budget for this program is $67m, and it was underspent in the previous year by $4.7m, or 7.8 per cent. Thirdly, the technical support program provides the means for operational police to achieve their objectives through the provision of enabling technologies and support resources. This covers the areas of information technology, communications, forensic services and the provision of vehicles. Salaries, etc., for that program come to $28m, which is up $1.8m, and the number of employees is down by 11 to 799. As I said earlier, the total budget for the program is $58.5m and, in 1990-91, it was underspent by $3.6m, or 6.5 per cent. Fourthly, training encompasses all aspects of police education and training from selection to disengagement. Salaries and wages for the program are $20.6m, which is up $6.1m. The number of employees will increase by 165 to 460. As I said before, this program has a budget of $34.6m and in 1990-91 was underspent by $8.6m, or 26 per cent. The increase in the number of employees for the four programs is 589 of which, according to the Budget papers, some 300 will be operational police. Although I note in Budget Paper No. 4 that by June 1992 police numbers will have increased by 1 200—and that is good; it was the aim of the previous Government—the statement continues, Legislative Assembly 1812 22 October 1991 however, and says that part of the increase will flow from the increased employment of civilians, thereby releasing to operational duties police officers previously engaged in administrative tasks. The release of police from clerical duties was a policy of the previous Government, but it makes the claim of 1 200 extra officers a bit rubbery. Salaries for the four programs will increase by $20.4m. This reflects the increase in the awards for the police. It is important to note that the salary and wage increases for police are being phased in and will be payable over three terms. The first increase was in September this year, the next increase will be March next year and the final increase will be in September 1992, which is in the next financial year. The present wage rise is not what it appears to be. Some officers have already lost money from their pay-packets as a result of the dropping of certain conditions that they had. It is understood that the Government argued before the Industrial Commission that if the full rate awarded was payable for a full 12 months, it would have cost the Government $26.45m for the members of the Police Union and another $3.5m for the members of the officers’ union. In other words, it would have cost the Government almost $30m in a full year. In New South Wales, the increases were paid instantaneously, as were increased payments to the Federal Police. However, in Victoria the increases were paid on a basis similar to that in Queensland. They were spread over 12 months. It is interesting to note the similarities with Victoria. In the Treasurer’s Budget Speech, he took a hefty swipe at the Victorian Treasurer—and a Labor mate—about that State’s lack of fiscal discipline. With respect, although Queensland does not have the financial disasters of Victoria—and we can thank the National Party for that—this Queensland Labor Government’s policy on police salaries and wages is exactly the same as the policy that it ridiculed. A quick perusal of the Queensland Economy, which is Budget Paper No. 5, shows that the economy is booming. Real economic growth is anticipated at 3.4 per cent. At the time of the presentation of the Budget, the drought had not hit Lytton or Logan—it was still just “a bit of a dry”, as Mr Casey remarked—and the Government’s advisers were not bothering to read Department of Primary Industries memorandums. One would have thought, given this rosy picture, that the Government would have introduced the increases almost immediately and not staggered them over 12 months. The Teachers Union had its increases spread over eight months. It would seem that the reason why the Labor Government adopted different standards for police and teachers is that teachers can go on strike but police cannot. Industrially, police are nothing to worry about. The real reason was that the Government would have to find the extra money, and this would have put pressure on the Budget and resulted in more cuts. As I said before, four programs which comprise the Police Service have a budget of $423m, an increase of 11.7 per cent compared with the actual expenditure of the previous year. Of this figure, some $21m is for salary and wage increases, which means that the actual increase for the Police Service is 8.3 per cent. If one allows for the $7m that was underspent in the 1990-91 Budget to be carried forward, one finds that the actual increase in the Police Vote is a mere 6.5 per cent. That is the increase in the Police Vote—6.5 per cent! This is the Government which said that it was going to make the Police Service the best in Australia. This Labor Party is the very same Labor Party which said in its policy speech that the former Government continued to starve police of the staff and resources to fight crime and protect the lives and property of Queensland families. By any measure, this Labor Government has turned the alleged starvation into a famine. It has gone soft on the protection of people and on law and order. Protection of people is not a priority. However, it will be at the next State election. An increase of a measly 6.5 per cent for manpower, administration and resources for police services will not help police to win the war against crime. Because of this Labor Government’s inaction, police are losing the war against crime. Every police region in the Legislative Assembly 1813 22 October 1991

State is saying the same thing—it is underfunded. Protection of people has declined as the police juggle their budgets. Of course, a big contributor to this has been the regionalisation policy. In August/September of this financial year, police stations were advised of further reductions in weekend work. Unfortunately for these police stations, they were already into the new financial year and using funds out of their 1991-92 budgets. The effect of this has been that police officers have had to severely prune their budgets to accommodate the cutbacks. At the same time, they have had to find savings to make up for operating the first three months of the financial year on the old budget. Most police stations had spent a quarter of their budgets before the State Budget was released and before being told of the cut-backs. The effect on each of the stations has resulted in things being worse than they were before. For example, many stations throughout Queensland have been told by the assistant commissioners that they should have between 10 per cent and 50 per cent police availability for Saturdays and Sundays, night shifts and overtime. When the police officers in charge of the stations do not have the correct availability and cannot manage their stations within the budget, they are accused of being poor managers. As a result of all of this, we now have nine-to-five policing and many police are working in their own time and being told not to claim overtime. Rather than let the community down, police are working for nothing in their own time. I have been told that some of the more astute police officers are writing to their assistant commissioners giving cost details of their station’s operations, and asking how they can improve the management of the station to enable them to supply a good police service to the public yet live within their budgets. My advice is that the assistant commissioners are ignoring these letters, but the police officers are being given the hint in no uncertain terms that if they cannot manage within the impossible and impractical budgets they are given, they are poor managers. As well, they are given the message, albeit subtly, that an inability to live within the impossible and impractical budgets would reflect on their personal appraisals and therefore they would not be promoted to higher positions. This is what is being said by senior officers at the level of assistant commissioners and superintendent to non-commissioned officers and constables. No blame is apportioned to the assistant commissioners. They are trying to live within the impossible and impractical budgets handed down to them by this Labor Government. The tragedy in all of this is that the public does not know about this, about the monetary cut- backs and about the financial famine that is occurring in the Police Service. When members of the public call for assistance, if it is not a major crime sometimes police do not attend the scene because overtime is not approved, or none exists. On the other hand, and in most cases, the police do attend but overtime is not claimed. It is my understanding that it is a breach of the Industrial Relations Act when an award is not complied with, but this does not seem to worry this Labor Government. While this Labor Government can get police to do unpaid work—voluntary work—it will not increase the Police budget. Ironically, if this Labor Government finds that it can get away with nine-to-five policing supplemented by unpaid work, the Police Service will be in for another round of cuts. A big curse for police has been Labor-style regionalisation. Supposedly it is more efficient to allocate a certain amount of the budget resources to assistant commissioners in charge of regions. In effect, police officers have become financial managers. Assistant commissioners split up the budget between all the stations in their region. Officers in charge of stations have to work from that budget. They have to do financial exercises to determine the cheapest way of keeping the station operative for the weekend—whether to have constables or sergeants doing the weekend work. Because a constable costs less, he will be put on, and the weekend work will be done by constables with very little Legislative Assembly 1814 22 October 1991 supervision. In the name of efficiency, officers with very little experience are trying to do the job. More and more assistant commissioners and police officers are spending more time with their calculators and less time doing Police Service work. This is evidenced by the increasing crime rate. A quick look at the statistics in the annual report of the Queensland Police Service shows that the crime rate is increasing and the clean-up rate is falling. In one district alone, house-breaking has increased by 116 per cent, and the clean-up rate is a mere 6 per cent—leaving a tremendous number of unsolved crimes. Nine-to- five policing has resulted in police being rostered on at times when no crime is being committed, and rostered off when crime is being committed. The Police Service would acknowledge that the highest crime rate period is from 5 o’clock on Friday night to perhaps 4 o’clock on Monday morning. Because of budgetary restrictions, police numbers are kept down on weekends. So when the crimes are being committed—and at the highest peak period for crime—fewer police are out working on the beat. From Cape York to Cunnamulla and Coolangatta there is the same cry from the police regions: insufficient funds. With an increase of a mere 6.5 per cent, police service will not increase. The last program is corporate services, which is directed to the provision of administrative, financial and management services to support the delivery of operational police services. In 1991-92, salaries and wages for this program will increase by $9m—the largest increase of any program—to $26m. Staff will increase by 21 persons to 560. The 1991 Budget Related Paper No. 5 “The Reform Process” is an interesting booklet. Firstly, it is a Budget-related paper that was not tabled in the House. The Opposition was not given a set of those Budget-related papers, numbering about 10 in all. I suppose that it is secret information for Government members to help them in their electorates, but I remind the House that the media got copies of those documents. If the Opposition wanted a set of them, it had to pay some $28. The second reason for the Budget-related paper being interesting is that the booklet does not dwell on the 1991-92 Budget; it reviews the 1990-91 year, and looks backwards, not forwards. I address two questions to the Minister on matters arising from Budget Related Paper No. 5. Under police administration, it states that funds totalling $9m were provided to establish autonomous police regions throughout Queensland. Would the Minister advise if any of those funds were for headquarters—for offices—or for new offices in the various regions? The second question relates to the $10m to upgrade police computer and work-processing facilities, etc. Would the Minister advise when those funds were spent? I conclude the Police side of these Estimates by quoting to the Committee the statement of ethics which every member of the Police Service undertakes to fulfil: one, to protect life and property; two, to preserve the peace; three, to prevent offences; four, to detect and apprehend offenders; and five, to help those in need of assistance. I believe that all police take very seriously that statement of ethics. That is reflected in the CJC survey, which found that 76 per cent of people believed that police met their performance expectation. I hasten to add that this Vote, which is virtually only an increase of 6.5 per cent, is entirely inadequate and insufficient to help police win the war against crime. I turn now to the Bureau of Emergency Services, which comprises six programs, namely, ambulance services, aviation services, chemical hazards, counter-disaster, fire services and volunteer rescue services. Time does not permit me to comment on them in detail. In 1991-92, the Ambulance Service has a budget of $101.6m and a staff of 1 865—an increase of 13 persons. Salaries and wages for the year total $66m. Ambulance services will receive a grant of some $33m from the Consolidated Fund—an increase of 5.5 per cent. The bulk of the funds for the service will come from ambulance committees. In other words, some $77m comes from the community. Legislative Assembly 1815 22 October 1991

The Opposition congratulates the Ambulance Services Board and ambulance committees for the wonderful work that they do for the community in a dedicated and professional manner. All communities take pride in their ambulance service and work hard to ensure that it is adequately equipped. It is important that it does not become bureaucratised and that valuable funds are not swallowed up in administration. Regardless of the department or service restructured by this Labor Government, the very same pattern has emerged: the bureaucracy has increased and the service has diminished, particularly in the smaller towns. The restructuring of the Ambulance Service has been done in Labor’s usual ham-fisted way, causing concern throughout the entire service. I am pleased that the service appears slowly to be settling down. In Opposition, Labor promised to fund the Ambulance Service from consolidated revenue. However, on this matter it has backflipped in the same way as it has backflipped on the privatisation of prisons. I ask the Minister to explain to the Committee the fate of the computerisation of the Queensland Ambulance Service on the basis that tenders were called and submitted, I understand, to the Computer Science Prentice Centre at the University of Queensland, which assessed those tenders at a cost of approximately $100,000. Is it a fact that the tenders have now been scrapped and that the total cost to the taxpayer of that exercise is somewhere in the vicinity of approximately $130,000? Mr Mackenroth: That was done by the old board. They were going to spend $6m on computers which didn’t integrate with anyone else. Mr TURNER: I understand that it was the old board. Mr Mackenroth: The old board did that. Mr TURNER: The National Party believes that ambulance services should be under the Health portfolio, not the Bureau of Emergency Services. It will be transferred after the next election when the National Party returns to Government. Mr Mackenroth: That is not what Russell Cooper said when he was the Minister for Emergency Services. Mr TURNER: We will do that when we regain office after the next election. I turn to the Chemical Hazards and Emergency Management Unit, which was established by the previous Government. It is emerging to be a beast that the National Party did not envisage. For 1991-92, the unit has a budget of $4m—down $2m on the previous year. It is interesting to note that, in the 1990-91 year, the budget was $9m but the actual expenditure of the unit was $6m. A major issue for the CHEM Unit has been the proposal to site a toxic waste dump at Gurulmundi. The CHEM Unit and the Government have made a frightful mess of finding a secure landfill for toxic waste. The Government has the whole of Miles and the shire council offside with its decision-making processes and the recent decision by State Cabinet to locate that dump at Gurulmundi and the radioactive dump at Esk. For far too long, people around the world have thrown their waste into rivers, holes and the sea. A more national outlook is needed in regard to radioactive waste and toxic waste. The Government has not adequately considered the alternatives to the disposal of toxic waste. We have the high- temperature incinerator method—the plasma-arc method—— Mr Mackenroth: Do you think we should put that at Miles—the high toxic? Mr TURNER: There was no need to put a dump there. On my understanding—and the Minister would be aware of this—the Federal Government, the New South Wales Government and the Victorian Government were working on constructing a facility in New South Wales where they would burn all of their toxic waste, and the Queensland Government was invited to submit quantities that it would be interested in burning there. The question of locating such a dump at Miles never arose, so that is not the point. I am saying to the Minister that alternative technology is available in the world today that can Legislative Assembly 1816 22 October 1991 be used. If, in its wisdom, the Government sees fit to dig a hole and say to industry, “We have somewhere that you can throw that waste”, there is no incentive to minimise the amount of waste that is produced. The Government has erred in that regard. The same applies to the radioactive waste facility that is mooted to be constructed at Esk. Mr Dollin: Where will the National Party put it? Mr TURNER: The National Party had the facility built at Redbank to international standards with a monitoring and testing station alongside it. We should work towards overall minimisation with a view to siting a national facility where it would not be harmful, as it can be when it is located close to some places. Mr Dollin: Where is that area? Mr TURNER: There are plenty of areas. I will not name them, because they would have to be evaluated, but the site could be somewhere such as Maralinga or Mary Kathleen. I would not know. I throw those names in as an example. I turn to a matter of extreme concern for the people of Miles and Gurulmundi, that is, the possible effects that the location of that dump could have on the Great Artesian Basin. I know the Minister says that there is no problem. I certainly hope that, if the dump is located on that site, a problem never arises. The question that the concerned people of that region want answered is: in relation to any possible leakage or spillage into the Great Artesian Basin, does the Minister envisage that legislation the same as that proposed in the Green Paper on contaminated land, which decrees that the polluter in any area in Queensland pays for the clean-up, will apply to the Murilla Shire, the Brisbane City Council and the Government, which will operate the dump conjointly? That is a matter of extreme concern, and I ask the Minister—— Mr Mackenroth: There will be a specific piece of legislation to deal with this landfill area. Mr TURNER: Perhaps the Minister will explain it in his reply, because I am nearly out of time. It is a matter of tremendous concern, and I ask that the Minister indicate what is happening in respect of it. I understand that the Minister has promised the people—but he has denied it—that they would not get the dump if they did not want it. I do not know about that issue, but it has been broadcast. I turn to the important program of fire services. Some $118m will have been outlaid for the Fire Service—an increase of 10 per cent. Only $21m will come from consolidated revenue—an increase of some $4.2m. I note that no provision has been made for the 38-hour week that was promised to the unions. The Fire Service performs an excellent community service. One only has to consider its work over the past month to realise the outstanding and valuable work carried out by the Fire Service. It is a dangerous job, whether it involves fighting fires in urban areas or rural areas. Recently, we saw the tragic loss of a volunteer fireman at Palmwoods. That indicates the dangers under which firemen work. At present, a state of emergency exists in more than 50 local authorities, which includes a fire ban. It is at times such as this that rural fire brigades look to their resources. The budget for rural fire brigades has not changed. It is still in the $2m range. Fire officers tell the Opposition that that amount is insufficient to keep meeting their needs. Some regions of Queensland—both rural and urban—have had cuts of 28 per cent and could go broke before the end of the year. There has been a freeze on capital expenditure, with spending allowed only on maintenance. So much for the rhetoric from Mr Mackenroth when he was in Opposition! I turn to volunteer rescue services, which has a budget of $4m—an increase of 21 per cent. The program provides financial assistance from Government to voluntary air/sea rescue organisations, the volunteer coastguard and the Surf Life Saving Association. I turn to the counter-disaster organisation, which has a budget of $5.9m—a decrease of 13 Legislative Assembly 1817 22 October 1991 per cent. The number of full-time employees will decrease by 13, therefore there has been a decrease in salaries and wages and a cut in administration costs. I turn to aviation services. The budget for aviation services in 1991-92 is $3.8m—down some $3.8m on the previous year. That is due to some $4.3m that was expended on capital outlays, mainly the Westwind jet with its extravagances. Unfortunately, I understand that the jet has a tendency to be prone to break-downs and is not altogether reliable. Mr Mackenroth: You’ll never find out by flying in it, I can assure you. Mr TURNER: We know how the Minister flies around. Rumour has it that the Joh jet—the one that went to Port Macquarie—has been leased back to the Bureau of Emergency Services and that the Government is involved with the company that bought it. That is only rumour. Perhaps the Minister would like to make a comment in his reply. Time expired. Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (8 p.m.): Budget Paper No. 2 provides for an Estimate of $423m for expenditure on the Department of Police. The wisdom of expending that is the subject matter of this debate in the Chamber this evening. Throughout the Western World Governments are confronting the problem of rising crime rates. The problem is one which is exacerbated when one has a community with high rates of unemployment and where one has inequalities between the very rich and the very poor. It is odd that we debate crime rates in the same breath as we talk about police and emergency services, for it is rather like debating the health statistics while talking about the provision of hospitals. One is related to the other only because the provision of the services arises after the event. In many respects the debate about the crime rates and their cause would be better placed in a debate concerned with the economic position of the community and, in particular, housing and education. Let us not run away from it, for the figures which confront our community, like communities throughout the world, are figures which give great cause for concern. It is something which goes to the nature of our culture that during the five years from 1985-86 to 1989-90 we in Queensland should—according to the annual report of the Police Service—have had one of the worst rates of offences against the person of any State in Australia. It is good to see an increase in the representation of women in this Chamber, for one looks forward to having more intelligent laws addressed to the question of violence, which has been so seriously overlooked in the debate on modern Queensland law. Certainly, it is also the case that with respect to the protection of homes there is cause for concern. Again, Queensland is in many respects experiencing a trend similar to that which is occurring throughout Australia and throughout the Western World but, nonetheless, it is a matter of very real concern to have break and enter offences increasing in the order of 25 per cent. It is against that background that one listens with interest to the suggestions made by the Opposition—and one will listen with interest to the suggestions to be made by the Liberal Party—as to how one should respond to this critical problem. One sees the same sort of argument being advanced by the member for Nicklin as has been advanced characteristically over recent months in the course of the law and order debate. It may be characterised as the Papa Doc school of economics. It asserts on the one hand that there should be an increase of funding to such programs as the Police Service, while maintaining on the other that there should be a decrease in the revenue of the public purse by the abolition of land tax. It is little to the credit of the members of the Opposition that they have not articulated some detailed alternatives to the proposed spending. Indeed, it is apparent from Budget Paper No. 2 that there has been an increase in the Budget this year of some $44m over last year in the Police Service. However, one hears yet again from the member for Nicklin the familiar cliche of the Goss Labor Government having gone soft on law and order. Legislative Assembly 1818 22 October 1991

Mr Dunworth: More to come. Mr FOLEY: I appreciate the honourable member’s candour, that he will contribute his own cliches to the debate. One looks forward to them with bated breath. It is difficult to reconcile that argument with the action taken by the current Government—the first Government since the Government of Sir Samuel Griffith to undertake an overhaul of the Criminal Code and the first Government to have the courage to overhaul gun controls and take the action so desperately needed to combat domestic violence by rendering firearms less accessible to persons who are violently disposed. Moreover, this Government has been the first to undertake a serious and systematic overhaul of police powers. That task has been rendered all the more urgent because of the failure of the Liberal Party, and in particular the Liberal Attorney-General Lickiss in 1977, to respond to the recommendations of Mr Justice Lucas and the criminal law inquiry which recommended, among other things, an end to corruption in the Licensing Branch by the rotation of officers. It is to the eternal shame of the Liberal Party that it neglected that fundamental reform and allowed corruption to flourish. Let us turn to what action has been and is being taken in the expenditure of this public money. One notes that a number of steps have already been taken in order to implement the reforms recommended by Mr Tony Fitzgerald, QC. Of course, we are aware of the enactment of the Police Service Administration Act. The establishment of a new structure and hierarchy in the Police Service pursuant to that Act has enabled the ideas put forward in the Fitzgerald report to be implemented. They included some $4.9m in the 1990 Budget to implement a civilianisation process as well as to implement other executive leadership within the service. They included the significant boosting of resources to the Drug Squad; a new command structure, with the creation and appointment of two new deputy commissioners, eight regional assistant commissioners and an assistant commissioner for the Criminal Justice Commission; the establishment of a Professional Standards Unit to set an acceptable level of police conduct and behaviour and to investigate breaches of those standards; and the establishment of a task force to address major crime. Those reforms have to be seen in the light also of a raft of reforms designed to pick up the concept of community policing, which is a concept that has eluded many societies throughout the world. As far back as the 1820s in Britain, Sir Robert Peel, when participating in the debate over the proposed introduction of the metropolitan police service, acknowledged the difficulties inherent in providing a professional police force. The Anglo-Saxon tradition meant that a community was responsible for its own administration of justice; that is, when the hue and cry was raised, it was the duty of able-bodied citizens to pursue an alleged offender and bring that alleged offender before the court. In an age of high technology and in an age of the division of labour, there is a tendency for the community simply to pass those responsibilities over to the members of a professional police force and leave it to them. In the Western World over the last 170 years, we have learned that we cannot simply hand over these responsibilities to a professional police service. The community must be integrated with the police service in an appropriate way to have community-based policing. Action has been taken through initiatives such as Adopt a Cop—and I acknowledge the new adopted cop who was sworn in recently at the Moorooka State School—Crime Stoppers, Neighbourhood Watch, Rural Watch, Police Citizens Youth Clubs, and Safety Houses. The attempt to return policing to the community is nowhere more important than in the Neighbourhood Watch initiative. The opportunity for cooperation at that level is very great indeed. In modern society, most citizens are reluctant to be stickybeaks on their neighbours. However, the increased prevalence of offending against property and the increased incidence of burglaries have resulted in a situation in which it is now prudent for Legislative Assembly 1819 22 October 1991 a community to band together in order to run a Neighbourhood Watch program. I acknowledge the fine work done in this regard by the group in my own area of Clifton Hill, in the Annerley/Moorooka region, where Mr Greg Barnes and others set up a new Neighbourhood Watch on 8 October. A measure of the concern in the community and the importance of this issue in the community is the fact that, having expected 20 or 30 people to come along, the organisers found fully 300 people trying to cram into a church hall. I acknowledge the fine work of Mr Barnes and his colleagues and the fine work done by Alderman Kerry Rea in establishing another Tarragindi Neighbourhood Watch on 10 October, the ongoing work of Mr Ray Haworth of the Tarragindi Neighbourhood Watch, and the fine ongoing work of the Neighbourhood Watch in the Yeronga/Yeerongpilly area. The Training program, which is dealt with in Budget Paper No. 3, stems from a recommendation of the Lucas inquiry, which set out some steps in the right direction. It is pleasing to note that in November this year, the students of the first recruit program will be sworn in. I note also that in the Technical Support Program, provision has been made for the police computer communications network. It is planned to be redesigned and rebuilt to take advantage of technology improvements and to allow the connection of personal computer acquisitions as an integral part of the network. However, I hasten to add that I hope appropriate steps will be taken to ensure the protection of personal privacy as police begin to use greater and more sophisticated computer resources. Finally, I turn to an important area of police responsibility, namely, watchhouses. Regrettably, on occasions children are still being detained in watchhouses. This is a matter of much regret, and I respectfully urge the Minister for Police and Emergency Services to take all possible steps to ensure that this undesirable practice is reduced to an absolute minimum. Of course, it is difficult in remote areas where a child has been remanded in custody to avoid the practice in certain instances, but I respectfully urge that strenuous action be taken to enable police officers to proceed by way of summons rather than arrest in the case of alleged juvenile offenders. This action should be taken in order to ensure that the police carry out their important function of protecting the community and also to show respect—as indeed we should—for the rights of children by avoiding their detention in watchhouses with elder people in an environment which is most unsuitable for children. The previous Government took little or no action in that regard, and I respectfully urge the Minister for Police to redouble his efforts to ensure the protection of those children. Time expired. Mr DUNWORTH (Sherwood) (8.15 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Estimates debate. Honourable members are here tonight to make a judgment on the stewardship of the Minister’s portfolio. One day the Minister will be asked to account to his maker, but tonight he is being asked to account to the people of Queensland. The judgment has been made for the people. It has been made on the basis of this annual report. It is also significant to note that the annual report this year, as was the case last year, does not contain a break-down in crime statistics in Queensland. When one looks at the statistics that are outlined in this report, one can understand why. Tonight, judgment has been made in no more graphic terms than those that appear in the headline in this afternoon’s Sun —“State of violence—Qld nation’s worst”. That is in huge capital letters, and it is followed by— “Queensland has the highest rate of assaults, rapes and robberies in Australia.” Those headlines fly in the face of the Premier’s election promise that— “A Goss Labor Government will make our State safe again.” Queensland is still waiting. It is another failed election promise and another broken promise in a litany of broken promises. Let us see how safe the Goss Labor Government Legislative Assembly 1820 22 October 1991 has made Queensland for its citizens. The statistics will show the total abrogation of the Government’s responsibility to the people of Queensland in its No. 1 priority, that is, to keep the peace and to provide order. Let us now peruse some figures. These figures are all outlined, but they show that 4 out of 10 households in Queensland are affected by crime. Robberies are up by 30 per cent. What is alarming is that women and children are increasingly becoming the target of crime. What is even more alarming is that offences against women have increased by 30 per cent. Break and enters of homes are up by 23 per cent, break and enters into shops are up by 15 per cent, and break and enters into offices are up by 33 per cent. That is 33 per cent in 12 months. Offences of arson are up by 41 per cent and motor vehicle theft is up by 13 per cent. Drug offences increased by 30 per cent, serious assaults by 7 per cent, and minor assaults by 15 per cent. Child abuse offences are up by 60 per cent. These are quite incredible statistics. It is a total abrogation of the Minister’s responsibility. He has totally failed the people of Queensland. I am not the only one who is saying this. I wish to quote from a few other sources. These sources are well known, they are public figures who have the welfare of the people of Queensland very much at heart. The President of the Police Union, in the latest report of the Queensland Police Union Journal, states— “Unfortunately the level of service being delivered is far below the required standard and, if anyone doubts that statement, I would suggest that an honest perusal of the daily crime statistics would concern the voracity of that claim.” Obviously, that statement was made before this report came out, which certainly did confirm the veracity of the claim. The Queensland Police Union Journal went on to state that the Minister had failed in implementing Fitzgerald reforms and continued— “The recommendation I refer to is . . . recommendation has not only been not implemented, it has been totally ignored. Of course, we have heard the noises about proactive policing but nothing substantial has been done to implement that method of policing. Of course, I readily acknowledge that there is one basic reason for the non- implementation of that recommendation . . . lack of funds. It appears that the term ‘lack of funds’ could be placed on a rubber stamp. It is the reason/excuse for most things not being done. The question I would ask is this ‘What politician in this State would be prepared to personally explain’ ”— and this is aimed directly at the Minister— “ ‘to the victims of crime that the basic reason for their becoming victims is lack of funds’.” To compound that, it is quite extraordinary that, at the same time as there is an outrageous increase in the number of attacks upon people, this so-called compassionate Labor Government has reduced the funding for the victims of crime from $250,000 to $50,000. The funding for victims of crime has been reduced by 80 per cent. There is compassion! There is thoughtfulness! I believe that it shows the totally callous and thoughtless attitude that is being adopted by this Government. At the same time, Queensland is becoming Australia’s crime capital. The Queensland Police Union Journal went on to say— “Is the truth of the matter that the Government simply does not have enough money in the ‘kitty’ or is it that there are other calls on the funds which, in the short term, are politically more attractive. Legislative Assembly 1821 22 October 1991

If this is the real situation, then the Government has a moral obligation to explain to each and every Queenslander that their safety and security is considered of inferior priority to some other political consideration.” When the Minister replies, perhaps he might explain why his Budget increase in funding in real terms, after taking into account an approximate $8m carry-over from last year’s Budget, is approximately 5 per cent. That is what it really comes down to. The Queensland Police Union Journal went on to say that it was a total abrogation of police responsibilities, that it is becoming part of the worsening problem of crumbling police services in this State. What is more important to the people of Queensland than their personal liberty so they are free to walk the streets and parks, free to drive or ride the roads or feel secure in their own homes? What is more important than the safety of your wife, your husband, your friend or your child? I will tell honourable members, because Labor Governments with their soft-on-crime attitudes never seem to know. Nothing is more important! Why are the funds not available? I know the Minister would have pushed hard for more funds. What about the $95m that was taken from the Auctioneers and Agents Fidelity Fund? That has been closeted away. Why was that not put in the Budget? Why could that not have secured the safety of our citizens? Because, I believe, it probably has other uses—other uses that a Labor Government considers are superior to the safety of its citizens. The secretary of the Police Union—who the Minister will claim is one of his antagonists—as usual made a very pertinent comment for the Minister. He said— “It’s easy to condemn the Police who cannot speak publicly under threat of prosecution for a disciplinary offence.” He further stated— “Have these same people acquired the intestinal fortitude to tell the public of the increasing crime rate; the lack of police resources, break and enter of the family home, theft of the family car, assaults sexual and non sexual perpetrated on the young—drugs; the falling solution rate and what practical steps they are collectively taking to rid the predator criminals from our society?” He very succinctly summed it up—none! The Minister should hear these words rather than sniggering, as this is condemnation of the highest order from the Police Union—condemnation of the highest order. The commissioner, Mr Newnham, is dissatisfied with the Minister. He expressed his concern at the Minister’s lack of support for him when the Minister allowed the Official Misconduct Division to override his decision to dismiss officers for perjury and driving a police vehicle under the influence of alcohol. These officers are back in the service. What does this say about standards? What does this do for morale? When the Minister refuses to support his commissioner, his chief executive, it appears to the public to be an open vote of no confidence in his commissioner. If the Minister does not want standards improved, if he does not want morale improved, and if he does not want to support the policies and procedures of the commissioner, he should say so. I would now like to refer to another well-known commentator, Mr Neil Doorley, who obviously knew from feedback from the police and the community how disastrous this report was going to be. This article states— “A police document expected to be released this week will compound the terror being generated from the State’s spate of violent murders and robberies. Senior police are confiding that the department’s annual report will reveal marked increases in offences including homicide, rape and serious assaults, sending shock waves through an already-reeling community. Legislative Assembly 1822 22 October 1991

The catalogue of crime comes on top of eight murders, including three children and three pensioners, in south-east Queensland in the past month. People—particularly the elderly—are running scared, with private security companies already being called in to protect Brisbane streets and suburbs.” How does the Minister assist the Police Service to fulfil its goals? When one looks at the No. 1 goal of the Police Service, one will see that it is to enhance the safety of people in Queensland. The judgment is made in the report itself. It states— “Queensland has had one of the worst rates of offences against the person of any State in Australia.” I commend the Minister for the setting-up of the women’s safety project. This is particularly relevant in my electorate, because a young girl was abducted from her car in a street, and in the last couple of weeks in an adjoining electorate two young girls were murdered. I commend the Minister for the setting- up of that most worthwhile project. I would also like to just briefly touch on the Juvenile Aid Bureau. I visited a number of these offices, including one at Woodridge. I was told that the seven staff at that office had 10 000 cases on which they were working. Ten thousand! Juvenile crime is totally out of control. The second goal of the Police Service is to prevent crime. The judgment again: total failure. The report states— “Offences against property up by 17.2 per cent.” The Minister did have another worthwhile initiative, the Neighbourhood Watch program, but from reports I am getting back from around Brisbane I am a little concerned that there are not the police resources to enable people to set up police watches. I have had reports from my own electorate, Strathpine and Redcliffe. I hope resources will be made available, because it is a most worthwhile initiative. The third goal of the Police Service is to investigate and solve crime. Again, the judgment: the clear-up rate for offences against property declined from 27 per cent to 23 per cent. The clear-up rate for offences against persons also declined. In regard to the first three goals of the Police Service, the Minister has failed. I would now like to comment on police matters affecting my own electorate. I am sure the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing would also join in my concerns, because in his electorate, which adjoins mine, at least half the prisoners of Queensland will be located. We have a new experimental privatised maximum security gaol, and with the current spate of escapes from gaol, many people in my electorate—and they have very good reason to be worried in the Minister’s electorate also—are very concerned about the future. The Centenary suburbs in my electorate have a population of about 30 000. A judgment was made by a Government 10 years ago that there was a necessity for a police presence, and a site was bought. However, a police station was not built. After the redistribution, my electorate may be one of the only electorates in Queensland, including that of the Minister, without a police presence. Time expired. Mr HOLLIS (Redcliffe) (8.30 p.m.): People travelling into the city today would have noticed the fliers in the Sun, which stated— “Crime wave sweeps Queensland. Shock Police Service report.” I hurried back to this place to look at the shock report that was tabled and I did not find much in it that shocked me. Opposition members did not mention that there has been no break down of law and order and that the rise in crime is nothing new. Mr Fitzgerald noted that, in the past 20 years under the former Government, homicide almost trebled, rape increased sevenfold, and serious assault increased by more than 20 times. From 1969 to Legislative Assembly 1823 22 October 1991

1987, the major categories of crime increased, with general crime at 293 per cent, selected crime at 338 per cent, homicide at 179 per cent, rape at 638 per cent, assault at 2 218 per cent, vehicle theft at 297 per cent, break-and-enter offences at 279 per cent, drug offences at 4 625 per cent and drink- driving offences at 677 per cent. Fitzgerald noted that those figures accumulated during the time of National/Liberal Party Governments. In speaking to these Estimates, I note that the Government is fulfilling its election promise of providing 1 200 extra police in its first term. Last year, it provided 600 extra police and there is an increase in this Budget of 11.4 per cent, which has put the Government well on target to fulfilling the election promise it made. I wish to refer to the question of law and order as it relates to the electorate of Redcliffe. I refer particularly to the exemplary work being carried out by the Redcliffe police in an effort to combat the rising crime figures. Redcliffe does not stand alone on this issue of an increase in crime; indeed, the whole of Queensland, Australia and the Western World is suffering from the same problem. It should be noted that crime waves are not a new element in society. From time immemorial, statistics relating to crime have fluctuated. The state of the economy has proven to have a direct correlation to increases in the incidence of petty crime. Break-downs of family units are another facet directly linked to anti-social behaviour. And statisticians point daily to other links with increases in the crime rate. The plain fact is that Governments of all political leanings cannot prevent people from committing criminal acts. However, they can address the problems as they arise. This Government has already proceeded on that course of action with the provision of additional police, community policing and support for Neighbourhood Watch groups. In the City of Redcliffe, nine Neighbourhood Watch groups service an estimated 4 500 houses. They are proving to be an extremely effective method of reducing house-breaking and robberies. A recent edition of the Area 5 newsletter stated— “Neighbourhood Watch does work and two recent events prove this point. On Friday 23rd August one of our watch heard the sound of breaking glass in the school grounds at Woody Point Special School. The informant stayed indoors and telephoned police. As a result of this call, two persons were arrested in the library of this school and one of the arresting officers was Sgt Phil Sharpe, our own liaison officer.” Another program in the Redcliffe electorate is the Adopt A Cop program in the schools. Recently, I attended the Scarborough State School, which has adopted two officers. That is surely where crime prevention commences. The Redcliffe police are relentless in their efforts to control crime in Redcliffe. Recently, Inspector Doonan—now Superintendent Doonan—the officer in charge of the Redcliffe police district, called together the officers in charge of all divisions and the CIB for a crime conference to look at initiatives in crime prevention. The Government is assisting the police in that endeavour. The average person in the community does not hear of many of the success stories. Earlier, I mentioned the fliers in the Sun. All we hear are the bad things and the alarmist stories. It is interesting that some of the scandalous, emotive statements made by Opposition members and members of the Liberal Party to the media are often without any basis of truth. I will refer to some of those statements. Recently, the member for Merthyr informed the Redcliffe branch of the Liberal Party— “The crime rate is soaring and people are barricading themselves in their homes at night because they know there are not enough police to safeguard the city.” And his mate, the president of the local branch of the Liberal Party, stated— “We could be looking at professional criminals terrorising the city.” Legislative Assembly 1824 22 October 1991

What wonderful, emotive statements! They are statements that frighten our evergrowing aged population. Did those two gentlemen offer a solution? No. They know that police shortages are the fault of successive Liberal/National Governments. Those shortages have not been caused by this Government; it has increased the number of police officers. Over the years, former Governments neglected the police force, which led to a decrease in numbers, and the community is now paying for that neglect. This Government is the only Government in the last 34 years to take positive steps to increase police numbers. We have the famous statement from the member for Toowong, Mr Beanland, another member of the Liberal Party—— Mrs Woodgate: Denver who! Mr HOLLIS: Denver who? Mr Beanland does not let the truth stand in the way of a good story. He claimed that on 5 October a person’s home was robbed and that he was told that the police could do nothing until the following Monday. When Inspector Behm checked the daily log for 5 October, he stated— “We have no record of the alleged incident and can’t find any record of it.” Mr Elder: Denver made it up. Mr HOLLIS: Denver made it up. It is interesting that the person who alleged that his goods were stolen—as appeared in the Sunday Mail on 20 October 1991—was Denver Beanland’s private secretary. The article stated— “. . . Peter Kidman had his recent move to Redcliffe soured when all his power tools were stolen while the family went out for two hours on Saturday afternoon.” They are the sorts of emotive stories that we hear from the Liberal Party. Another claim by Mr Beanland in the Redcliffe Herald was that although 360 police were recruited last year, 345 resigned. That was demonstrably untrue. If we refer to the annual report of the Police Service, we find that the actual strength of sworn personnel rose from 5 524 in 1990 to 5 898 in 1991, an increase of 371 officers. We all know that another 300 police will graduate this year. Mr Mackenroth: And 75. Mr HOLLIS: Three hundred and seventy-five. I thank the Minister. Recently, there have been many statements quoting statistics on the number of police that Redcliffe should have, but again the veracity of those claims is sorely in doubt. Just recently, the paper quoted figures from the CJC report Crime and Justice in Queensland. If the Liberals were really telling the truth to the people of Redcliffe, they would also have taken note of page 49 of that report, which stated— “Because police district boundaries have changed, and the method of estimating population figures for these areas has altered in the past twelve years, these estimates are only approximations.” Yet the Liberals came out with the astounding figures about a shortage of police. I think that at one stage they said the City of Redcliffe needed 576 police. Mr Mackenroth: When Sir Max Bingham released that report, he said that the Eric St Johnstone model was not one that applied to Australia. So that model that they quote is not applicable to Australia. Mr HOLLIS: I can inform the Minister that I will have something to say about that shortly. I am glad to see the member for Warwick in the Chamber tonight. We hear about people who come to Redcliffe and tell us what a sin city it is and what a terrible place it is with people barricading themselves in their homes, etc. According to the list in the CJC report, the fine city of Dalby, which is in the electorate of the honourable member for Warwick, had an increase of 280 per cent in its crime rate. In property offences, it had an Legislative Assembly 1825 22 October 1991 increase of 46.48 per cent. That is an indication of how one can play around with figures. Anybody can use figures to his own advantage. I am sure that the member for Warwick would agree with me that Dalby is not a crime-ridden city. The figures quoted are in accordance with the Eric St Johnstone ratio, which the Minister just mentioned. It is a British ratio that works very well in high-density populated areas. It is evident that those figures were used for the Redcliffe district, which included the areas of Dayboro, Kilcoy and Woodford, which are large areas with small populations. I am surprised that the CJC has adopted this ratio in Queensland, in view of its obvious bias to heavily populated areas. It is easy to blame all sorts of elements—parents for the lack of discipline; the courts for leniency in sentences; young people for their failure to accept social obligations; drugs; lack of education and the collapse of society. What is clear from all quarters is that citizens are aware of the problems and that the only solution to crime is for the whole community to work together to reduce the crime rate. Inevitably, the task falls back onto the family environment. We as parents have to take a strong stand on the conduct of our young people. We have to be prepared to play judge and jury to our children when they appear to be going off the rails. Our educators also have an extremely important role to play in educating our young to be good citizens and to listen to and advise students who are at risk. Public anger wrongly tends to target the police where crime runs out of control. Beyond doubt, beating the crime wave in Queensland should be regarded as a major priority. The Redcliffe police have set out on this course of action and have my full support. I am sure that when the member for Merthyr visits Redcliffe again he will pull out one of the direct mails that were circulated prior to the election. At that time, I said that my solution to crime is— “ . . . tough but caring. But when it comes to dealing with crime, there should be no soft options.” In that same letter, I said—and I am happy to say it again— “That’s why I will never apologise for my public and personal stand against crime.” Many times in the last two years, I have been approached by people who are victims of the crime wave that is sweeping Queensland. Their concerns are that we as a Government are going soft on the offenders who are caught and that those people reoffend with impunity. They are asking that we as a Government take steps to ensure that offenders are adequately punished. Unless those who acquire the property of others are swiftly taught a harsh lesson, they will try again. For a number of reasons, I agree with the sentiments of those people. But one reason stands out above all others. If we are to support members of our Police Service when they detect and apprehend offenders, then we have a duty to the Police Service to make sure that the punishment fits the crime. Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (8.44 p.m.): I would like to inform the previous speaker that Dalby is not and has never been in the Warwick electorate. He should go away and have a good look at his map. Mr Gibbs: There is no need for these vicious personal attacks. Mrs McCAULEY: I am not being vicious. I think it is probably enough for him to find his way over the Hornibrook bridge to get home at night. Today was a black day for Queensland, for people coming to work and looking at the headlines in the paper and hearing the news about the crime statistics in this State. We see what has happened after 18 months of a Government that does not worry about job creation or law and order. Its priorities are more for social justice and pursuing political vendettas. So, of course, law and order has been left by the wayside. The increase in the Police budget of a miserable 6.5 per cent in real terms shows that quite unequivocally. Legislative Assembly 1826 22 October 1991

From where I stand, it seems to me that the thin blue line is getting thinner every day and that morale is at an all-time low. The annual report of the Police Service, released today, shows that offences against property, such as break-and-enter offences, are rising rapidly in Queensland. It also shows that offences against people are the highest of those in any Australian State. They are shameful statistics. As a bit of a bandaid measure to this, community policing has been suggested. I say quite categorically that that is not the answer. It is a bit like saying, “The priest cannot come. We will send one of the laymen.” Community police have their place, but they are not the same as having the extra police who are needed. I applaud activities such as Neighbourhood Watch and Rural Neighbourhood Watch, which work well in communities that want them. The local people get in behind them and use them effectively. However, they are not the total answer. The general community has a right to expect proper and efficient law enforcement and protection wherever people live. The only answer to that is more police working longer hours. The Minister can come forth with all the statistics that he wishes to about extra policemen, but from where I live in central Queensland it appears that we are not seeing a great benefit from any of those extra policemen. In August, I attended a meeting in Gladstone where policemen from the whole area had gathered to discuss many issues with the regional commissioner and John O’Gorman. Their problems were quite evident. One policeman to whom I spoke after the meeting was obviously showing the strain of trying to work extremely long hours. Mr Prest: Why did you want the breathalyser taken out of Biloela? Mrs McCAULEY: I ask Mr Prest to be quiet. He got himself into enough trouble when he opened his mouth on another occasion. I notice that he is leaving the Chamber. I would leave, too, if I were him. One of the problems raised at that meeting was that there will be no weekend highway patrol on the Bruce Highway between now and Christmas. No money has been allocated for that overtime work. On several occasions in the past few weeks, I have travelled on the road from Miriam Vale to Bundaberg and have not seen one police car. I am not concerned about that, but it is a very busy highway. It is the main link between Brisbane and Cairns. We need highway patrols. For all those city slickers who travel around Brisbane and do not get out into country areas, I will recount a story about why we need highway patrols. A couple of years ago, I was travelling along the Bruce Highway from Gladstone to Miriam Vale. In front of me were two cars. I was back from them a bit and I watched them for a while. There was a woman and a small child in the second car. Eventually, the woman obviously decided that the front car was going too slow for her. The driver in the front car seemed to be driving slower and slower, and we were all driving progressively slower and slower. She moved out to pass the person in the front car, who happened to be a young man. As she went out to pass him, he sped up so that she could not pass him. This continued on down the highway. That fellow was having a wonderful time. The woman was obviously getting quite rattled and did not know what to do. I watched this for some kilometres. The fellow in the front car would not let her pass. Eventually, I had had enough and passed them both. My car was a bit more powerful than his car. He tried very hard to play the same game with me, but he could not. I noted his registration number, and on the Monday I rang Main Roads and got his name and address. I tracked him down and told him that I did not believe that what he had done was the right thing to do. A few months ago, I was amused to read in the local paper that he had actually lost his licence. We need police cars patrolling the highway to stop that sort of thing. If that woman had really become rattled, there could have been an accident. That fellow was being smart and trying to cause problems. He could well have caused problems. It is rather disquieting to drive between Miriam Vale and Gladstone—as I often do—and not see one police car. Legislative Assembly 1827 22 October 1991

Another problem raised at that meeting in Gladstone was that, between now and Christmas, no weekend work will be allocated for police in the Boyne Island/Tannum Sands area. That holiday resort doubles its population on weekends during summer, but no police will be working on those weekends. That seems very foolish indeed. Another problem that arose at the meeting related to small, one-man centres that are not manned when officers take leave or have rostered days off. I have many of those centres in my electorate, including Many Peaks, Goovigen, Westwood and Wowan. Those small, one- man centres, which are often in very isolated areas, are accessed by very poor roads. If a serious timber accident or traffic accident occurs at Many Peaks in the Boyne Valley, that creates a problem for police officers to get there from Gladstone within a reasonable time. They have to travel for more than an hour over a shocking road to reach the Boyne Valley. When the officer from Many Peaks has a rostered day off or goes on holidays, there is no other officer in the area for a very long distance. That is not good enough. Recently, the policeman from the Wowan area in my electorate was transferred. It was months before he was replaced. That is simply not good enough. People in country areas have a right to expect a standard of law enforcement that people anywhere else in the State can expect to enjoy. Unfortunately, that is not the case, simply because the Budget does not provide sufficient funds to allow those people to work. When officers are absent, there are no law enforcement officers to issue permits. The Westwood area is renowned for bad road accidents. It is disquieting that this sort of thing is going on. I know that, on weekends, no criminal investigation work is carried out in Biloela. Does that mean that criminals do not operate from Friday night to Monday morning? It seems very foolish. Obviously, criminals do operate on weekends. That is when domestic violence occurs and when there are drink-drivers on the roads. We need criminal investigation officers rostered on during weekends. There must be a system by which police do as the nurses do and work rosters for seven days. In that way they would not need the excessive time-and-a-half and double-time payments. In fact, the police to whom I spoke in Gladstone said that they did not particularly want those huge loadings; that if they had a decent wage they would not need them. If they worked a roster—as the nurses do—there would be no need for penalty payments or the wage increases that cause so many budgetary problems for the Minister’s department. John O’Gorman did not agree with me on that, but I believe that it must be very seriously considered. Obviously, it is creating problems, and it will create even bigger problems. Mr Mackenroth: The Government is arguing that in the Industrial Commission now. Mrs McCAULEY: Right. I hope that it wins, because it seems the only logical way to go. The majority of the members of the police force are behind it. I was interested to see that the Budget provides for a women’s safety project to identify and address issues related to women’s safety. Whilst I applaud that, I cannot help making the observation that that sort of thing must be done in conjunction with other measures. For example, the Government cannot allow pornographic literature and movies to flood into this State and not expect problems to follow. We cannot abolish the film censorship board and the literature board of review and have all of that filthy stuff coming into the State and not expect an increase in crimes of violence against women. Those things obviously go hand in hand. It is unfortunate that the Labor Government does not see it that way. The Government is wrong. It is overlooking a basic premise. Obviously, the Government is trying to find other solutions to a problem that, to me, is fairly clear cut. It is very disconcerting to see that the incidence of rape increased by 13 per cent from 1989-90 to 1990-91. Ms Power: The reported ones have increased by 13 per cent. Legislative Assembly 1828 22 October 1991

Mrs McCAULEY: Yes, but there are still heaps that are unreported. That increase of 13 per cent was in a period when the Labor Government cut back its funding for the Rape Crisis Centre so that the phones could not be manned 24 hours a day to allow people to ring in. Again, obviously, the Government expects those events to happen only during working hours and not after hours. It is simply not good enough. Careful notice should be taken of the increasing community and police concern about crimes against children, including child exploitation, sexual offences and violence. In the light of that increased concern by both communities and police, I wonder why the Government is toying with the idea of legalising prostitution. What does that do? It does not solve any problems, health-related or otherwise; it simply increases them. I promise the Government that, if it legalises prostitution, it will see an increase in organised crime, an increase in drug-trafficking, an increase in the people who prey upon homeless children and try to recruit them for brothels and, generally, an increase in all the unsavoury things that we do not need and do not want in this State. I heard one female Government member say that, if the Government legalises prostitution, it will give the women—and the men, too, I suppose—who work in the industry some dignity in their work. What a lot of rubbish! What an absolute lot of rubbish! I firmly believe that the member for Brisbane Central is grandstanding in the most disgraceful way on that issue. Mr Booth: He said, “I don’t want it in my back yard.” Mrs McCAULEY: Exactly. He does not mind prostitution as long as it is not in his own electorate. He should go very quietly on the issue and pull his head in. I honestly think that he is on the wrong track. Many people in the community do not want prostitution legalised. They are not prepared to go along with it and, in the very near future, they will make their feelings known loud and clear to the Government. Mr Mackenroth: It is not the Government; it is the CJC. Don’t forget that. Mrs McCAULEY: It still has to come to this Parliament for ratification. Mr Beattie is a member of the Government, is he not? He is the one who is saying, “Let’s legalise prostitution.” To me and to the people of the Biloela region, the change-over which put the Ambulance Service under the umbrella of Emergency Services has been a most unsatisfactory exercise in toto. I know that a large amount of money was taken from the Biloela ambulance and put into Government coffers. Now, the Biloela ambulance wants to buy coronary care equipment, and it is being told that it will have to undertake fund-raising activities and get it for itself. The Biloela ambulance had more than $700,000. It could have looked after itself and run its own ambulance, but now it is being told, “Sorry, mate, there is no funding for this sort of thing.” It is a totally unsatisfactory position which should never have come about, and it is very unfortunate that it has come about. Mr Mackenroth: Do they have $700,000 in trust funds? Mrs McCAULEY: No, the Biloela ambulance has extra money in its trust fund. That was the amount that went back to the Government. Mr Mackenroth: $700,000 in general reserves? Mrs McCAULEY: Yes. The Biloela ambulance was a very hard-working, wealthy—— Mr Mackenroth: No, no. They do not work to get that money. That is contributed. Mrs McCAULEY: No. The Biloela ambulance raises a whole lot of its own money. It runs a business, and the people like to do it. The same applies to the fire brigades. The week after the change-over in the structure of the fire brigades, I had to kick up a fuss to try to keep in the Biloela area the utility that the power station had given to the fire brigade. Legislative Assembly 1829 22 October 1991

As soon as fire brigades came under the big umbrella of Emergency Services, the attitude was, “We will have that utility, thank you very much. We will take it away from you.” Time expired. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (8.59 p.m.): I am very pleased to rise to speak in the debate on the Estimates of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. I would like to confine my comments to the Chemical Hazards and Emergency Management Unit—the CHEM Unit. I notice in the annual report of the Bureau of Emergency Services that the strategic goals of that unit are to minimise the risk of chemical incidents; to maximise the effectiveness of emergency management; to increase the protection of the public and the environment from the adverse effects associated with chemically contaminated land; to improve Government response to prevent the contamination of land by hazardous substances; and to create a realistic public awareness of chemical hazards. I venture to say that we should add one more strategic goal to the responsibilities of that unit, and that is in the matter of public education. I refer particularly to the secure landfill question, which has been a rather emotive issue in recent months. I notice that under the heading “Public Education” the report also claims that the bureau has implemented a comprehensive public consultation and information program, which was developed for the secure landfill proposal at Gurulmundi. The program included the production of information material for the local community and the media, a conflict-management strategy based on the formation of a local community consultation committee, which was convened, as I understand it, by an independent chairperson with expertise in community mediation, and also the establishment of a locally based information centre, which was apparently staffed by the CHEM Unit. This issue is very important. Work done recently by the CHEM Unit represents a major advance towards the planned goal of a Statewide regional waste management system. In this respect, the Government is committed to identifying regional secure landfill facilities in various parts of the State, obviously in consultation with local authorities. For several years, successive Queensland Governments, both conservative and Labor, have attempted to identify regional secure landfill sites for the safe disposal of solid treated hazardous waste in south-east Queensland. The need for such a site has become urgent because space has begun to run out at Willawong. I might add that no more than 10 per cent to 15 per cent of hazardous waste treated at Willawong actually needs to be disposed of in a secure landfill. The types of waste in question are essentially aqueous residues from the manufacture of paints, pesticides and solvents. These are commonly referred to as PPS wastes. These wastes still need to be treated at Willawong and then they will be converted into solid, soil-like form through a process of chemical fixation and solidification using cement dust and a degree of fly ash. At this point, I wish to emphasise a number of things. First of all, the wastes in question are solid, treated wastes from the manufacture of paints, pesticides and solvents, and they will continue to be treated and placed in solid form. Contrary to the public conjecture which has raged, the secure landfill will not accept PCBs or other intractable radioactive waste. Willawong will remain a treatment facility in Brisbane and it will continue to dispose of between 85 and 90 per cent of those wastes. In reality, the amount of solid treatment wastes in question represents approximately 20 tonnes a day, which is the equivalent of six truck loads a fortnight. This will go from Willawong to the regional site at Gurulmundi. The identification of a secure landfill site for the safe disposal of treated hazardous wastes is an important initiative both for the protection of the environment and to provide a much-needed regional service. If such disposal facilities are not identified and they are not planned, constructed and managed effectively to the strictest health and Legislative Assembly 1830 22 October 1991 environmental standards, our society will suffer serious damage through an increase in illegal and improper dumping. Earlier this year, the CHEM Unit circulated to all local authorities in Queensland information on the process it was to adopt for the selection of a secure landfill site and local authorities were advised that this process in essence had three major stages. The first stage involved a wide scientific study within the region seeking to identify potentially suitable sites. The major considerations at this point were stable geological conditions, adequate clay deposits and geotechnical suitability designed to ensure that the site had no impact on surface or ground water. As I understand it, this stage was carried out on a confidential basis and by independent specialists as it involved the investigation of many sites. It would have caused unnecessary public anxiety if it had not been done that way. Obviously, most sites were eliminated from further consideration on scientific and technical grounds. The second stage occurred once a preferred potentially suitable site had actually been identified. The local authority involved was advised and it was then publicly announced. The third stage was the assessment stage and this involved consultation with the local authority and the community and included a thorough impact assessment study of the proposal. Ample opportunity was provided for public input and comment during this stage. The Gurulmundi site was chosen for a detailed impact assessment study after preliminary investigations of possible sites throughout south-east Queensland, first by an independent firm of geological and exploration consultants, followed by another firm specialising in geotechnical and hydrological assessment. The proposal to construct a regional secure landfill site at Gurulmundi soon became a Statewide story. Unfortunately, some of the debate was irrational and uninformed outsiders also became involved. For 11 weeks, Gurulmundi was the subject of a comprehensive and thorough impact assessment study by independent consultants, AGC Woodward-Clyde. This company specialises in environmental and geotechnical engineering and water resources and is part of the Woodward-Clyde group, which has more than 50 offices worldwide. The study was accompanied by a public consultation and information-sharing program at a level never before seen in a proposal of this nature in Australia. This is a credit to the CHEM Unit and a credit to this Government. The good thing about this is that it will provide this and future Governments with a model on which to base future investigations and procedures. Tonight, I wish to explore further some of the consultative processes associated with the secure landfill facility. Unfortunately, there is not a realistic appreciation of the work that has been done in this area. There is too much emotion involved and people tend to throw their hands up in angst once they hear the words “toxic waste”. The consultation program associated with the identification of the preferred site for a secure landfill at Gurulmundi and the subsequent impact assessment study process was in many ways a model that we can perhaps use for future episodes. It was developed to empower the community to engage in debate about waste management and to make balanced judgments about secure landfill issues. It is pretty important that the community itself was given every opportunity to become involved in the debate right from the word go. The development of a preliminary list of site selection criteria was based on research from overseas and included organisations such as the World Health Organisation and the US Environmental Protection Agency, which provided information for this set of criteria. The listing of the site was distributed to the local authorities and was followed in March by a workshop and a seminar. A refined list of the criteria, seeking public comments and submissions by June of this year, was developed and released. In all, 37 submissions were received from a broad cross-section of the community, including environmental groups, local authorities, industry, State Government departments and community organisations. A final list of site selection criteria was developed and widely distributed in September, including all local authorities in south-east Queensland. This was followed by Legislative Assembly 1831 22 October 1991 a media briefing. Later, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services sent out a letter providing information on the secure landfill, and it was distributed to every household in the Miles/Gurulmundi area. The distribution of general leaflets was also undertaken and, in all, over 1 000 comprehensive secure landfill information kits were distributed. The topics covered in these kits included advice on why there is a need for secure landfill sites; the actual site selection process; waste containment and the types of hazardous waste that may be encountered; transportation of wastes; and, of course, clean technology incentives. The CHEM Unit was also heavily engaged in providing lessons to school groups on secure landfill issues. This is very important because these days young people are aware, more than ever before, of environmental issues. An information centre was also established in the Murilla Shire Civic Centre, and this information centre was staffed weekly for the duration of the impact assessment study and public review, which amounted to some 15 weeks. The formation of a community consultative committee provided a forum where local residents could seek answers to their questions, share information, and also provide input into the IAS. The committee was chaired independently and met six times. The first meeting was held on 29 April. With the exception of the first meeting, all meetings were attended by the IAS project manager, Dr David Royston. In a further bid to keep the community informed, a regular secure landfill update newsletter was compiled. Six of these newsletters have been distributed, and the last one was sent out in the middle of September this year. As an indication of good faith, the draft IAS report was released to the Murilla Shire Council on the day before it was released publicly in Brisbane. The CHEM Unit also engaged in displays at the Miles Show, World Environment Day, the Asia Pacific Public Works Congress, and also organised a bus visit to Willawong to provide local residents with information on the treatment procedures at the Brisbane City Council’s Scientific Services Laboratory. I point out that many submissions were received in response to the draft IAS report. The submissions came from individuals, groups, organisations and Government departments. A total of 55 submissions were received and 24 of those formed the basis of the PATCH submission that was presented to the CHEM Unit at the Gurulmundi Impact Evaluation Summit, which was held at Miles on 13 August. With your permission, Mr Temporary Chairman, I seek leave to have a list of those respondents included in Hansard. Leave granted. a. Local Authorities Murilla Shire Council Brisbane City Council b. Individuals Phillip Tann (Miles) Fiona Tann (Miles) Reverend L.R. Rohrlach (Wandoan) J. Woods & K. Andrews (Drillham) R. Woods (Miles) L.V. Cook (Miles) C. Bailey (Kallangur) C. Gale (Miles) c. Organisations Taroom Branch of the Wildlife Preservation Society United Graziers Association Wildlife Preservation Society Queensland Graingrowers Association Legislative Assembly 1832 22 October 1991

Taroom Shire Land Care Committee Murilla Landcare Group Miles and District Chamber of Commerce d. Private Companies Techsearch Cudgen RZ e. Government Departments Department of Environment & Heritage Attorney General's Department Queensland Treasury DEVETIR DBIRD Department of Transport Government Chemical Laboratory Department of Primary Industries Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Tourism, Sport & Racing Department of Premier, Economic & Trade Development Department of Lands f. Group: PATCH 1. Leo Hoffman (Miles) 2. Les Williams & David Gordon (Miles) 3. Ross Tait: Chinchilla Field Naturalists (Chinchilla) 4. Bill Burnside (Gurulmundi) 5. Eddie Cann (Miles) 6. Mavis Archinal (Miles) 7. David Newton (Miles) 8. G. Abbott (Taroom) 9. Michael Handley (Miles) 10. Joyce & Doris Davidson (Miles) 11. Ruth Wade, Cattlemen's Union (Rockhampton) 12. Vincent SeIventy (Sydney) 13. Tim Robinson (Queensland University of Technology) 14. John Rynn (University of Queensland) 15. Kerry Dohonue (Queensland University of Technology) 16. Mark McGovern (Queensland University of Technology) 17. M. Chessels & G. Miller, Envirotest (Brisbane) 18. Robert Cartmel (Greenpeace) 19. Phillip Jones (Griffith University) 20. Ted Kolsen (University of Queensland) 21. G.C. Gregory (Kangaroo Island, S.A.) 22. Ian MacRae (Bribie Island) 23. George Gibson (University College of Southern Queensland) 24. David Hinds (Mlles)

Mr PITT: One of the most vocal organised groups interested in the decision to locate the secure landfill at Gurulmundi was the organisation known as PATCH, or People Against Toxic Chemical Hazards. Members of that group attended the community consultative committee meetings until the draft impact assessment study report was released for public review. In an act of what can only be described as pique, a number of PATCH members walked out of the meeting, which was held for the purpose of giving a briefing on the draft IAS report, before Dr David Royston had actually commenced his presentation. That is not a very good way to carry out consultation. Subsequent offers to provide the PATCH group with a private briefing on the draft IAS report were also refused, unfortunately. The Minister met with representatives of the PATCH group on three Legislative Assembly 1833 22 October 1991 separate occasions, including a visit to Miles to receive deputations from various interest groups. The information gathered from local residents through this consultative process contributed significantly to informed decision-making on this very important environmental issue. I turn now to address the issue of secure landfills and alternative technologies. Recently, it has been asserted that landfills are an outdated mode of disposal and that the Queensland Government should be looking to alternative forms of technology, such as high temperature incineration or plasma ARC pyrolysis. Let me make it quite clear that I support the need for research into waste management technologies, and I think that any sane, thinking person would. By the same token, however, I believe there is a need to recognise research that is already occurring nationally in this field. Publications of the Commonwealth Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce contain details of extensive private and institutionally based research into waste management technologies. Clear technology incentives offered by both the Federal and State Governments in the form of tax concessions and grants should also be recognised. The recent establishment by the Federal Government of a national cooperative research centre for waste management and pollution control represents a major step forward in research into the important area of environmental protection. The centre has an annual budget of more than $6.5m. One of its first tasks will be to collect and review research into landfill design for hazardous wastes. The research work proposed on landfill design provides evidence that secure landfills are not an outdated mode of disposal but are, rather, an essential component of a hazardous waste management system. This fact is further evidenced by the efforts of South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania in the identification of suitable sites for a secure landfill. In the United States, 32 per cent of hazardous waste is land-filled, which amounts to in excess of 70 million tonnes per annum. In a recent letter to the CHEM Unit, the United States EPA indicated that facilities that carefully comply with its rules and regulations “have been protective of human health and the environment.” I repeat that secure landfills are an essential component of a hazardous waste management program. I compliment the CHEM Unit on its process of public education in relation to this very emotive and highly controversial issue. Mr NEAL (Balonne) (9.14 p.m.): I have just been treated to what I can only conclude is a brief that has been given to the member for Mulgrave by the CHEM Unit, judging by the glowing report and information contained in his speech. I wish to address specifically the Bureau of Emergency Services program regarding chemical hazards. I notice that the Vote is $4m, which is a decrease of approximately $2m from the previous year, and a staff of 12. In particular, I wish to address one aspect of the CHEM Unit’s function, which is the identification of regional secure landfill sites for the disposal of treated hazardous waste. Yesterday, the Labor Government announced that it would proceed with its original assessment, that is, a toxic waste dump that should be located at Gurulmundi, which is in my electorate. I will have to live with it, and the people of Miles and Gurulmundi had to listen to the arguments about it. Of course, I have just been treated to the pontifications of the member for Mulgrave, who is an instant expert on everything. The CHEM Unit claims that it has consulted with the people of Miles, but it did not do so. Consultation is a two-way process. The CHEM Unit told the people of Miles about the processes that would occur. It told the people that they had nothing to worry about. It snowed the people with information, but did not answer their legitimate questions. In fact, the CHEM Unit does not answer questions, nor does the Minister. The Premier and the Minister would not receive some of the deputations. Instead, they fobbed those deputations off to the CHEM Unit, which is headed by Michael Kinnane who is a former campaign organiser and Labor Party candidate—a Labor crony. Questions about Legislative Assembly 1834 22 October 1991 compensation were not answered, despite their being asked by the Murilla Shire councillors on a couple of occasions. Initially, the CHEM Unit and the Minister were all reason and light. On 30 April, on 4ZR, the Minister even went to the extent of saying, “If the people of Miles don’t want the dump, they won’t get it.” I know that the Minister is denying saying that, but I will be interested to hear what he has to say when a tape of that 4ZR interview arrives here. On behalf of the people of my electorate at Miles, I am asking the Minister to honour that undertaking. If this Government is about responsibility and accountability, then it will keep its promise. What the Minister has done is a complete backflip of massive proportions. The Minister, from the comfort of his office, said on 4ZR that the people of Miles will not get the dump if they do not want it. It was all part of the softening-up process in the early stages. The word of the Government cannot be trusted, because it has not been honest about the whole situation. If the Minister was not going to go back on his word, he should never have given it in the first instance. As I have said previously, the dump is in my electorate. For the last 12 months, Miles and the surrounding area have been ravaged by drought. In times of drought, one of the most precious resources the people of my area—and the people of the west—have is underground water from the Great Artesian Basin. That water supply should be protected, not threatened. This Labor Government makes a big to-do about establishing a commission of inquiry to determine the future of logging on Fraser Island. The Government makes a big to-do about buying up land for national parks and protecting rainforests and saving the “dig” tree and the Tree of Knowledge, yet it does nothing to protect the most precious resource of all, that is, water—the Great Artesian Basin. I have said in the past that there should be an independent analysis of the various water studies to determine whether or not the proposed toxic waste dump is sited over an aquifer and the impact of the dump on the water supply. Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr NEAL: The honourable member should listen to what I have to say. I am sick of listening to the rubbish that he is peddling. The final impact assessment report says that it is not sited over a major aquifer. That is not the point. What is known is that there is an aquifer in the area, and the site is over an aquifer because the Labor Government report says that it is over an aquifer at 73 metres. Whether it is a major aquifer or not is irrelevant. The Bureau of Mineral Resources in Canberra, which did all the original work on the Great Artesian Basin, showed in map form that the site is over the J aquifer. The maps of the Water Resources Commission show that the toxic dump site is over the Great Artesian Basin. It is as simple as that. Dr George Gibson of the University College of Southern Queensland said that the two most important aquifers feeding the Surat Basin were near the dump site. He said that some of the aquifers in the area were linked to other basins, such as Eromanga. Dr Gibson said that there was some risk posed to the Great Artesian Basin by the Gurulmundi site, but just how great a risk was not for him to say. He questioned the permeability of the surrounding rock, saying that the most favourable site was one where there was a shale bedrock that was well away from any permeable layers such as sandstone. He also said that within the Gurulmundi site there was a large proportion of sandstone that may be semipermeable. That is in the Labor Government’s report. Dr Gibson said that on a world standard, the Gurulmundi site would have been the least favourable location for a toxic waste dump. There is a need for a moratorium on the development of the site. A commission of inquiry should be established, comprising leading scientists and technical people, to determine the impact of the toxic waste on the soil and water environment of the area. The Labor Government was happy to shell out some $3m for Kingston for political reasons. The Labor Government was also happy to promise that the radioactive waste Legislative Assembly 1835 22 October 1991 facility at Redbank would not proceed, yet initially the member for Wolston, who is now the Minister for Tourism, and the member for Windsor, who is now the Minister for Environment, came out and applauded the siting of the radioactive waste facility at Redbank. Mr Gibbs said on ABC radio that he welcomed it. A few hours later, the honourable member backflipped when the ALP string-pullers, Messrs Rudd and Swan, told him that it could be used as an election issue. The Government was not concerned then about how much money it was going to take out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or the cost of building another facility, but when it comes to Gurulmundi, near Miles, 400 kilometres away from the Labor electorates and in a National Party constituency, the Labor Government is deaf to the voice of the people and deaf to the potential dangers of poisoning the underground water supply. This Labor Government’s attitude is that the toxic waste dump site has to go somewhere, and that somewhere is at Miles. If Labor was totally committed to implementing the right policy, it would set up a commission of inquiry. The CHEM Unit has failed to guarantee that there is any risk to water. The best it could do was say that there could only be a guarantee of minimum risk. The commission of inquiry should also include the impact on water supply and rural industry, in particular the beef, wool and grain industries. The Queensland beef industry, under normal conditions, is worth some $1.4 billion a year in gross value. The pastoral industry is far too important to allow it to be put at risk with only a minimum guarantee in relation to water. Productive cattle country surrounds the site and cattle will be allowed to graze right up to the boundary. The beef industry has spent some $40m on residue testing to provide the assurance to consumers that Australian beef is the purest in the world. It would only take one case of contamination to place in jeopardy the future of the entire Australian beef industry. The Minister laughs about it. Mr Mackenroth: I didn’t laugh. Mr NEAL: All one has to have is one incident of human error out there. That is what I am saying. There are 10 toxic waste dumps in the USA that have leaked and the excuse was that the liners had lifted. That is what I am saying. That is the risk that the Labor Government is running. It is placing the Great Artesian Basin, other aquifers, and the entire beef industry of this country at risk. Despite 100 per cent opposition from the people of Miles and the Shire of Murilla, and technical and scientific advice against siting the dump at Gurulmundi, this Government is pushing ahead. No major study has been undertaken. Consultants have been employed to do work in narrow fields but not to do an all- encompassing study. Where is the outcry from the conservationists on this dastardly move by this Labor Government to position a toxic waste dump over the Great Artesian Basin? It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that this toxic waste dump is safe, and scientifically safe. It has not done this. The latest report says that it is not over a major aquifer. The point of the matter is: it is over an aquifer, as I have already said. Yesterday, the Minister said that it was positioned on top of the Great Dividing Range and would not flood. Local people will tell you that it does flood there, and quite high floods occur in storms. There is no question about it. I am referring not only to the area of the dump itself but also to the surrounding countryside where floodwaters flow, and that countryside is quite flat. The new report is technically incomplete. It adds nothing to the discussions on the water component. It will not allay the fears of the people of Miles. The people of Miles do know that technology exists which negates the need for the siting of a toxic waste dump some 400 kilometres west of its origin. Landfill sites or toxic waste dumps should be sited as close as possible to the source of the toxic material. In Europe and the United Kingdom, the move is away from the landfills to incineration plants which are licensed for the destruction of a broad range of wastes. They provide a service to pharmaceutical, petrochemical, agrochemical and Legislative Assembly 1836 22 October 1991 electrical industries for the destruction of liquid organic wastes, including PCBs. The landfill method of disposal of toxic waste is no longer regarded as safe in developed countries such as Australia. According to a Queensland University of Technology lecturer, the economic feasibility of the Gurulmundi dump is doubtful. He said that, on the facts available, the Gurulmundi site could incur an operating loss of about $2m each year. This was a cumulative operating loss of $50m over the proposed 25 years active life-time of the dump. The cost of the incinerator plant is some $45m. A matter of major concern is the problem of transporting the waste from Brisbane to Gurulmundi, yet it is not known how that will be done, whether it will be by road or by rail. It would be exceedingly unwise to shift the hazardous waste by road as this would mean having to negotiate the Toowoomba Range with heavily laden trucks in all sorts of weather. As far as rail transport is concerned, problems would also be encountered with the handling of waste at the site. Earlier, I referred to a question being asked by a councillor of the Murilla Shire Council about compensation from the CHEM Unit, to which no direct reply was given. Under the Government’s Green Paper on proposed contaminated land legislation, the polluter pays principle applies. Will this apply to the Murilla Shire Council, the Brisbane City Council and the Government when it is found at a later date that the Gurulmundi dump has in fact leaked and polluted the underground aquifers and the Condamine/Murray/Darling River system? Will the ratepayers of the Murilla Shire Council and of Brisbane have to foot the bill? I challenge the Minister to answer that question and not to sidestep it, as people in these areas have a right to know just what the Government is imposing on them. I believe this matter is such a contentious issue that before it proceeds a moratorium should be placed on the siting of that dump until all these issues can be examined. Another matter I want to raise concerns the counter-disaster committee within the Tara Shire. I refer to a communication with the regional commander of the Rural Fires Division which I know has gone down from the local shire council. I raise this matter here because it concerns the fire hazard in the subdivisions within the Tara Shire to the north-east of the town. I know that a member of the Queensland Fire Service from Dalby, the captain of the Tara Fire Brigade, first officers of rural fire brigades, and the local controller of the SES, together with the local police sergeant, have expressed grave concern at the extreme fire danger that exists in these rural residential areas. People have bought subdivision blocks, and they are living there out amongst the timber. The present drought is one of the more serious we have witnessed in the area and is one of the longest periods we have gone without any appreciable rain. I bring to the Minister’s attention this extreme situation that we have out there. I know there has been a request made that his department make available as a matter of urgency, and only until the present extreme fire danger passes, two large four-wheel-drive fire units equipped with approximately 800-gallon water tanks, pumps and fire-fighting equipment, to be based in this particular area. I believe this is the only way protection can be given to the residents of this area, as the equipment on hand is totally inadequate to handle the situation. I would ask that the Minister have a very serious look at this situation, because there are a lot of people living out there amongst the timber and scrub in the homes they have built. The area is as dry as chips, and it could certainly be a very, very dangerous situation in the event of a fire breaking out. I would ask the Minister to have a look at that. Time expired. Mr ELDER (Manly) (9.29 p.m.): The reaction from the member for Balonne does not surprise me. The simple fact is that this Government has undertaken an exhaustive exercise in relation to Gurulmundi. There has been extensive community consultation on the process, and the honourable member knows that. It would not matter how much the Government did, and what went with it; the honourable member would not accept it at the Legislative Assembly 1837 22 October 1991 end of the day. He should not talk to me about securer waste fills. I have lived at Inala, which is right on the Willawong dump, and it has major underground water flows that roll through Sunnybank, through Oxley Creek and into the Brisbane River. I know exactly what concerns they have. Mr Neal interjected. Mr ELDER: I am saying that it has been in my area. The honourable member is just not listening. I was brought up in the Willawong area and I know exactly what it is like. Regardless of anything else, it would not matter how much consultation process was conducted on this matter, the honourable member still would not accept the facts, or accept whatever legitimate recommendations came out of those reports. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr ELDER: I accept that. I would have thought they may have been a bit closer, but I wish that they would appreciate those points. In most instances, logic would dictate that all the various wings of Emergency Services would better serve the people of this State if they were organised under a single operating unit, yet it has taken a Labor Government, after 32 years in Opposition, to draw that conclusion and to implement changes that are now affecting the structure of the bureau. Initially, one of our priorities was to unify the Fire Service, which was in a state of disrepair, into a far more efficient organisation operating under the auspices of the bureau. Obviously, that was a much-needed reform, as the new system is now free from the constraints of the old provincial mentality that encumbered the previous one, and in doing so has opened the way for fire-fighters to pursue far more meaningful career paths than were previously possible. The Ambulance Service is undergoing similar changes. I am pleased to see that already many of the 96 unanimous recommendations that came out of my committee have been accepted and implemented by the Government. Mr Veivers: What about the $44m in trust in the ambulance fund? Where did that go? Mr ELDER: The honourable member knows exactly where it went. If he read the report, he would know that it went into the QAS. If the honourable member intends to make comments, he should be aware of the basis for them. That money went to the Queensland Ambulance Service operational fund. I note that the honourable member for Surfers Paradise is just about to interject. For his benefit and for the benefit of the honourable member for Southport, I point out that many of the 96 unanimous recommendations—including recommendations from members on the opposite side of the Chamber—have been implemented by the Government. Under the new structure of the Queensland Ambulance Service, those recommendations are being implemented in the reconstruction program. I am pleased that a new commissioner has been appointed and that senior positions in the Ambulance Service will shortly be filled. From information I have received from officers who have contacted me since the report was released, I understand that morale in the service is high, with officers having a positive expectation about the future, particularly with improved training techniques and new career path opportunities. That process, of course, has not been fully completed. However, Queenslanders can be certain that they will, in the near future, be receiving a higher standard of service in that area. Furthermore, ambulance officers can look forward to improved conditions in terms of their future career paths. In addition to those changes, the Government is considering separating the roles of the State Emergency Service and the State Counter-Disaster Organisation. There is no doubt that those two organisations have tackled their respective tasks admirably, particularly in the recent past. It is worth noting two examples of their excellent work; specifically, the efforts undertaken during and after the western Queensland floods and cyclone Joy. Anyone with first-hand Legislative Assembly 1838 22 October 1991 knowledge of those catastrophes would no doubt be aware of the selfless commitment displayed by the members of those organisations. Bearing that in mind, however, there are some persuasive arguments that suggest that even better outcomes would be achieved through the separation of the volunteer and counter-disaster arms of those two organisations. Currently, some detailed work is being prepared to explore those possibilities. Not content with the benefit that those changes will produce, we have been working hard in other areas as well. The Government’s Chemical Hazards and Emergency Management Unit—more simply put, the CHEM Unit—was incorporated into the bureau and has been working effectively. The results have been excellent, particularly in areas dealing with contaminated land, landfill and chemical hazards. Coupled with the recent addition of the Aviation Division, utilising the Government’s entire contingent of aircraft, the bureau can now confidently state that it has developed a most comprehensive grasp of the management of emergency and disaster eventualities. To further enhance the effective and efficient delivery of those services, a board of management now operates within the Bureau of Emergency Services. The board is made up of the director of the bureau as chairperson, the deputy director and the heads of each of the Emergency Services divisions—fire, ambulance, SES, the CHEM Unit and aviation services. That structure enables and encourages input from all emergency divisions to facilitate the most optimal decision-making within the group. Despite the meticulous attention paid to that reorganisation, we cannot expect—as I said earlier when dealing with the Ambulance Service—immediate gains. However, integration will deliver many benefits that are quite apparent. All the individual services have been placed in a no-lose situation by virtue of the changes. They have all retained independence while at the same time receiving higher levels of support—notwithstanding the obvious gains that have been enjoyed through the generation of huge cost-savings from the integration. The big winners in this scenario, of course, are the people of Queensland. They will be receiving a level of service from all areas of the bureau which is highly organised and efficient, utilises its financial resources productively and effectively, places great emphasis on quality training and accesses superior communications and equipment. No-one would argue that there are not spheres of activity within the bureau where all the Emergency Services paths cross. Obviously, it is here where the major advancements in productivity can be achieved, after the difficulties of setting up the umbrella administration are overcome. Administration is a prime example. The many obstructions that a large bureaucracy can create can be substantially broken down if individual directors and commissioners have access to a central command, as opposed to the labyrinth that they had to face previously. That makes way for more efficient time management, as decisions can be implemented in a far speedier fashion. That is of paramount concern when dealing with Emergency Services. The new administrative set-up also allows for standard practices in the areas of accounting, personnel and stores. That complements the overall efficiency gains to a large extent. A typical example would entail the following: a single corporate services division is in the process of being set up. The division will merge all the corporate service sections of the existing Emergency Services areas—fire, ambulance, SES and the CHEM Unit. That amalgamation will produce economies of scale that will create cost-savings. More resources can be fed into the areas that require them the most, such as Emergency Services personnel and equipment. Economies of scale can also create savings in the provision of corporate services from one division which services all the operating divisions; for example, the purchase of officers’ uniforms, which is a common item used extensively throughout all the services. Other areas of commonality, such as communications, are also being examined. It is the intention of the bureau to cultivate an approach to communications that will substantially improve the network right across the State. Differences between UHF and VHF frequencies in ambulance vehicles and other Legislative Assembly 1839 22 October 1991 emergency service vehicles are being overviewed. The ambulance committee found that to be a very major problem with ambulances. They were looking to move up the band in the UHF frequency rather than having a broad band that all emergency services could access. Training is also a major area that is being looked at. We consider it a priority to develop standard training procedures and facilities. In cooperation with the Queensland Institute of Technology, two highly successful joint emergency services training courses have been undertaken. They have principally focused on the joint approach to emergency services management and response to incidents that involve hazardous chemicals. These courses offer a lot more than the aforementioned courses. They provide an opportunity for Emergency Service personnel from all corners of Queensland to exchange ideas and to discuss similar problems and concerns in a social and professional atmosphere. This interaction is invaluable in terms of encouraging a common purpose and a spirit amongst all workers in the emergency services area. It is our intention to continue and expand these joint training programs in order to generate a long-term strategy to cope with the plethora of emergency situations that may eventuate in the future. The possibility of conducting joint training through the academy is also being studied seriously. An academy may be able to facilitate training on both an administrative and an operational level. As I outlined earlier, the way in which emergency services are being organised in this State is very futuristic. Others will be looking at us and the example that we have come forward with in this area. I see our success in this integration being, in the next 12 months, very positive and very constructive. As I said earlier, fire services themselves are a very good example. The fragmentation of the past is over and in its place is a regionalised service under one commissioner and eight regional commanders who enjoy autonomy countered by responsibility. The administration is finally streamlined; training and equipment are becoming standardised and, as I said, morale in all the services is lifting as a consequence. As I said, fire-fighters can see a future with a service which is well run and very effective. That will be mirrored in every service. At this time, too, not just because we are dealing with the Estimates, we should probably ponder on the role and the work that is undertaken by workers in the emergency services field. Recently, I read a story that exemplified the courage, the dedication and the sacrifice that emergency workers display from time to time. The story dealt with a catastrophe in New Zealand in which a semitrailer loaded with fuel collided with a parked car. Unfortunately, in the car at the time was a mother and her 12-year-old daughter. After the collision, in amongst the mayhem, the mother was rescued by passers-by and the driver of the loaded trailer. She was trying to feel around in the dark for her daughter but could not locate her. She felt that the daughter had escaped the vehicle. Pulling her back, the truck-driver and a passer-by saw the truck itself burst into flames as she was calling for but could not find the daughter. Then they looked and saw that the daughter was trapped in a very small area in the back of the car. The first thing that the driver of the truck tried to do was reverse it out of that situation, but he could not. At that time, the local fire brigade arrived. This was a major catastrophe which occurred just outside a major shopping centre. A lot of people were involved. One can imagine burning fuel running into the gutters and down into the sewerage system of that city. Anything could have happened. The fire-fighters heard the young girl screaming. I understand that she was protected somewhat by the truck because the flames were burning around her, but in time they would have reached her. In among all of this, one of the firemen just up and ran straight into the flames and threw his body around the girl to protect her. At the same time, his mates were trying to find the water pump to throw water directly onto that car before Legislative Assembly 1840 22 October 1991 the whole thing was engulfed. As I said, the tanker could have gone up at any time. As I recall the story, on many occasions the fireman thought that it was the end because as the tanker started to explode at different times he felt that they would be engulfed in flames. Yet he was all that that little girl had. She had said to him at the time not to leave her, and he would not do that. Also at that time, he took his cap off and placed it over the girl’s face because he felt that, if they were engulfed, but were still rescued, her face may have been saved from any serious burning. This is the dedication he displayed. He was prepared to sacrifice himself to save the girl. In the end, his mates got water onto the vehicle. In doing that, they themselves were severely burned, but they would not be deterred from trying to save their fellow officer and the young girl. Eventually, against a lot of the advice at that time, the car was winched out and the young girl was saved. In the end, she had burns from which she recovered, although she lost a leg in the accident. While they were in this inferno, the fireman said to her that if they survived he would take her riding on one of his horses. He was just a young fellow who was a loner working in the New Zealand fire service. That is an indication of the dedication of those officers. It is the dedication that is shown in this country on many occasions, time and time again, by paramedics and by firemen. In fact, in that incident, a paramedic went in to help. It is times such as this when we debate the Estimates that we should remember the work that those people do and the role that they play in society. Time expired. Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (9.45 p.m.): I suppose I will have to display a little bit of restraint in responding to some comments that were made by you, Mr Temporary Chairman, about statements that I made when I visited your electorate of Redcliffe. Out of respect for the Chair, I will refrain, given that you are not able to respond by way of interjection. However, I simply say to you, in the most constructive manner, that what I said about your electorate was that crime was rampant in the streets and that people were living in fear. All I can say to you in the most constructive manner is that, as was pointed out by the honourable member for Sherwood, if you read today’s Sun and if you look at the statistics that are contained in the annual report, all of those particular facts that I mentioned are borne out and sustained. Mr Temporary Chairman, I do not need to go out and scare your constituents—I can assure you that they are already scared enough. I am not going to say unkind things about you, as you did about me. The facts and statistics speak for themselves, and your constituents know about them. That much change has taken place in the emergency services of Queensland is evident to all who take an interest in this vital area of Government operations. Mrs Sheldon: The Minister isn’t in the Chamber. Mr SANTORO: I take the honourable member’s interjection that the Minister is not here. I cannot help that. That much of this change has caused controversy and pain is equally obvious to all, particularly to the professional, auxiliary and volunteer personnel who make up the backbone of Queensland’s emergency services. The Liberal Party supports change. It will not always oppose change for reactionary purposes, nor will it advocate change for the sake of change. The Liberal Party in Queensland will support change only when it can be demonstrated that the change will be of benefit to the most important component of the equation, namely, Queenslanders. The objectives of the Minister and his Government are clearly set out in the annual report of the Bureau of Emergency Services under the heading “Corporate Objectives”. They are laudable objectives which I encourage all members to read. The Liberal Party quite comfortably supports them. However, I respectfully submit that what is hoped for in that glossy annual report, which was tabled today in the Parliament, and what is Legislative Assembly 1841 22 October 1991 happening in reality are two different things all together. I remind members that they were given that report—glossy and brief as it is—earlier today, shortly before this debate commenced. I hope that the bureau, and particularly the Minister, whose ultimate responsibility it is to provide Parliament with adequate information and data so that members can debate the Estimates in an informed manner, will take that lesson on board. Next year, if the Minister is still the relevant Minister, I ask that he table the report more expeditiously. It is to the differences that I have mentioned that I wish to address the bulk of my remarks this evening, because things on the ground are not what the Minister may want us to believe they are. Mr Gibbs: I will pass on that information. Mr SANTORO: If the Minister does me the favour of passing on that information, undoubtedly that will be the most responsible thing that he will have done today and, in fact, probably all month. The annual report of the bureau is full of references to the reform of the various branches of emergency services. The most important of those reforms have occurred in the Fire Service and the Ambulance Service. The administrative and control structures within those two services have been radically overhauled by the centralisation of their functions within regional headquarters. The old community-based management committees—dozens of them—have been disbanded. Gone with them is the very essential ingredient of real community involvement and consultation, which was the hallmark of previous administrative structures. Nobody denies that there were some bugs in the previous committee and board structures. I have acknowledged that previously, and will do so again tonight. Clearly, those structures motivated leaders and ordinary citizens within the community to voluntarily contribute their time and expertise to manage, expand and fund-raise for the emergency services with which they were involved. These days, the so-called community consultative committees and mechanisms lack the real management power that used to motivate the old committees and made emergency services far more sensitive to local needs and support. One cannot help believing that the hidden agenda of these changes was the centralisation of the power to hire and fire within large regional headquarters, thus making those services susceptible to undue union influence. As I have said previously, I have travelled far throughout Queensland, and this view is certainly beginning to gain acceptability amongst those fine people who serve their communities via the emergency services. These changes, together with changes in training, have caused a severe decline in the morale and motivation of senior officers to continue in careers to which they have been dedicated for many years. To support this claim, I instance a letter that I received one month after the changes from a very experienced, sincere former member of a QATB committee, who wrote— “Staff morale has slipped markedly. Fifteen senior Superintendents are reputed to be resigning before April next year at which time all Superintendents positions will be declared vacant. A fact which was kept from the Superintendents by the Office bearers of their own Union. Applications are not being received for staff vacancies as members are reluctant to travel to new positions. Many senior staff members are worried about losing their positions as people with Associate Diplomas will receive preference in promotion. These Diplomas have never been a requirement of QATB employment, nor have they been available, and consequently many highly qualified, proficient and experienced officers will be disadvantaged by the new employment guidelines. Staff are not available for relieving duties, particularly in the country areas. Previously officers took six weeks annual leave. Many of these, with the agreement Legislative Assembly 1842 22 October 1991

of their Committees spent 2 to 3 of these weeks as relieving staff. This enabled them to experience service in Country areas, quite often as relieving Superintendents, and broadened their Ambulance knowledge. They were paid award rates of the Officers whom they were replacing. The new system does not allow for this ‘working on holidays’, so many country Superintendents have no possibility of holidays in the foreseeable future.” The views that I have just referred to are representative of many formal and informal comments that I have received from dozens of individuals who are not pursuing self-interest but are genuinely concerned about and fearful for the emergency services to which they have given so much. Obviously, time for the Minister to reply to these specific points will be limited. However, I would appreciate some comments from him so that I may also circulate his response to the issues that I am raising. I assure him—with every bit of goodwill that I can muster—that they are representative of the comments of people who have written to me. There are many of them. One of the real fears of former members of ambulance committees relates to the fate of moneys raised by committees that are now disbanded and which are held in the central accounts of the new Ambulance Service. Local communities and members of former local committees have expressed concern to me that some of these funds—if not all of the funds raised by locals for local expenditure—will be lost by local communities. I know that the Minister has given his guarantee that dedicated, locally raised funds will be redirected from central accounts back to local communities. I acknowledge this particular point and look forward to the Minister confirming that in his reply. Perhaps the Minister could also put all the speculation and worry to rest by providing the Queensland public with what I might call it a stock-take list of sorts that would indicate clearly what will be going back to local communities when it is required. The wishes of local communities seem to be of little concern to the Minister in other aspects of the administration of emergency services for which he is responsible. I could divert to mention other areas of responsibility, but this point reinforces the points that I have already made relating to the siting of the toxic dump at Gurulmundi. Again, I will cut short my prepared comments because the point has been covered quite extensively by other speakers before me. I know that, during the debate of recent months, much reference has been made to scientific studies and opinions. With all due respect to the scientific opinion that has been bandied around—and I know that much of it has been produced by very qualified and very honourably intentioned people—it is quite clear to me that the Minister and the Government had made up their minds on the location of the dump, and that was that. The facts are that there is conflicting opinion as to how toxic waste can be disposed of and what effects it will have on the environment and, in particular, the Great Artesian Basin water supply system. Of course, the people of Miles do not want the dump. According to radio reports this morning, the Minister told them—in fact, promised them—that, if they did not want the dump, they would not get it. If Rod Henshaw gives that tape to the Minister, I challenge the Minister to table it in the Parliament. For the sake of the Minister and for the sake of people’s respect for the integrity of the political process—which we all on both sides of the Chamber so frequently criticise—I hope that the fellow who spoke on Henshaw’s radio program this morning was wrong and that the Minister is right. However, if the Minister is wrong, I hope that he does the honourable thing and keeps the promise that he allegedly made to the people of Miles. In the face of all of that, what situation are we confronted with today? Today in this State, we have a Minister who is trying to force people to live with a toxic waste dump. That is the ultimate in the abuse of the integrity and status of the emergency services. At Gurulmundi, threats have been made to dismiss the local council, false claims of consultation have been made and forceful statements have been made to the people. It is Legislative Assembly 1843 22 October 1991 somewhat frightening for us to have in Queensland what happens now in Third World countries where people are terrorised. I suggest to the Parliament that the issue belongs with the Department of Environment and Heritage, and the sooner the CHEM Unit is moved into that department and made a part of proper environmental management policy, the better. At present, it is a political outrider for a Minister who has been given a job to do by the Premier, which is to get the people off his back. At some time in the future, Queensland may be taken into the twenty-first century to have a full Statewide program for toxic waste and to use modern technology to minimise it. On the radio this morning, I heard the Minister say that toxic waste had been cut down by between 40 per cent and 50 per cent in the past six or seven years. However, the Minister did not go on to give the credit to the previous Governments—the previous administrations—that had brought that process together. Mr Mackenroth: In fact, I will give you credit where it is due. It is due with the Liberal Party in the Brisbane City Council. Mr SANTORO: That is great. I take the interjection, and I am pleased that the Minister has done so. He should do it publicly next time, and I will make sure that, when I get the opportunity, I will also clearly mention it. The same attitude was displayed by the Minister in relation to the Kingston toxic waste issue, which basically saw that problem covered up by the Minister and his department. The last sorry and cynical chapter to that sad issue unfolded a few months ago when the Minister proudly waved around a 48-page report, which concluded that Kingston’s toxic waste had no effects whatsoever on the health of Kingston residents. The Minister was very happy to heavily publicise that report, particularly in view of the threatened legal action against the State Government and the local authority from former and current residents of Kingston who had, over a period of several years, been convinced by Mr Mackenroth that their illnesses were the result of their contact with toxic waste at Kingston. No apology was forthcoming from the Minister for the scurrilous scare campaign that he conducted prior to the last State election in the cheap pursuit of votes. No apology was made to the likes of Dr Sally Leivesley, who formally investigated and reported on the health aspects of Kingston two years previously and came up with the same conclusions as the report. While I am on that point, let me talk for a few moments about Dr Sally Leivesley, whom the Minister constantly attacks. As all members in this place would know, Dr Sally Leivesley wrote several reports on the state of the emergency services for the previous Government. Within those reports, she made recommendations on the reform of the emergency services of Queensland, including the many within the Leivesley report into the Queensland Fire Service. Often in a half-baked way, the Minister is trying one by one to implement the vast majority of those recommendations but without wanting to give credit to one of the most progressive and highly qualified environmental scientists in this State. Mr Schwarten: How much did she charge? Mr SANTORO: I take the interjection from the honourable member for Rockhampton North. Dr Sally Leivesley charges the market rate. She charges rates that are very similar to those charged by the consultants that are being hired by the Minister to duplicate the work that she has already done. The duplicated findings that the Minister receives come up with exactly the same results that she came up with years ago. It is a shameful and disgraceful waste of public money. Mr Schwarten: Tell us the dollar amount. Mr SANTORO: The honourable member should get the Minister to table the amount. He has all the facts and figures. I could continue to cover many other Legislative Assembly 1844 22 October 1991 components of the emergency services and demonstrate how the Government’s performance in that vital section of administration clearly does not match the propaganda contained in the glossy annual report that was delivered to us only a few hours before the commencement of the debate. I could talk about the unwieldy size and the nature of the emergency services regional boundaries, the lack of four- wheel-drive appliances in suburban fire stations, which greatly impedes the fight against fires in suburban park reserves, the delay in the completion of the risk-mapping exercise and, of course, the chronic understaffing of the overall emergency services brought about by the inability of the Minister to deliver on his pre-election fund-raising promises. Perhaps at some date in the future a Government member could find out what it is like to be near death and to have an ambulanceman trying to desperately keep him alive while driving the vehicle. Government members could also recognise that a 20-minute fire response time to their home in Bellbowrie is too late to save the house. Time expired. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN (Nundah) (10 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise to join in this Estimates debate. There are problems in the prevention and clearing up of crime in this State. No-one doubts that. What amazes me, though, is the ignorance and/or hypocrisy of some members opposite as they try to lay total blame on this Government for the current situation. Some of them should be ashamed of the rather simplistic and fear-inducing manner in which they are presenting or misrepresenting some of these viewpoints. An honourable member interjected. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: Yes, I have heard it described as tacky. I accept that. In rejecting community policing, they ignore some of the changing social factors which impinge on criminal activity. I will draw on parts of the commissioner’s report to highlight some of these changes. The majority of offences are committed by young people. The age of the population and geographical locations must be looked at if we are going to do something about crime prevention and crime clean-up. In addition, changing work patterns mean that often both parents are working. Houses are left empty for a large portion of the day and this potential for burglars is something that is relatively new in our society. Unfortunately, many home-owners only protect themselves after their homes have been broken into. I congratulate the Minister on his recent initiatives for Home Safe so that people will become aware of the problem before the need arises. Because youth unemployment is high and they have time on their hands, young people—who are often severely limited in their financial resources—do not know what to do. They often get into trouble. Many suburbs lack free or low-cost entertainment and recreational facilities. A broader look at society must be taken. We must not—as some members opposite have done—get up, scream out fear and terror and not provide any constructive solutions in any way. Unfortunately, that is the mode in which some people operate. We have to act within this social context. This increase has happened not only in this State; it has occurred across Australia. I must correct one member opposite who said that the number of homicides had increased dramatically. In fact, in the last year the number of homicides in the State has decreased. The enormous personal, social and financial costs caused by crime to our society are tremendous and police alone cannot prevent this. We have to have community policing but some members opposite reject that. Mr Schwarten: I think a few of the gentlemen opposite have been victims of their own hands in the last year. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: No comment. In rejecting community policing, one of the previous speakers said that more police need to work longer hours. Let us have a look at the coalition’s record in previous years and how it handled the problem. For example, if we Legislative Assembly 1845 22 October 1991 look at the police-to-population ratio, that is, how many police officers there are per number of citizens. In 1985 in Queensland there was approximately one police officer for every 532 citizens. That was the worst ratio of any State. I will leave the Northern Territory figure—which is 1 to 216—to one side for the moment and compare Queensland with South Australia, which has a similar population. The figure in South Australia is one police officer for every 418 citizens and yet in 1985 Queensland had one for every 532 citizens. In 1986 the ratio improved, in 1987 it worsened and in 1988 it was the same. There was no improvement over that four-year period. That is the sort of record members opposite have to carry, yet they are asking us why we have not solved the problem after 20 months. I will not go back three decades and look at the disgraceful performance that happened in that time. I will take the last six years, which are closer to home, because several members who are sitting in this Chamber were in Government at that time. Members opposite have absolutely no decent record to call upon and that is where the hypocrisy comes in. They are taking this disgraceful record, throwing it at our feet and saying that we are to blame for the sins of the past. What a disgraceful performance! Since 1989 the police-to- population ratio dropped in a significant way, and it will continue to drop because of what is happening here. Mr Santoro: Are you going to circulate this in Chermside? I think I’ll do it for you, you know. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: We could circulate this anywhere because the people of Merthyr already know how the honourable member performs. The people of Clayfield will find out and reject him in an amazing fashion. When this Government came to office there were just over 6 000 police and public servants in the Queensland Police Service. Approximately 5 200 were police officers. By June next year—the end of this financial year, for which these Estimates account—there will be approximately 7 300 officers and public servants. Roughly 6 200 will be officers, which is an increase of almost 1 000 police officers. There are a couple of important points about this issue that need to be made. This will allow the Commissioner of Police to allocate staff to high crime areas in the way that he sees fit and not as the former Government did on many occasions through ministerial appointments for political reasons. It will be up to the Police Commissioner to allocate staff on a needs basis according to what the community needs and not what a particular Minister at the time wishes to do in order to pork- barrel a certain electorate. It is not a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul, as someone said. The 1 000 extra police will allow this to occur. The member for Callide wants her own personal police escort every time she drives down the highway to stop some crazy driver. If that is the case, we will have to import the one million extra police that will be needed to accommodate her suggestion. Mr Santoro: That’s a bit unfair. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: What she said was unfair. I did not mean to point out her inadequacies, but I had to do so since she raised the matter. I wish to comment on my own and joining electorates by referring to the north Brisbane district. In recent years the residential development of the northern suburbs has exploded and outstripped police resources. The administration of the Police Service recognised the need for additional services and the Fitzgerald recommendations—which Mr Santoro and others want to ignore—supported the establishment of new police district headquarters at Boondall and Mount Gravatt. The north Brisbane district headquarters at Boondall was officially opened in May this year. The Fitzgerald reforms also called for the decentralisation of metropolitan policing and the relocation of mobile patrols, the Traffic Branch, the Criminal Investigation Bureau and the Juvenile Aid Bureau within the regions and not, as the Opposition tries to say, as some cost-wasting, mindless regionalisation. In fact, it is putting power into the local area where the local commissioner can organise the people under his or her control in Legislative Assembly 1846 22 October 1991 the interests of their best use for the community. That is what Mr Fitzgerald recommended, and that is what this Government has done. Of course, in typical fashion, some Opposition members want to go against Fitzgerald reforms. This morning, the Leader of the Opposition provided an example of this attitude, and some of his cohorts and National Party has-beens display it as well. Personnel from these areas have staffed the new police headquarters at Boondall, which has resulted in an increased police presence in the northern suburbs. No police stations were closed, nor was there any relocation of police numbers from existing suburban stations. Unfortunately, that message has not got through to some members of the Opposition who want to spread fear-mongering and mistruths throughout the area. The North Brisbane District Office at Taigum now has 112 staff whereas last year it had 55 staff. Even Nundah’s staff of eight has now been increased to nine. Earlier, it was pointed out that, in December this year, roughly 380 extra police officers will be sworn in. Approximately 100 of these officers will be located in the north Brisbane area, which will improve police services in the northern Brisbane districts. I applaud the Minister and his commissioner on the changes that will take place. I will quickly run through some other improvements, such as the provision of $50m for capital works, which has been explored by other speakers. There are also some basic operational initiatives, and I must say that I am surprised by some members of the Opposition who have business backgrounds because one presumes that they would expect the implementation of basic auditing of operational efficiency and the establishment of official standards against which performance can be measured, but they do not want to do that in relation to the Police Service. All that can be heard from members of the Opposition is, “Give us more police officers. Put them out in the community for longer hours, and that will solve the problems.” This is a ridiculous and simplistic approach. The adoption of new recruitment criteria will result in the induction of better people to the force. We have heard previously people refer to the morale in the Police Force presently, but I ask honourable members to consider the state of morale in the Police Force when good police officers, both male and female—and there were very few female officers when the previous coalition Government was in power—could not be promoted on merit because promotion was done on the basis of seniority. Following the introduction of the new promotion system based on merit, for the first time, younger and more highly motivated, educated and skilled police officers—including female police officers—are being promoted to responsible, senior positions. Last year, for the first time in Queensland, a female officer was promoted to the rank of commissioner, for which this Government and the Minister should be commended. The Government has also provided police officers with improved award conditions. I hope that the negotiations referred to by the Minister will be successful in the Industrial Court. Provision has also been made for welfare and personnel officers in the Police Chaplaincy Unit, which is a practical and much-needed allocation that will be spent on a great service. Again, I return to some of the basics, such as the recommendations contained in the Fitzgerald report. Some of the members opposite want to run away from the report because they do not want to face up to the reforms. Mr Fitzgerald said that education is very important; therefore, the new university-based training course will be a great boon to our society. Mr Fitzgerald regarded higher education as one of the most important questions that the Government could address in improving the Police Service. This Government is addressing this issue, but members of the Opposition refuse to recognise its efforts. Much as I admire “Bluey” O’Gorman, I have to disagree with some of his comments in the last Queensland Police Union Journal. He said that nothing had been done for pro-active policing, but this Government has built on some improvements that were introduced Legislative Assembly 1847 22 October 1991 by members of the National Party during the term of the previous Government and, in addition, has introduced improvements of its own. Community-based policing is important, and programs such as Neighbourhood Watch, Rural Watch, Adopt a Cop, and Safety Houses, are very important. I can speak from personal experience of the great regard my children have for Sergeant Dennis Houston, who is the Adopt a Cop at Our Lady of the Angels School at Wavell Heights. This gentleman gives a great deal of his time to Blue Light Discos and to instructing children in alcohol and drug awareness programs. He also generates a great deal of respect for the Police Service. I pay a great tribute to Sergeant Lyle Crompton, who is the north Brisbane district coordinator of Neighbourhood Watch and to citizens such as Jack Baxter, Ross Sugars, Charlie Swords and Bruce McNaught who are area coordinators in the Wavell Heights district. Next Monday, I will be pleased to attend the launching of the fifth Neighbourhood Watch program in the area, where people such as Lainie Millekin and Vic Camp have done such a good job in setting it up. These programs show that the police-community relationship can work and is working. Our society is changing. It originated in the village society and the extended family unit in which group members looked after each other. The industrial world has separated us, and currently people drive to work in their own cars and do not talk to their neighbours as much as they did previously. Society is now paying part of the price. The trend must be reversed and people have to become more neighbourly and more responsible for each other. Some of the initiatives adopted by this Government in terms of community policing indicate that it is heading towards that direction, and I commend the Minister for his work. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South) (10.15 p.m.): Perhaps the most important task faced by this State Government is the security of Queenslanders in their own homes and towns. Within the community, there is immense alarm and concern that this security is being threatened. When the Courier-Mail and regional newspapers begin to publish week-long features on the rising rate of crime, particularly concentrating on the breaking and entering of private homes, it indicates a groundswell of feeling in the community arising from a recognition that the situation is bad and must be improved. Today’s release of the Police Service report proves that this concern is well founded. The crime rate is on the increase, and the Police Service should have been provided with a greater number of personnel and a greater quantity of equipment at the expense of other sections of the State Budget. Of what use are all other aspects of State Government administration if people are unsafe in their homes and frightened in public places, and if the elderly and young are placed at risk? Honourable members should consider the rising crime figures contained in the report released today. Under the category “Reported Offences Against the Person” for 1990, 15 430 crimes were recorded. The figure for 1991 has increased to 16 919, which is an increase of 9.7 per cent or, in terms of offences per 100 000 population, an increase of 6.9 per cent. There is a percentage clear-up of 68 per cent, which is down 2 per cent. In offences against property, there has been an increase of 17.2 per cent, from 178 189 in 1990 to 208 786 this year, whereas in terms of offences per 100 000 population, there has been an increase of 14.2 per cent. The clear-up rate of only 23 per cent is down 4 per cent. The only good news in the report is that traffic fatalities are down by 7.2 per cent, from 429 to 398. What is the cause of this crime rise? It is fair to say that part of the reason is the crippling recession and the massive youth unemployment of over 30 per cent. Youths who have nothing to do and who are short of money are driven to petty crime, particularly to break and enter offences. The job of a police officer in deterring crime and catching the offenders has become increasingly difficult and frustrating. Offenders are now well educated to the fact that they do not have to answer any questions that may incriminate them. Police must have hard, direct evidence of witnesses and fingerprint evidence to get Legislative Assembly 1848 22 October 1991 a conviction. Sentences are, in many cases, light to the extent of fine options and bonds to be of good behaviour. I strongly believe in a professional and fair Police Service that is trained to work within the guidelines that have been set by the community and by the Government, but if this Government is to be fair to the police and provide the security that is demanded by the community, many of whom are becoming prisoners in their own homes, it must accept that modern policing methods, particularly the proactive system, require a higher priority in the State Budget. To put it simply, to work effectively and decrease crime, the Police Service needs more personnel out in the field and the mobility to be effective. The Minister reported in last Friday’s Sun that there is at least one car available for every police officer on duty at any time in this State. That is simply not true. Reports from police stations all around this State have proved this. The increase in personnel that is required must be backed up by a huge campaign to get everybody on side with the police so that potential offenders know that there is every chance that their actions will be reported and followed by a swift response. One cannot help but wonder at the Government’s priorities. The Office of the Cabinet has increased from three under the previous National Party Government to 66 under this Government, and the Premier’s Department from 6 to 12. It would be wonderful to spend those funds on another 69 police on the streets in areas such as the Gold Coast, Ipswich, Brisbane, Slacks Creek and certainly Toowoomba where people are calling out for extra police. No-one who wants to see a respected and professional Police Service would disagree that there needs to be a fair system of investigation and discipline of reported police misdemeanours. But look at the figures in the police report today: 1 840 complaints made against the police through the Criminal Justice Commission. Out of those, eight were recommended for charges, 51 for discipline, and 36 for counselling. With only 5 524 sworn personnel and 1 281 unsworn personnel subject to these 1 840 complaints, it is no wonder that the police are saying they are not prepared to step off the kerb. They are not prepared to put themselves in any possible complaint situation. Offenders threaten them continually with being reported to the CJC. It hangs over their heads like an ogre. How many millions of dollars are spent on these hundreds of complaints while honest people cry out for extra police? Meanwhile, police on report are restricted in promotion and transfer. It is time to have faith in the revised system and the police, and to institute a system of in-service investigation with the executive of the service only subject to CJC complaints. Surely this is what the Fitzgerald recommendations on regionalisation have set out to achieve, not to hamstring police to the advantage of offenders in society. I now wish to speak about the police needs in Toowoomba where, like all other communities in Queensland, people are calling out for increased police numbers, particularly to curb break and enter offences and to make the city area a safer and more pleasant place in which to move. In May this year there was an alarming situation in the Toowoomba police district. Break and enter offences for the first five months of the year totalled 491. That was a 50 per cent increase from the previous five months of the previous year. The incidence of car thefts, standing at 136, was a massive 100 per cent increase on the first five months of the previous year. Fortunately, there has been a marked improvement due to a change in tactics by police in the Toowoomba district. In the July to September period, there was a 12 per cent decrease in property-related offences compared with the same period in 1990. At the same time, there was an increase in the clear-up rate from 26 per cent to 51 per cent for that same quarter. Within this Budget the Toowoomba police region, which runs from Ipswich to Charleville, has received $28m for this year in the first true regional allocation of funds. It remains to be seen whether this allocation is sufficient at the end of the 12-month period. There are currently 144 police in the Toowoomba police district. That district covers Legislative Assembly 1849 22 October 1991

Toowoomba, Gatton, Millmerran and Crow’s Nest. Of these police, 110 are stationed in Toowoomba. They include counter staff, radio operators, school liaison staff, watchhouse staff, mechanics, trainee officers, and fingerprint and photographic officers. Ten new trainees arrive in December, but the net numbers will remain exactly the same because at the same time the district will lose another 10 older trainees who will be transferred to permanent positions. Added to this are holidays and sick leave. An average one in six policemen at any time is on some form of leave. If one splits the balance into 21 shifts per week, it is easy to see how difficult it is to adequately cover the city with on-the-job police officers. In a normal day, there are in operation in Toowoomba two patrol cars, one crime car, one CIB car, one traffic car and a Juvenile Aid car. The Juvenile Aid car operates during the day-time only. Thursday, Friday and Saturday night patrols are boosted by an extra night shift car and by working the CIB and crime cars on a later shift. Police are also on the beat. But let us consider this problem: one night last week the two patrol cars in Toowoomba on an eight-hour roster had 32 jobs to attend to. How could those police possibly attend to any patrol work? On Saturdays and Sundays the problem is worse with the lack of Budget units to provide sufficient shifts. There are only 28 shifts on Saturday and 21 shifts on Sunday to provide for administration staff, radio operators and patrol staff. These shift units are further denuded by being used for major events such as the Carnival of Flowers or football finals. The immediate need in Toowoomba is for one more car and additional general patrol staff. Toowoomba is fortunate that the crime rate is about half that of areas such as Beenleigh and the Gold Coast. The police report shows that there is in Queensland one sworn police officer to every 506 people, but surely they must be tied up in administration and are not out there in the street. In the Toowoomba police district there are 150 police for 120 000 people—that is 1 in 800–whereas the ideal ratio should be 1 in 550 or 1 in 500. The State Budget provided for a new accommodation block for the administration of the Toowoomba Police Station. Now, I believe that this has been completely stopped. Administration is to be moved from the unsatisfactory upstairs accommodation in the old courthouse, accessible via fire escape steps, to further temporary accommodation in the old Health Department building; still not in the building promised in this Budget, which would have been attached to the rear of the police station. I congratulate the Toowoomba police on the magnificent job that they are doing with their juggling of a very limited budget to give the community every possible ounce of service and protection. In particular, the police in Toowoomba are developing an awareness among the community to support the police and to know their own needs for security precautions. School liaison officers, Neighbourhood Watch, Taxi Watch, Motel Watch, and community and police committees have all made people aware of the need to be part of the fight against crime. An interesting innovation brought to Toowoomba recently by the police has been the community safety audit of particular areas in the city, which has to be undertaken by a community group, and in which security risk areas such as badly lit public places are identified. The work of the officers of the Juvenile Aid Bureau has also to be commended, particularly the way in which they have obtained the confidence of young people in an effort to keep them away from the trouble areas, and the way in which they have worked closely with the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Unit at the Toowoomba General Hospital. The improvement in the petty crime figures can also be traced to the introduction in August by the Toowoomba police district of the Crime Squad, and the Education Liaison Unit or the Truancy Squad, which was brought into operation in September. It is a sad fact, however, that people have an increasing fear of public places in the evening. The Clifford Gardens shopping centre, which is possibly the biggest shopping centre in Toowoomba, openly advertises on radio that it has a private security service to provide shoppers with Legislative Assembly 1850 22 October 1991 trouble-free shopping and security for their parked vehicles. This advertising and the growing newspaper attention to law and order are indications of how the community now feels. The Government should respond to this by supporting the men and women of the police force with greater Budget priority, more vehicles, and more police officers out where they are needed in the field, and this Budget has not given that support. Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (10.27 p.m.): The issue of women’s safety has received considerable attention in recent years, both across the State and nationally, and gains additional momentum after every public attack on women—for example, the abduction of Karen Dixon and the recent rape of a woman who was flagged down on the Logan freeway. In addition, recent surveys indicate that the major concern of the community is around personal safety and security. With this in mind, it is essential that the service develop programs in which the community can be actively involved in crime prevention targeted to personal safety. The women’s safety project was established by this Government in late 1990 to “undertake extensive consultation with the community, Government departments, media and police” with a view to recommending, developing, and, wherever possible, implementing strategies to enhance the safety of women in Queensland. A number of potential strategies for enhancing women’s safety were identified, and some initiatives were implemented over the 1990 Christmas-New Year period, including a trial of women-only parking at selected railway stations, and a streetsafe campaign involving a number of organisations with mobile operators. In July 1991, the newly appointed principal policy officer was given responsibility for managing the project, with a brief to focus on the implementation of the priority strategies developed during the initial phase. While the impetus for the development of these strategies has been on women’s safety, the application has, in many cases, to be broader, and to contribute to making the whole of the community safer. Violence against women is a complex issue which requires a multifaceted response. It is a topic which is receiving considerable attention at local, State and national levels, as it is apparent that women’s safety and security is to be one of the major issues of the 1990s. Surveys undertaken recently indicate that personal safety is a major area of concern for the community generally, and for women in particular. During the development of the women’s safety project two dilemmas were noted. Firstly, most of the media attention and concerns around personal safety relate to violence which is apparently random and usually very public. This does not reflect the picture shown in statistics which indicate that levels of violence within the home or a relationship far exceed incidents of random violence. In my opinion, it is very necessary that the project activities continually maintain this perspective and reinforce community awareness as to the extent and nature of family violence. Secondly, it is necessary to recognise and deal with the fact that fear of crime against women does not always reflect the actual level of crime or risks of random violence. However, fear of crime can severely affect a person’s quality of life through leading to unnecessary restriction in life-style. The project’s strategies therefore need to address ways of breaking down unwarranted fear and to be most careful not to inadvertently contribute to such fears. There is a need to balance the misperception and excessive fear of crime with the potential for too much complacency. The women’s project has been developed within a philosophical framework which emphasises that violence against women is a major community issue requiring responses coordinated across police, Government agencies and the community. Men must take responsibility for their violence, whether in the home or in the street, rather than women simply being called upon to protect themselves against such actions. Two projects have been targeted as priorities for 1991: the development of materials on women and safety to assist police in all regions who are asked to give advice to the community on this topic Legislative Assembly 1851 22 October 1991 and, secondly, the piloting of a safety audit crime prevention program which will be presented in a kit which all regions will be able to adapt to suit their local needs. As well as being victims of general crimes, women are also the targets for specific offences such as relationship violence and sexual assault. Those offences are mostly in the form of personal attack as opposed to offences against property and are related to power rather than to sex. As those offences differ in nature from other crimes, they require specific crime-prevention measures. Officers involved in the project have received numerous requests from community groups for lectures on women’s safety issues, and are also receiving an increasing number of requests from police for information and material on this topic. A comprehensive kit of information on women’s safety is being produced, including seminar/workshop material, videos and hand-out material. I understand that that package will be made available to police throughout the State, and strategies for further distribution to all women in Queensland will be developed. This strategy will also ensure that it takes advantage of any opportunities to advance the aims of women’s safety and to produce specifically targeted information—for example, the production of a brochure jointly with the RACQ on safety tips for women motorists; assisting rail police with safety information for women travellers; and cooperating with peak senior citizens organisations to produce a package of information on safety for seniors. Safety audits are a community initiative which aim to minimise opportunities for crime, particularly violent crime, in the public areas of the community through improvements to the design and physical layout of the local environment. In a safety audit, people work together to inspect their neighbourhood environment and the public spaces which they use to determine what actions can be taken to make their community safer. Small teams of people undertake an audit by examining things such as the location and adequacy of street lighting, public transport stops, street signs, public phones and the nature of safety and security in parks, gardens and shopping centres. The type of action which can be taken as the result of an audit can be as simple as reporting a broken street light, installing better street signs or asking a local trader to light dark spots in a car park. To be effective, crime prevention has to be the responsibility of the whole community working cooperatively and supporting the law-enforcement agencies such as the police. The Queensland Police Service is initiating that program in conjunction with the Brisbane City Council to provide the opportunity for individual members of the community to identify those aspects of their neighbourhood environment which make them feel safe or unsafe. I understand that the Departments of Transport and Housing and Local Government, and Queensland Railways, are also very supportive of the program. There will be public meetings to launch the safety audit programs in all of our neighbourhoods. People are expected to invite friends and neighbours to be volunteers in the safety audits at those meetings. Volunteers will then work in small teams, and it is suggested that being a volunteer for a safety audit will take only two or three nights in a month. I believe that the crux of any lasting improvement in the area of women’s safety is the changing of community attitudes towards women and, in particular, male violence against women. Campaigns to address those attitudes are needed, and the project will cooperate and assist wherever possible any organisations undertaking that role. In addition, work is being undertaken by the community policing support branch to promote the protective behaviours anti-victim training package, which can be targeted to all major victim groups, including women, children and seniors. To ensure that the Police Service is reacting appropriately to women’s safety issues and is projecting consistent messages and advice in relation to women’s security, there is a need to develop strategies to inform police across the State. Strategies include a presentation to a command conference in August, evaluation and further development of Legislative Assembly 1852 22 October 1991 the pilot training program recently completed in the south east region, dissemination of information through internal means and the provision on request of appropriate advice and assistance to regions. A police domestic violence working group has been established with representation from all relevant areas of the service and a broad brief to examine and recommend on issues of policing and domestic violence. I understand that that group is currently investigating a variety of strategies to improve the police response to domestic violence, including a training package, the identification of regional domestic violence liaison officers, input into legislative change, and a review of procedures for recording court orders. I am impressed with the work that this Government is carrying out in the areas of women’s safety, particularly with the women’s safety project. I commend the Minister for his actions in that regard and I support the Estimates before the Committee. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (10.38 p.m.): A couple of important points need to be made in this debate. I have listened to some of the comments that were made by speakers on the other side of the Chamber. They referred particularly to the complaint process of the CJC in relation to serving police officers. I think it has to be said right at the outset that, necessarily, the Police Service is going through a difficult period. When we have to look at the present and the future, we cannot isolate the past. The Fitzgerald report outlines many of the problems that have existed in the past, ranging from verballing to corruption. Those problems will not be removed overnight. As we all know, the former Police Commissioner, Mr Lewis, is currently serving 14 years in gaol. When the Commissioner of the Police Service is proven by the courts to be guilty of corruption, clearly the whole reform process will take time. Therefore, I think there needs to be a degree of tolerance and understanding in the community about the reform process. It will not be easy, and it has not been easy. I congratulate the Police Minister and the Police Commissioner on their efforts to see that the service gains the respect in the community to which it is entitled. The current rate of complaints to the CJC is excessively high and involves all areas of official misconduct. The number of complaints against police is currently 77.4 per cent of total complaints. But with the education process that is taking place, and the reforms, it is anticipated that that percentage will drop, and drop significantly. There will always be a small percentage of people who want to abuse the process. They will be weeded out. As all members of this Parliament would know, the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee is currently looking at the Criminal Justice Act with a view to considering some of the submissions that could lead to changes about how the Act is applied. A lot of people, as well as a lot of members in this place, do not understand that the CJC does not have any choice about investigating complaints that are brought by members of the community. Under the Act, the CJC is required to investigate all complaints. It is fair to say that that has caused some concern in police circles. But the blunt reality is that any police officer who is doing his or her job has nothing to fear from the CJC. Police are involved in those investigations. They are sensible, experienced officers who will not be fooled or deluded by people who want to abuse and misuse the process. I want to take up a point that was made by the honourable member for Callide, Di McCauley, in relation to issues such as prostitution. She had a bit of a smart crack at me about it. Let us not be half- smart about this. The National Party’s track record on the issue of corruption is appalling. One of the reasons why the Police Service is going through the reforms that it is undergoing now and one of the reasons why it has had difficulty is that there was a long list of incompetent Police Ministers sitting on the National Party Government benches. Mr Mackenroth: Ten in 10 years. Mr BEATTIE: Exactly. There were 10 in 10 years. Legislative Assembly 1853 22 October 1991

Mr Mackenroth: Look at the number of Police spokesmen the Liberal Party has had in the past year. Mr BEATTIE: I take those interjections because they sum up the problems. Those Police Ministers really were the white-cane brigade. They were blind. They could not see brothels that existed in the Valley. The honourable member for Callide has a hide to come in here and attack the process which, as a result of the Fitzgerald inquiry, is finally looking at the heart of corruption and dealing with these issues. Police corruption and prostitution went hand in hand. The legacy of the National Party Government was a threat to families and it saw an abuse of young people, who were exploited by the thugs who operated in the Valley, along with police corruption. Yet she has the absolute hide to come in here and make smart remarks about the reform process! Quite frankly, the Government which she supports stood for corruption; it stood for prostitution; it stood for the abuse of minors; and it stood for the destruction of the family unit. So let us not have any more humbug in here about what this Government is doing. It is facing up to these issues frankly and honestly. The only ones who are grandstanding about it are those who are trying to lie about the past. The lie about the past is ended when one reads the facts in Tony Fitzgerald’s report. He dealt with what went on in this State and he dealt in specific terms with the issues of corruption and the close link between police corruption, prostitution and SP book-making. Therefore, I will not stand here on this occasion or on any other occasion and allow members such as the honourable member for Callide to come into this Chamber and misrepresent the past, to try to rewrite history in a political attempt to hide what was going on. The white-cane brigade were guilty. I think it is about time that there was a bit of honesty about the past and we tried, in a constructive sense, to work through these very difficult problems and come up with answers. No-one knows the answers to all these problems. But one has to go through the process and try to get it right. Not for one minute do I pretend that it is easy. On no occasion would I suggest that anyone is right or wrong about these issues. But we have to go through the process correctly. I have spent a lot of time—and so has my parliamentary committee—talking to police officers at Southport, Broadbeach, Mount Isa, Toowoomba, Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton and wherever else. We have a great deal of sympathy for police officers. Theirs is a terrible job. It has become one of the most difficult jobs in the community. I have a lot of sympathy and understanding for their position. But the reform process must take its course. In the end we will end up with a more professional Police Service in which police will be better off, better paid, better educated and better trained. That is the key to all of this. I hope that police officers will be tolerant enough to allow the process to work through the system, because in the end there are very positive gains to be made which will benefit not only the Police Service—which is what the reform process is all about—but also the community. As Commissioner Fitzgerald pointed out, because of the process that had existed in the past, the crooks had the edge. This Government is about changing that. Time expired. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (10.45 p.m.), in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on the Estimates of the Police and Emergency Services portfolio. I think that most members made a reasoned contribution to the debate. Some matters were raised in the debate and some questions were asked. I may not answer some of them in my reply, but I certainly will look at them and give members an answer in writing. A number of members raised the issue of funding for the Police Service. This year, that funding has increased, as it did last year. In the first 18 months of our Government, Legislative Assembly 1854 22 October 1991 that increase enabled us to employ over 600 extra police and to start a program of building 20 new police stations. The member for Nicklin mentioned carry-over funds. That budgetary matter arises every year in every department. It was wrong for the member to make that simplistic calculation. In order to make that sort of comparison, he would need to refer to the carry-over funds associated with the previous year and the year before that. He would also need to look at the accounts of the department that were unpaid as at 30 June. The only simple way to make these sorts of comparisons is to use the allocated money for the year based on the previous year. I believe that would be a reasonable way to make these judgments. Only seven months after we took office, the first budget that I presented for my department included some $3m in accounts that had not been paid as at 30 June 1989. That money came out of my first budget as Police Minister. These things happen in all departments. It was wrong of the member for Nicklin to make those calculations. Another matter raised by members related to police in country areas and the issue of overtime. They made claims that police officers in a number of stations throughout the State are not getting overtime. They referred particularly to one-man and two-man stations and claimed that those areas do not have police services available on weekends. That is an absolute load of rubbish. For many years, officers in those one-man and two-man stations have received overtime and are expected to be on call 24 hours a day. The situation is no different now from what it was last year or the year before that. In the past few months, members have made claims that particular areas of the State will be without police because the Government has not provided for overtime payments. Those officers have never received overtime payments; they simply receive an overtime allowance that requires them to be on call 24 hours a day. Another issue raised by members related to statistics. Last year, the annual report of the Police Department was split into two documents. A separate statistical document that was produced showed the most up-to-date crime statistics that have ever been produced in Queensland. When that document was released, this Government said that the statistics that will be produced this year will be even more far reaching than those produced last year. This Government intends to provide as closely as possible the true picture of crime in Queensland. Those statistics are still being compiled. This year, that document will be produced and tabled in the Parliament. Members will be given a copy. I believe that those statistics will show a far more complete picture of the crime problem that exists in Queensland than has ever been shown by any Government in Queensland. This Government is not running away from the problem of crime. It was interesting to read an article in yesterday’s Sun in which the new Liberal Party Police spokesman claimed that the Police Commissioner was going to talk about his own report and, therefore, I was running away from the issue. I attended the press conference with the Police Commissioner. I have been present in this Chamber during the whole of this Estimates debate. However, the Liberal Party Police spokesman, who had so much to say yesterday, has not been in the Chamber for one minute during this Estimates debate. He has not made a speech during the debate. On every occasion that he opens his mouth, I will remind the people of Queensland that the Liberal Party Police spokesman never bothered to come into this Chamber and make a speech on the Police Estimates. Ms Power: Who was it? Mr MACKENROTH: This week, it is Ray Connor; last week, it was David Dunworth; and before that, it was Santo Santoro. So far, one-third of the Liberal Party members have been the Police spokesman. I suggest that, by the end of next year, there will be another Police spokesman. Legislative Assembly 1855 22 October 1991

Mr SANTORO: I rise to a point of order. I inform the Minister that I resigned my position as Police spokesman when I was appointed to the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice so as to avoid a conflict of interest. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! There is no point of order. Mr MACKENROTH: I accept the member’s explanation that he resigned. If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen; that is the way it goes. It is absolutely disgraceful that the Liberal Party Police spokesman, who was appointed on Sunday, could not even find the time to come into this Chamber to make a speech about the Police Estimates about which he was shooting off his mouth all day yesterday. Perhaps the Leader of the Liberal Party should start to reassess the decisions that he has made, and maybe have a turn at being Police spokesman. The member for Yeronga raised the matter of children being held in watchhouses. I am concerned about the need to hold children in watchhouses, but on some occasions it is necessary. Recently, an incident occurred in Rockhampton in which a child was arrested for the twenty-second time. He went to court, and the magistrate ordered that the child come to Brisbane and be held in the care of the Family Services Department. The police could not get that child to Brisbane until the next day. On that occasion, it was necessary to hold in the watchhouse that child who had been ordered into custody. People criticised that action, but I really believe that that child’s parents and, indeed, other do- gooders in our society should have had a look at that child long before the police got him into the watchhouse after he committed those 22 offences involving stealing and breaking and entering.The police have very strict instructions in relation to holding children in watchhouses. It is done as a last resort but, on some occasions, it becomes very necessary. It happened last week in Charleville when a 16-year-old who was intoxicated and threw a glass at a police officer was held in custody. That could very well have been for that child’s own safety. The Minister for Family Services and I are certainly addressing the issue, but it is a very difficult issue. We cannot simply overlook some of the cases. Police have instructions that they are to hold children only in extreme circumstances, and they are obeying those instructions. In relation to another matter that was raised, the secure land-fill—let me say once again that we have done every possible test on the secure land-fill. It meets the criteria. Two weeks ago, the member for Balonne said that we should get the Bureau of Mineral Resources to do some work. That work had already been done and the bureau gave the green light to the Gurulmundi site. Now, of course, we change to getting some more independent results. I suggest that, if the Government engaged 15 independent consultants, the people from PATCH and the National Party would want a sixteenth and a seventeenth consultant. The decision to site the dump at Gurulmundi is the right one. The area will be a safe place to dispose of hazardous wastes. The dump is certainly needed for Queensland, and I have no doubt at all that the Government will be proven right in time. At 10.55 p.m., The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Under the provisions of the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 1 October, I shall now put the questions for the Vote under consideration and the balance remaining unvoted for Department of Police and Bureau of Emergency Services (Trust and Special Funds). The questions for the following Votes were put, and agreed to— $495,087,000—Law, Order and Public Safety, Department of Police and Bureau of Emergency Services (Consolidated Fund). $221,793,000—Law, Order and Public Safety, Department of Police and Bureau of Emergency Services (Trust and Special Funds). Progress reported. Legislative Assembly 1856 22 October 1991

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Claims by Member for Flinders about Government Action on Prosecutions Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (10.57 p.m.), by leave: This morning, the honourable member for Flinders made some remarkable claims. I rise tonight to respond, only for the sake of the Hansard record, to the story—the incredible story—which the honourable member says is doing the rounds, that I was carpeted by the Premier in Cabinet because no charges of corruption were laid against the former Premier, the defendant Bjelke-Petersen. I am reluctant to dignify that claim by responding, so ridiculous is it, but the record needs to be set straight. The former National Party Government may have discussed in Cabinet whether prosecutions should or should not be brought; we certainly do not. It is now a matter of public record that there are many things unearthed by the courts, as well as those that were unearthed by the Fitzgerald inquiry, which were taken to be normal practice by the former Government but which this Government would not dream of doing. In particular, this Cabinet has never discussed whether any prosecution against any person should be brought or continued. Further than that, the Special Prosecutor has never consulted with me, with respect to any matter that he has ever brought before the courts, about whether prosecution should be brought or continued. Furthermore, the Premier has never sought to direct or interfere with my discretion as the first law officer in any way in respect of any matter whatever. The honourable member says that his story is doing the rounds. The only place where the story is doing the rounds is in the honourable member’s fevered imagination.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 10 October (see p. 1717). Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (10.59 p.m.): This is probably the most significant legislation to pass through the Parliament during this term. It is to do with the rearrangement of the Supreme Court of Queensland, the linchpin of the law of our society. The importance of the legislation is evidenced by the fact that the legislation was introduced into the Parliament by the Premier himself, indicating his interest in the matter, and by the fact that it was developed in cooperation between the Attorney- General, the Minister for Justice, their departments and, of course, the Premier and his department. It is therefore with some degree of humility that I rise to speak to the legislation. I place on the record that it is a matter of concern to me that the things that are said this night in this Parliament in respect of how we feel about our Supreme Court and the way in which we see it should proceed into the future will be read by historians for many years to come. The legislation seeks to do many things but, essentially, it establishes a permanent Court of Appeal and a Litigation Reform Commission and the structures that surround those two bodies. It is such significant legislation that it does require a significant response. I hope that some of the things I will say in a reasonably short time will be considered to be worthy of the legislation. For as long as they have been in place, the Supreme Court and other jurisdictions in this State have served our community well. They have a long and distinguished history and they have provided a reassuring continuity to the community at large, a measure of certainty in our nation and our State during the 100 or more years of rapid change in our Legislative Assembly 1857 22 October 1991 country and our State. As I said earlier, the law is the linchpin of our society and the courts are the protectors and the interpreters of that law. It is for that reason that we change the law with trepidation and with care. We must approach the fundamental change to the structure of our Supreme Court with extreme caution. I trust that, tonight, the Premier in his response will bear some cognisance of the things that are said on the Opposition side of the House as we express what may seem to be trivial or important concerns about what we are doing tonight. Over the past few days, the Opposition has considered its position very carefully in respect of this complex piece of legislation. The legislation contains well over 100 clauses and there is an addendum at the back which concerns the consequential amendment of other legislation. I will respond to the legislation, rather than having had the luxury of actually developing it. I hope that my position is considered later. The courts—and the Supreme Court in particular—are so important to the very fabric of our society as to actually form one of the arms of government. The court must be inviolable and must remain inviolate from those in this place or from other places who would influence, change or in any other way take advantage of it. Tonight, this Parliament has quite an awesome responsibility in respect of these changes because of the position that the community regards the court as having and which it must retain. The Supreme Court of Queensland is responsible for many things. It is responsible for civil litigation, criminal trials, commercial Acts and all areas of difficult, technical litigation. I will consider for a few moments the Rothwells problem in Western Australia. How difficult and technical it is for the judge who will ultimately sit in judgment of that matter to understand, unravel, comprehend and properly and wisely judge that issue. Honourable members must consider the kinds of changes that have occurred in the crimes committed in this country in the last 10 or 15 years. Crimes have become complex because they are committed with the use of highly complex machinery such as computers. Technology has been introduced that can be used by criminals with great minds and intelligence in the course of breaking the law and it requires equally great minds and diligence to unravel the crime and judge it properly. A judge holds an awesome responsibility. I do not have a background in the law, unlike some of the very well-trained legal minds on the Government side of the House. Because I do not have a background in the law, I was interested to spend some time recently having a look at the Supreme Court, Magistrates Court and District Court. I thank the Minister for giving me that opportunity. I was able to go through the library and then look at the way the courts function in order to try to gain an understanding of the complexity and structure of this very important part of the fabric of our community. Some little while ago—and it was not during that recent visit—I was in a Magistrates Court. It was the first time in my life that I had walked inside a courtroom. The court was not in session and I took the opportunity to sit in the magistrate’s chair. For those honourable members who have not done so, I suggest that to sit in a magistrate’s or judge’s chair—or indeed, Mr Speaker, in your chair—is an experience that should be undertaken by those with untrained minds. All of a sudden, it inspires one with an understanding of the awesome responsibility of the people who sit in judgment on others. They sit in judgment in retrospect. They must be able to unravel the thoughts and deeds of people which took place some time prior to the trial. As well, they have to consider not only the facts of the matter, but also the trauma. This must bear heavily on the people who are given this responsibility because they must consider the family, personal and financial trauma of the accused and the absolutely dreadful business of being cast into prison. There are very few things in life that can bring more terror to one’s heart than to have those doors finally close behind one. All of these responsibilities rest with the people about whom we speak tonight—the judges of the Supreme Court. Legislative Assembly 1858 22 October 1991

The Opposition does not oppose this legislation. We recognise the need for change. Recently, I spoke in this Parliament about the evolution of ideas and time caused by people and personalities who come through this House, the courts and other places. I recognise the evolution of the community and the changes in our corporate structures, which I spoke of more recently. I recognise the change in the structure of crime in our community these days. The Opposition does not oppose the principles encompassed in this legislation, however, it does have some reservations about which we will speak shortly. This Bill effectively separates the Supreme Court of Queensland into two divisions, that is, the Trial Division and the new permanent appeals division. It also provides for splitting the Trial Division into other specialist courts. As I have previously said in this speech, with the evolution of crimes and the changes in techniques adopted by criminals, judges with specialist knowledge and specialist techniques will be needed and I am sure that, ultimately, we will have to move in the direction of specialist juries. The Bill also provides for the establishment of a Litigation Reform Commission. I have been a member of this Parliament for five years, and I have a personal interest in this aspect of the legislation. The cases that have come across my desk which have given me the greatest difficulty and which have provided the greatest trauma for my constituents are those that spring from the law and the difficulties by which the ordinary man in the street is confounded when encountering difficult situations in commerce, more particularly, where there are inadequacies in the law and, possibly, in the solicitor or barrister he has instructed who in some way fails to deliver satisfaction or provide a satisfactory outcome. Mr Harper: And the resultant costs. Mr GILMORE: As my learned colleague reminds me—and the resultant costs. Over the last several years, members of the Opposition have had an ever-increasing body of people coming to them seeking redress—that is, seeking a political answer—of a problem that is very complex. Because the matters must be dealt with in the structure of the courts, there is no political answer. It is for that reason that I personally take a very deep interest in the Litigation Reform Commission. However, I wonder about the future of the Law Reform Commission. Is the Litigation Reform Commission to run parallel to the Law Reform Commission or in opposition to it? Or does the Law Reform Commission have a limited life? I ask those questions in all honesty, and I would like the Premier to answer them. It seems to me that, if the Litigation Reform Commission is properly structured, the outcome will be good law reform that can be applied to the administration of the courts in terms of case management and in terms of getting matters settled prior to their reaching the courts, which is very important. I believe it is also important that the Litigation Reform Commission consider some of the other difficulties to which I have already alluded involving the complexity of the law becoming more tangled by incompetent people who practise at law. The issue of total cost to the community, in addition to the personal and financial costs, must be considered together with the absolute misery that is thrust upon people who do not deserve it. These costs are borne by the community because, very often, those who are responsible for these misdemeanours escape unchallenged. If the people of Queensland can expect the restructuring of the courts management system by virtue of the introduction of the Litigation Reform Commission, that will bring a benefit to the community for which the community will long revere this night, especially if the legislation provides for penalties to be imposed on solicitors and others who practise law and who fail to comply with the steps and procedures set down for bringing matters before the courts—if, indeed, it must go to the courts—as quickly as possible and at the least possible cost and trauma to all involved. Many, many cases where counsel have been briefed simply to confound the other party have been brought to my notice. There are mechanisms within the law that allow this to take place, which is unfortunate. I believe Legislative Assembly 1859 22 October 1991 that, provided that we proceed forthwith with good intentions, the Litigation Reform Commission may provide some answers. Recently in this Parliament, I spoke about the Opposition’s stand in relation to the appointment of judges in this State. Because I believe this is an important matter, I reiterate that members of the National Party believe that judges of the Supreme Court and District Courts of this State should be appointed by the Governor on the advice of an independent commission. Mr W. K. Goss: An independent commission? Mr GILMORE: Yes. Members of the Opposition dealt in some detail with the matter, and herein lies the difficulty that we have with this legislation. During the previous debate, the difficulty of a previous appointment of a Chief Justice was discussed at some length. Members of the National Party were accused of being involved in an underhanded manner in a misdemeanour and of badly treating the late Mr Justice Douglas, who was, at that time, the Senior Puisne Judge. I suppose that there was some expectation that he would be appointed to the most senior position in the Queensland Supreme Court, but he was not. The legislation that is before this House this evening provides, in a legislative sense, for exactly the same kind of thing that the National Party Government was accused of most recently. It takes away the position of the Senior Puisne Judge. The person who is currently the Senior Puisne Judge in this State, the second most important of our judges, is then effectively downgraded because that judge does not take up the position of President of the Court of Appeal. Under the provisions of this legislation, the President of the Court of Appeal becomes the second most senior of the judges of the Supreme Court of Queensland. I give notice that the National Party is so concerned about this particular matter that it will be moving an amendment at the Committee stage, and it has every intention of dividing the Committee on this matter to simply make the point that there is a matter of principle involved here, that members of the Government cannot on one occasion accuse people on this side of the House of a misdemeanour in respect of the Senior Puisne Judge and his expectation of continued employment in the second most senior judicial position in Queensland, and then on the other hand the very next time that there is an opportunity in this Parliament to do exactly the same thing, to take away the power of the Senior Puisne Judge. Once again, I conclude—and it is becoming a habit of mine—by thanking the Minister for Justice for the briefing that was provided to me by his staff. I thank the Minister for making available to me the courts so that I could begin to understand the complexity and the difficulty that is faced by that particular jurisdiction. I trust that the points that members of the National Party have raised in this debate will be considered fairly by the Government, because this issue is far too important for political grandstanding. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (11.18 p.m.): I say at the outset that I congratulate the member for Tablelands on the constructive approach that he took to this Bill. Other than foreshadowing only one minor amendment, he supports the Bill. His contribution tonight was very constructive. That is important for the integrity of this debate, because this Bill is one of the most significant and far-reaching pieces of legislation to come before the House in the last 70 years. I should say that it is certainly a piece of legislation that, in my view, is long overdue. My support and the Government’s support for this legislation gives me a great deal of pleasure because this confirms the Goss Government’s place, which is an important place, in the list of reform Governments in Australia. When it comes to the issues of equity and fairness, there is nothing more Legislative Assembly 1860 22 October 1991 important than getting equality before the courts and having a legal process that provides justice speedily, fairly, and at a reasonable cost. I congratulate the Premier, the Attorney-General and the Justice Minister on this legislation. As I said initially, it is one of the most important pieces of legislation introduced by this Government. In specific terms, it provides for a permanent Court of Appeal, the position of a Senior Judge Administrator, and a Litigation Reform Commission to be put in place to ensure that the reform agenda is maintained. In addition, and consequential upon this legislation, there will be three additional judges appointed. There is normally a total contingent of 20 judges. Currently, there are 17. There will be three additional judges appointed to bring the quota up to 20. That is something that all members of this House will applaud. However, it would be remiss of me in this debate not to give some consideration to what has happened recently in the court system. The blunt reality is that the court system has fallen behind significant community changes. At present, there is a crisis of public confidence in the legal profession, its charges, the delays that occur, and the inability and frustration of a lot of people in the community to achieve justice in the courts. This Bill will improve the court system in a significant way, not only in terms of the extra judges, but in the structure and the changes that I have already outlined. I hope that when the Litigation Reform Commission is working, it will look at the overall position. I know from my own recent experience in the law that a lot of injustices are occurring. I had clients in the personal injuries area who were put in a position in which, when all the various pleadings had been finalised, they still had to wait 12 to 18 months before their case was heard. These problems have to be looked at, because often the people affected are severely injured, not able to work, and living on some sort of workers’ compensation payment or social security benefit. They are in a weak financial position, physically injured, and quite often they have dependants. I saw first hand a great deal of agony suffered by these people. There were many reasons why those delays occurred. One of those reasons is being addressed tonight by this legislation. I am hopeful that the other reasons will be addressed by the Litigation Reform Commission over a period. I will take up briefly one of the points that was made by the honourable member for Tablelands when he made reference to the legal profession and incompetent lawyers. I do not believe that anyone in the profession supports those lawyers who are guilty of unnecessary delays in the process. One constructive initiative of the law society is an ongoing education strategy for lawyers. As a member of the law society since 1978, I regularly receive material from the society. The courses it provides are excellent. The law society is continuing to educate lawyers not only in the law but also in practical matters such as the practical application of the law—how to be a lawyer—a businessperson, in a sense. I believe that that ongoing education campaign will have a significant impact on the role of the profession, but that does not mean that there are no problems. There are problems. Again, from my own personal experience, I know the incompetence of some incompetent practitioners who were prepared to allow matters to go on and on because they had, perhaps, too many files. They did not have as much commitment as they should to making sure their clients were given speedy justice. That is why one of the important issues in all this debate has to be case management, and I applaud the comments made by the Justice Minister in that regard. I know there are differing views in some quarters about case management—the costs involved, and other issues. The reality is that if we are going to have a system of justice that in fact is satisfying community expectations, it must operate in such a way that all parties are complying with certain time constraints. We all know that the various time limitations set out in the Supreme Court orders are not always followed. In fact, they are rarely followed. The problem there, of course, is that the Legislative Assembly 1861 22 October 1991 parties involved have to make applications to the courts, and there are costs associated with that. In a lot of cases in which personal injury is involved there is someone in a weak position—that is often the plaintiff—and someone who is in a much sounder financial position, as the defendant often is, particularly in the corporate area. There is not a balance in that. Therefore, there has to be consideration given to case management so that those people who are in a weak resource position are able to get justice with a minimum amount of delay, and the procedures are not there to frustrate those people. Mr Harper: It happens in some criminal cases, too. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, of course. I am just talking about my own experience in the civil area. One of the reasons why I feel so strongly about this legislation, and one of the reasons why it is so important, is that I have seen at first hand people who have suffered considerable pain and agony, anguish amongst themselves and their families, because of the current system. That is why this legislation and the role of the Litigation Reform Commission are so important. I would hope that we would get a lot of support for these reforms from all political parties. I will now turn to the Court of Appeal. I am interested to look at its structure, but I do not want to go on about this at any great length. The Court of Appeal will consist of the President of the Court of Appeal and not less than three, nor more than five, other judges of appeal. The jurisdiction and powers are set out in clause 29. The Court of Appeal will have “jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters that, immediately before the commencement of this section, the Full Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine”. In other words, it is taking over the role of the Full Court. Subclause (2) states— “The Court of Appeal has such additional jurisdiction as is conferred on it by or under this Act, another Act or a Commonwealth Act.” Clause 29 (3) states— “The Court of Appeal may, in proceedings before it, exercise every jurisdiction or power of the Court, whether at law or in equity or under any Act, Commonwealth Act or Imperial Act.” How the court may be constituted is set out in clause 30. I would like to deal briefly with the Litigation Reform Commission. Clause 74 establishes this commission. The functions of the commission are set out in clause 75 (1), and I think that it should be examined. It states— “75. (1) The function of the Commission is to make reports and recommendations with respect to— (a) the structure of the court system of Queensland; and (b) court practices and procedures (including the laws of evidence) . . .” It must be said that that is an area that is long overdue for reassessment, review and determination. The clause continues— “(c) the administration of the courts of Queensland; and (d) the simplification and modernisation of— (i) Acts and statutory rules relating to matters mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c); and (ii) the common law; and (e) such other matters are referred to it, from time to time, by the Minister.” I will be one member who will be keen to see the work of the Litigation Reform Commission and how it deals with those five responsibilities—or four, if one excludes matters referred by the Minister. Those matters are fundamental to the quality of justice provided in this Legislative Assembly 1862 22 October 1991

State. If one looks at the basic principles of equity where people are promised that they will be given speedy trials, that they will have their day in court without being unduly prejudiced, then one can understand why the basic changes to the courts in this Bill are important, but the work of the Litigation Reform Commission in the long term perhaps will be as important. One of the other issues that I would hope we would look at in time is making certain that justice is available to everyone regardless of their financial position. I partly alluded to this before. One of the concerns the community has is that there are three categories: those who are entitled to legal aid; the wealthy who can, of course, afford legal services; and the middle ground who find it very difficult to afford their day in court. That is a significant burden on ordinary Queenslanders, and indeed Australians. If Queenslanders feel alienated from the legal process because of costs, because they do not understand the system, because there are delays, because it is double Dutch, then a lack of confidence starts to develop in the process. I am not suggesting that we are anywhere near that, but I am saying that there certainly are problems with those issues in the community. The law should not be a mystery to ordinary Queenslanders, but it should operate simply and be easily understood. There are those lawyers in the community, I am sure, who would like to keep the law a matter of some confusion for their own benefit. That is not the reason why the law is there. The law is there to serve the community. I am delighted that, since this Government came to power, we are having legislation put in simple English and in a non-gender expression. All those things will help the community to have a better understanding of the law and not feel alienated from the law or the processes of the law—a matter of considerable importance. It is important to see that changes are taking place in the profession itself. The two-counsel rule has been changed by the barristers themselves. I am keen to see how that will work. The honourable member for Tablelands referred to the profession. He was perhaps a little unkind, because the profession itself is responding. I would hope that the profession would respond, too, in terms of charges so that the public confidence continues. In terms of the president, I was a little concerned at the comments that were made about the Senior Puisne Judge. I would say to the member for Tablelands that he in fact is not drawing an accurate parallel with what we are doing. We are setting up a proper structure, a matter that has been supported by a range of people over a long period—as far back as the 1982 recommendation of the Law Reform Commission. We are talking about a new structure. The circumstances that were referred to in terms of Mr Justice Douglas were totally different. I do not wish to go on about the matter or be divisive, because I believe that we have had a constructive debate on the Bill so far and I would hope that would continue. However, I hope that the honourable member for Tablelands will reconsider his stand on this issue so that he is aware of all the circumstances and is not simply looking at it in terms of structural changes. Another comment that must be made is that, in this period of post-Fitzgerald reform, all members of this House and all members in senior positions in the community need to be very careful to protect the integrity of the process. At page 134 of his report relating to court administration, Mr Fitzgerald pointed out— “The independence of the Judiciary is of paramount importance, and must not be compromised. One of the threats to judicial independence is an over-dependence upon administrative and financial resources from a Government department or being subject to administrative regulation in matters associated with the performance of the judicial role. Independence of the Judiciary bespeaks as much autonomy as is possible in the internal management of the administration of the courts.” This Bill complies fully with the spirit of what Tony Fitzgerald, QC, was saying at page 134 of his report. It has been dealt with in a very sensitive, delicate way, which is one of the Legislative Assembly 1863 22 October 1991 reasons why I think congratulations should be given to the Premier and the two relevant Ministers on the process that they have gone through to bring this legislation before the House. It has fulfilled the obligation that Commissioner Fitzgerald set out at page 134 of his report. However, that still does not remove the point that we need to be careful so that the community, too, can respect the process and respect the separation of powers, which is so much an important and integral part of the Westminster system which we all support. That is why this legislation will go a long way towards supporting the court system. I note that both the Queensland Law Society and the Bar Association have publicly stated their support for this legislation. I hope that all members of the profession support it, because it is in the interests of the community and it puts the law and the courts in the position where they should be, that is, supporting the community which, after all, needs to have confidence in the process because, in the final analysis, it also pays for the court process. In conclusion, let me make one point. I reiterate part of what I said earlier, that is, that the law is there to serve the community. The courts are there to serve the community in an important process of administering justice. We have a very important system whereby, in criminal matters, people go before 12 members of a jury to have their innocence or otherwise determined beyond a reasonable doubt. In the civil process, we have an opportunity for matters to be determined to protect people’s civil and legal rights and their business rights. However, over a period, those systems which develop need a re- examination. With due respect to the process, now, after 70 years, is an important time for that process to be reconsidered and for legislation such as this to be introduced, providing in the long term for further considerations by the Litigation Reform Commission. When the commission examines the courts, one of the central points that it should consider relates to the priorities of commercial matters in relation to individual matters. For someone who represented many people who were injured and who were involved in workers’ compensation matters, I felt it a little frustrating that they were a little further down the line when commercial interests were considered; they were not given priority over them. I understand the need for commercial reality. I am not suggesting that that is not important—of course it is. But I do not believe that people in the personal injury situation, people who were in a very disadvantaged position as I outlined earlier, should be put in a position in which they are third-rate persons in terms of the process. That is why I hope that, when the commission does its work, that is one of the matters to which it will give priority. The Premier and the two Ministers involved deserve congratulations. This is a significant and important reform for Queensland. As a member of this Government, I am proud to say that this is truly a reform Government. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong—Leader of the Liberal Party) (11.37 p.m.): I rise to support the concept of the legislation contained in this Bill: the Court of Appeal and the establishment of a Litigation Reform Commission. The Supreme Court is the highest court in this State. The judiciary is one of those arms contained in the separation of powers doctrine. Therefore, the matter that we are discussing is of great importance. Over recent times, we have heard a great deal from the Labor Party about the separation of powers doctrine and its details. I will deal with some of the basic matters in the legislation about which I have grave concerns. I have just received from the Attorney some 34 amendments. I thank him for that; it is appreciated. However, I have not yet had time to go through all of them. Perhaps contained within some of them are some of the points that I will raise. It is well worth while noting that this legislation establishes a permanent Court of Appeal to allow a consistency and a greater degree of certainty within the Queensland court system. This is certainly a major structural change. It will affect the way in which appeals are heard—something Legislative Assembly 1864 22 October 1991 which I know my predecessor raised in this place on many occasions over a number of years. The present Supreme Court judges will be gravely affected by these changes, because there is nothing in the legislation to say that all of the Supreme Court judges who are currently serving—with the exception of the Chief Justice, that is—will not lose their seniority. Whether they will retain that seniority will depend on whether they are appointed to the appeal court. The position of Senior Puisne Judge, who is currently No. 2 in the hierarchy of the Supreme Court in this State, will be abolished and replaced with the position of Senior Judge Administrator. I notice that, before he gets into the pecking order, a Senior Judge Administrator loses seniority not only to the Chief Justice but also to all of the appeal court judges. It is quite clear that, unless the Government appoints the Senior Puisne Judge to the position of President of the Court of Appeal, he will lose his present ranking. I raise these matters because they are all very relevant to the debate before the House this evening. I ask whether the Premier or the Attorney—whoever has the carriage of this Bill through the House—can give honourable members some assurance about whether or not the Senior Puisne Judge will be appointed to the position of President of the Court of Appeal. Also contained in this legislation is a very significant curtailment to the powers of the office of the Chief Justice. One has to question why. In this legislation, the Chief Justice is the chief judge in name only. Under this Bill, the real powers have been taken away from the Chief Justice. It is not by virtue of office that the Chief Justice is a member of the Court of Appeal, nor does he have an effective say in the day-to-day administration of the Trial Division, which is vested in the Senior Judge Administrator, who is free to act independently of the views of the Chief Justice. In respect of the Court of Appeal in New South Wales, for example—the Chief Justice in that State, as is the case in England where he is called the Lord Chief Justice, is, by virtue of his office, a member of the Court of Appeal. Yet this legislation contains no ex officio provision where, by virtue of his office, the Chief Justice in this State will be automatically a member of the Court of Appeal. Therefore, it backs up what I have been indicating, namely, that it leaves the Chief Justice with the title but with no role or authority. I would like some clarification from the Attorney-General or the Premier on whether or not the Chief Justice will be appointed to the Court of Appeal, because it is certainly not an ex officio position. It may be that because the Chief Justice was away on sabbatical leave, the matter was overlooked. However, no doubt over a long period discussions have taken place in relation to this matter. Therefore, I cannot believe that it is a simple oversight. In the past, concern has been expressed by those who are opposed to the establishment of a permanent Court of Appeal that appeal judges would become stale with what is involved in the ordinary trial process. I am pleased to see that this legislation addresses this question by allowing appeal judges to sit as single judges in ordinary trials from time to time. Therefore, by appeal court judges being given frequent opportunities to sit in the Trial Divisions, one would hope that that situation will not occur—and I am sure it will not occur. I am also concerned about the part of the legislation that deals with further divisions of the Trial Division itself. There can be a break-down of that into criminal and civil matters, and perhaps equity and so on. However, the legislation does not spell out what other divisions there might be of the Trial Division by regulation. That is what we are dealing with—further divisions of the Trial Division by regulation. At the end of the day, this matter is left to the Governor in Council. This could be an important structural change. I believe that it ought to be done by the Parliament, not by regulations. After all, if this Government is so very big on the separation of powers, this very important matter should not be left to Legislative Assembly 1865 22 October 1991 be done by regulations by the Executive arm of Government. It should be brought into this House and debated properly and fully. The automatic right of appeal is also a matter about which I am concerned. Currently, there is an automatic right of appeal to the Full Court. However, under this legislation, this can be taken away, again by regulations. The President of the Court of Appeal has a say in this matter. But at the end of the day, it is done by regulation. This is a very important change that can be done by what I believe is a backdoor method without reference to Parliament. Currently, there is no automatic right of appeal to the High Court. I know this is a very sore point with many of those who practise in the law. Again, I believe if we are going to stick to the doctrine of the separation of powers and follow that matter through to the end, there must be referral back to the Parliament—to the Legislature—to legislate on this matter. It should not be carried out by the Executive arm of Government, as is allowed for under this legislation. I am pleased that the Litigation Reform Commission will be set in place. I welcome that. I also trust that it will bring about some efficiency in court processes in relation to case management and—perhaps with the assistance of more judges—speed up the whole court process by introducing efficiency measures that will allow this to occur. I trust that the Government will appoint more judges to the court over all. That will probably occur if outsiders other than Supreme Court judges are appointed to the proposed Court of Appeal. It is important that the Litigation Reform Commission ensures that the law exists to serve the community. In the past, because of the legal costs involved, that has not always been the case. Delays certainly add to those legal costs. This legislation enables this Labor Government to introduce major changes to the Supreme Court. The status and integrity of the existing bench could be felt by many to be under threat from these proposed changes. The integrity of the way in which this whole matter is handled reflects on this Government, because the integrity of the process will also reflect on the integrity and independence of the judicial system in this State. That is why I believe that it is very important to obtain from the Premier or the Attorney answers to the questions that I have raised about how the situation will be handled. Will the Chief Justice be placed on the Litigation Reform Commission? There is no mention of that. The appeal court president and appeal court judges are included on that Litigation Reform Commission. As I have already indicated, the Chief Justice is not an ex officio member of the appeal court. A couple of other questions that I believe ought to be answered relate to the seniority position of a judge who resigns from the Court of Appeal but remains as a judge. Having browsed through the Government’s 34 amendments, it appears to me that that aspect might be covered. Perhaps the Premier or the Attorney could inform me whether that is the case. Under this legislation, consultants might be appointed to the Court of Appeal. I do not quite understand why they would be appointed to the Court of Appeal. I can understand that there might be a need to appoint consultants to the Litigation Reform Commission. However, I do not follow the reasoning as to why the president of the appeal court may feel so inclined to appoint consultants to the Court of Appeal. I ask for some clarification of that matter from the Attorney or the Premier. Mr W. K. Goss: Can you say that one again? Mr BEANLAND: I am referring to consultants who can be appointed to the appeal court by the president of the appeal court. Under this legislation, I do not understand why it would be necessary to appoint consultants to the appeal court. As I said, I understand why it might be necessary to appoint them to the Litigation Reform Commission. That is quite self-explanatory; but not so in relation to the appeal court. The Liberal Party is pleased to support the concept of this legislation. However, I foreshadow a number of amendments at the Committee stage, if they are not already covered in the Government’s proposed amendments. Legislative Assembly 1866 22 October 1991

Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (11.50 p.m.): One hundred and nineteen years ago, Mr Charles Lilley, QC, rose in this very Chamber in order to introduce the Civil Procedure Reform Act. It is instructive to note the Preamble to that Act, which addressed the mischief which was abroad in the colony in 1872. It states— “Whereas the present system of pleading procedure and practice in several Civil Courts of the Colony is unnecessarily and vexatiously intricate cumbrous dilatory costly and oppressive and leads to the waste of the moneys of suitors and the consumption of estates in course of administration to the discouragement of enterprise and to the practical denial or failure of justice in many instances for remedy whereof . . .” It has been a long time since this Parliament has moved to reform our system of courts in such a profound way. I join with the honourable member for Tablelands in regarding this piece of legislation as the most important to have been introduced during the life of this Parliament to date. Over the period of this Parliament, we in Queensland have seen reforms introduced to the Legislature, to the Executive and now to the Judiciary. The power to make laws, the power to administer laws and the power to hear and determine disputes according to law are the three great powers which categorise Government in a free society. I welcome this reform at long last in Queensland. It came after the report in 1982 of the Law Reform Commission. On 5 June 1990, I rose in this Chamber to urge the Attorney-General to make available the report of the Law Reform Commission on the permanent Court of Appeal. On 7 June 1990, the Attorney-General made that report available, and tabled it in the House for all the world to see. Prior to that, it had been locked away behind closed doors. The era of law reform behind closed doors ended when this Parliament started. I rose again on 22 May 1991 in this House to urge the establishment of a permanent Court of Appeal for Queensland, and I welcome the actions of the Premier, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice and Corrective Services in responding to that urging and to the demands of common sense which have urged these reforms for so long. I pay tribute to some of those who argued for the reform many years ago when issues of that kind seemed remote. I note in particular the efforts of Mr Trevor Hartigan, QC, later to become Mr Justice Hartigan of the Federal Court. I knew Trevor Hartigan as a senior in chambers, and he explained to me the merits of a permanent Court of Appeal. He was a former President of the Bar Association of Queensland, a man highly regarded by his peers and a man whose quest for justice characterised his whole life. He saw that, if we were to have the kind of leadership in jurisprudence necessary to transform our judicial culture, we needed a change to our system of courts. It has been said that the impact of Fitzgerald reforms has been profound in changing the basis of our legislative culture and the relationship between the Legislature and its people through establishing a fair electoral system. It has also been noted that the changes to the culture of the Executive have been profound as a result of the EARC reforms inspired by Fitzgerald in ensuring that the power to administer laws is exercised fairly and reasonably. This reform brings at the very uppermost levels of the judiciary in this State a new structure, a new set of functions, in order to respond to those burning issues of justice that so concern ordinary citizens. Make no mistake: ordinary citizens have grown weary and then angry at a legal system choked with cost and delay. Unless our court system can solve disputes quickly and inexpensively, citizens will turn away from the courts and find alternative remedies. That would be inimical to a society based on the rule of law. The establishment of a permanent Court of Appeal will enhance the consistency of appellate judgments and thereby create greater certainty in the law of Queensland. The appointment of a Senior Judge Administrator under the Bill introduces a novel element to the law of Queensland. Clause 63 of the Bill gives to the Senior Judge Legislative Assembly 1867 22 October 1991

Administrator powers in respect of the arrangement of business in the Trial Division. They should be powers which are of great assistance in ensuring the orderly and expeditious exercise of the jurisdiction of the powers of the court in the Trial Division. We have been well served in Queensland by the distinguished justices of the Supreme Court who have contributed much both to legal scholarship generally and, in particular, to judicial studies. I refer in that respect to the learned work entitled The Supreme Court of Queensland by the Honourable Mr Justice McPherson. I refer to the celebrated work by the Honourable Mr Justice Thomas entitled Judicial Ethics in Australia. The latter book came at a time when controversy surrounded judicial ethics, and the scholarship and insight of that book have helped to restore a balance to the debate about the proper role of a judge in a modern society and the proper scope of judicial ethics. I turn to the provisions for the Litigation Reform Commission and its functions as set out in clause 75 of the Bill. The functions of that commission include its power to make reports and recommendations with respect to the structure of the court system, court practices and procedures and the administration of the courts of Queensland. Anyone who practises in the courts would be well aware of the reforms that have been introduced in the Family Court, which have involved case-management practices to expedite hearings, to ensure that the parties grapple with the true issues on which they are divided and to ensure that cases are speedily and justly dealt with. Similarly, the Federal Court of Australia has introduced case-management practices which put a high duty on legal practitioners to ensure that their pleadings are properly focused and that the issues are crystallised early in proceedings so that settlements become possible and the length of time required at trial is kept to an absolute minimum. In this respect, the Litigation Reform Commission has a most important role to play, for in each generation the courts and lawyers must look at the practice of the citizens in order to ensure that justice is being effectively dispensed. Back in the eighteenth century, Lord Mansfield brought to the common law of England a great contribution as Chief Justice of the King’s Bench. He enabled the common law to assimilate mercantile law by admitting into evidence mercantile custom to establish the rules of law. In this way the practices of insurance, negotiable instruments, maritime contracts and bankruptcy were incorporated into the common law. His contribution was not merely in matters of substantive law, but also in matters of procedure. It is a hallmark of the greatest jurists that they have been concerned not merely with academic questions of legal nicety, but with ensuring that the procedure followed by courts is directed at achieving justice between the parties and at addressing itself to the realities of the disputes between citizens. In that case, Lord Mansfield brought the common law into the realities of mercantile England and so added greatly to its effectiveness and capacity to dispense justice. So it is in our own generation, for we can no longer ignore the need to engage with the issues of judicial administration. It has become a discipline in itself. It is necessary to adopt an empirical approach to the problems of judicial administration in order that issues of court delay and cost be treated as issues of fact to which a novel solution must be found. It is no longer good enough—if it ever was—to proceed simply by way of abstract principles. It is necessary to engage with the realities of those persons who are litigants in the system and to those legion of persons who are estranged from the legal system by virtue of cost, delay or inaccessibility through lack of education or access to appropriate information. In that respect, this Litigation Reform Commission, constituted in the first instance by the judges of the permanent Court of Appeal, has an opportunity to give intellectual leadership to the court system in Queensland and to provide to the court Legislative Assembly 1868 22 October 1991

system the expertise to ensure that it is truly responsive to the needs of modern litigants and modern citizens generally. Schedule 1 to the Bill sets out a raft of repealed Acts. That is an interesting measure of the progress which this Bill makes towards consolidating the law governing the Supreme Court of Queensland. It is a mammoth task to seek to consolidate that legislation, and the Parliamentary Counsel is to be commended for the great progress made to date in the Bill that is before the House. This Bill brings the winds of change into the judiciary. The winds of change are never comfortable. As they blow through the bureaucracy and the Executive they cause discomfort. As they have blown through this Legislative Assembly by way of new electoral laws, new parliamentary committee systems and a more open approach to the debating of Budget Estimates they have caused difficulties and discomfort, but no arm of Government can be immune from the winds of change, particularly at a time when rapid technological change is transforming our society. The judiciary have historically been the arm of government who adopt the title of justice. It is a title which daily reminds them of the very onerous task which they face in hearing and determining disputes between citizens. This Bill will do much to assist in the rejuvenation of our judicial system and will do much to assist the ordinary citizen in Queensland to achieve justice. Dr WATSON (Moggill—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (12.08 a.m.): It gives me pleasure to rise in this Chamber and speak to the Supreme Court of Queensland Bill 1991. As the Leader of the Liberal Party has already indicated, the Liberal Party will be supporting this Bill, because its provisions have been Liberal Party policy for quite some time. The previous Leader of the Liberal Party spoke eloquently on this issue on a number of occasions. Before proceeding to examine the Bill per se, I should make one deserved comment with respect to the way in which the legislation has been put together. Tonight, this Parliament has been presented with 34 amendments without members of the opposition parties having had any previous consultation about them. It seems to me to be ironic that members come into this Parliament to discuss legislation providing for case management, the efficient administration of the court system and people receiving procedural justice under the British legal system while, under the Westminster system of government, the members of this Parliament are presented with a Bill on a critical issue that has been sloppily put together. Tonight, members of this Parliament are being presented with 34 amendments to the legislation without the benefit of any previous consultation yet, according to speakers on the Government side, this is supposed to be the most important piece of reform legislation that we are likely to see for some time. I think it is extremely unfortunate that when we begin to talk about the efficiency of the judicial system and the law courts, we do not practise what we preach in this Parliament and that efficient procedures are not practised by this Government. Earlier in the debate, the member for Brisbane Central referred to another reform that will be introduced by the current Government, namely, the idea of putting statutes into plain English. It is therefore unfortunate that this Bill contains a number of provisions that are grammatically incorrect. For example, there are instances when the word “between” is used when the word “among” ought to be used. If the Government wants to refer to the introduction of statutes in plain English as a triumph, it should make sure that, when legislation is introduced, it is grammatically correct. However, I mention that as an aside because I believe that the manner in which this Bill is being debated tonight is unfortunate. The Bill contains three essential elements. The first is the establishment of a permanent Court of Appeal; the second is the creation of the position of a Senior Judge Administrator; and the third is establishment of a Litigation Reform Commission. I intend to address these elements seriatum. The Liberal Party agrees in principle with the Legislative Assembly 1869 22 October 1991 establishment of a Court of Appeal. It is a proposal that we have supported for a considerable period. Mr Welford: What’s wrong with addressing them one after the other? Dr WATSON: I thought I would speak in plain English. When one discusses a court of appeal, one must consider a certain set of advantages that have been set out in the second-reading speech. All those advantages are plausible, but the precondition for achievement of those advantages is that proper appointments be made to the appeals court. For example, currently most people involved in the legal profession in Australia would agree that the New South Wales Court of Appeal is outstanding, and the reason they hold that opinion is that, particularly in more recent times, the people who have been appointed to that court have been outstanding individuals. The same can be said in relation to members of the Court of Appeal in England. I emphasise the point that it is quality of the individuals who are appointed that makes or breaks a court of appeal rather than simply the structure that is introduced. I say that because the Government has made appointments in other areas that many members of the opposition parties believe are dubious. Of course, I can refer to the number of appointments indicated by the member for Merthyr in the motions set out in the business paper, which include appointments of a semijudicial nature—such as those made to the Queensland Community Corrections Board and the sugarcane tribunal—and which are regarded by people outside Parliament as having been based significantly on the appointee’s connection with the current Government. Mr Welford: You do yourself no credit by saying that. Dr WATSON: I raise the issue because it is extremely important to ensure that the individuals who are appointed to the Court of Appeal are beyond question and have legal minds of extremely high quality. That is the way in which the integrity and reputation of the court is established and it is also the way to ensure that a minimum number of decisions emanating from the Court of Appeal are overturned by the High Court. They are the only ways to establish a high degree of credibility for the Court of Appeal referred to in the Bill. The Leader of the Liberal Party has already indicated that the Chief Justice is not automatically an ex officio member of the appeal court. Of course, he may be the president and may be part of the court, but that is not necessarily the case. In fact, a reading of this Bill indicates that the role of the Attorney-General has been emasculated. Mr Welford: The Attorney-General? Dr WATSON: I meant to say “the Chief Justice”. We could have done that to the Attorney- General, but not in accordance with this Bill. The issue that concerns me and other people in the community is that the emasculation of the role of the Chief Justice seems to be related more to the arguments—even public arguments—between the Chief Justice and the Government rather than to the issue of the appropriate structure of the Court of Appeal. It is important, because this Government has a lot to do with the fact that the court is perhaps not as efficient as it should be. There is a significant backlog of cases, and to a large extent that is due to the fact that three judges were not appointed when the vacancies arose. One is concerned that this public argument between the Chief Justice and the Government has coloured the Government’s judgment when it has come to setting up the appeal court. The question of the independence of the court, independent from the Executive arm of Government and the Parliament, is something to which other members have referred. It is not a simple case of the separation along the lines which Mr Fitzgerald may have suggested and which the Westminster system of government promulgates. There are other instances in the administration of the court system in which the issue of independence can be raised. I return to the issue of the vacancies on the Supreme Court Legislative Assembly 1870 22 October 1991 bench. There were three vacancies in the Supreme Court, and three acting judges were appointed. From my understanding, those three acting judges came from the District Court, and three members of the bar were appointed as acting judges to the District Court. That provides three vacancies, but six acting appointments. When one understands that the role of the court is to make sure that justice is done and seen to be done, in most cases where the citizen is against the Crown the question of the perception of independence—which is critical to the court—depends upon judges being appointed and being removed only on a special motion of this House. That issue becomes extremely important and it is an issue that this Government ought to address more seriously when it is talking about not only bringing in a Bill but also the question of how an Act of this Parliament is administered, because the administration of the Act can be just as important in terms of determining the perceived independence of the court as the actual structure itself. This Government ought to be looking into it. I understand that one of the Masters of the Supreme Court died a few months ago. I have been told by people in the legal profession that a master is yet to be appointed to that position. Although I have not checked that particular point, it would mean that there is only one master at the moment, and that is Master White. It seems to me that this is also putting extreme pressure on that individual. That is also part of the question of the administration of justice that this Government has a lot to answer for. The second issue addressed in the Bill is the position of the Senior Judge Administrator. Again, I notice that, in appointing the Senior Judge Administrator, this takes away one of the major former functions of the Chief Justice. When one looks at clause 63 (2), in which the only requirement of the Senior Judge Administrator is to consult with the Chief Justice, even about developing the list for trial, one sees that that is a significant down-playing of the role and importance of the Chief Justice, the chief legal person in this State. I believe that the Liberal Party will be putting forward an amendment that addresses that issue. Clause 16 of the Bill establishes the Trial Division. Clause 17 provides for further Trial Divisions. I notice that no guidance is given as to the various divisions that may be created. I can think of some divisions that may be reasonable, such as a commercial division, a personal injuries division, or a criminal litigation division. From my vague recollection when I completed an introduction to law subject in my degree, it seemed to me that numerous divisions had been part of our court system over the years from common law to equity and from probate to admiralty. It struck me, as I remember, that there were always problems associated with the divisions; for example, between equity and common law. Mr Foley: They used to refer to probate, admiralty and divorce as wills, wives and wrecks. Dr WATSON: I take the honourable member’s word for that. It seems to me that those types of issues that I can recall being raised at that time may very well arise again in the future as further divisions are created within the Trial Divisions. It would have been nice to see in the Bill exactly what was meant by “further divisions”. It would have been good to see the criteria for that established in this particular Bill. Mrs Edmond: This is riveting stuff. Dr WATSON: It is a riveting Bill. Part 4 of the Bill talks about establishing a hierarchy of judges. I make the point that this is a significant variation from the current situation. In the current situation there is a Chief Justice and the remaining judges are all equal except, I guess, a slight inequality with the Senior Puisne Judge. This particular legislation creates a hierarchy rather than an egalitarian judicial system. It creates a hierarchy which is a Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal, the judges of the Legislative Assembly 1871 22 October 1991

Court of Appeal, the Senior Judge Administrator, senior judges, judges and masters. That is a significant variation from the current situation, and I would not have thought it was necessarily one which would engender a sense of camaraderie within the court system. I fail to see any justification for that hierarchical establishment. Certainly there has not been any significant justification put forward. In regard to the Litigation Reform Commission— I find it a little ironic in reading the Minister’s second-reading speech that the Litigation Reform Commission is basically made up of appeal court judges, because at page 3 of the Minister’s second-reading speech one of the issues he talks about is the necessity for different skills required as between an appeals judge and a trial judge. Later in the speech at page 12, he talks about the Litigation Reform Commission addressing the important issue of the new system for case management. It seems to me that if appeal judges do not necessarily possess the skills to be good trial judges, I do not see why they necessarily have the skills to determine what is an appropriate case management system or what it is that is causing a problem in the expeditious dealing with particular trials. It seems to me that what one should have done was go to the individuals who were intimately connected with the issue of litigation—obviously the Bar Association and the Law Society, and particularly solicitors involved with litigation. In that sense it would have been appropriate in this Bill establishing the Litigation Reform Commission to have a representative—perhaps even the president—of either the bar, the Bar Association or the Law Society. It seems to me that the problem here is that the Government has not spoken sufficiently to the profession. Perhaps it does not like to hear what the legal profession is telling it. It seems to me that if one shuts out that experience, that expertise, then one is missing a significant input to the potential litigation reform process itself. As indicated earlier, Opposition members will be supporting the Bill. We have significant reservations about a number of aspects of the Bill, and the Leader of the Liberal Party will be proposing amendments at the Committee stage. Mr WELFORD (Stafford) (12.26 a.m.): It is with some trepidation that I rise after midnight to speak about restructuring of the courts of Queensland, lest I be accused of moving to reform the law in the dead of night. Perish the thought! One thing is for certain, and that is that the courts of Queensland, and in particular their administration, have for a long time been needing this reform. I am pleased that after so long, after reports of the Law Reform Commission and after calls from the legal profession for many, many years, the Government has moved to take the steps it is taking with this Bill. There are two short points I would like to address. The first is the appointment of a Senior Judge Administrator. I think this is an excellent reform. It has long been necessary for someone to take hold of the administration of the Supreme Court in particular, and the courts generally, to ensure that case flow management or better case management is conducted through the courts. A number of judges have idiosyncratically performed their own form of case management and overseen the management of cases that are processed through the courts, in particular the Supreme Court, but it has not been a consistent practice among the judges. The appointment of a court administrator now gives that facility to the Supreme Court. In many ways in this Bill there is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to improve its performance in a whole range of areas. In my practice in the Federal Court and the other courts of the Commonwealth I have seen significant improvements in the rules of court which have enabled cases to be far more effectively managed and pretrial steps being taken to reduce the delays that occur in proceedings, and I certainly hope that the reforms which are encapsulated in the appointment of a Senior Judge Administrator will enable similar reforms to occur in the Queensland courts. The second issue, which is the issue I wish to address in a little more Legislative Assembly 1872 22 October 1991 detail, is the Litigation Reform Commission, because it really is the instrument which will in the long term have a seminal effect upon the effectiveness of the courts system. The functions outlined in the Bill are to make reports and recommendations with respect to the structure of the court system and court practices and procedures, including the laws of evidence, the administration of the courts and, I note particularly, the simplification and modernisation of Acts and statutory rules relating to the matters previously mentioned. I suggest that, in years to come, this Litigation Reform Commission will be the real engine of reform in the courts. It is an excellent opportunity for the members of the commission, constituted as the president and judges of the Court of Appeal and such other persons as they might appoint, to get in and really clean up the processes of the Supreme Court. Any practitioner who has practised in the Supreme Court will tell you, Mr Speaker, that it is an abomination, quite frankly; not least of all in its trial processes, not least of all in the way in which chamber matters are dealt with, and counsel, solicitors and clients are required to sit around for hours waiting for their matter to be brought on. Those systems must be capable of improvement. If ever there has been an opportunity for that to be achieved, this legislation will provide it. The chairperson of the commission, in normal circumstances the President of the Court of Appeal, is given quite extensive discretion and authority under the Bill to divide the commission into divisions and to consider specialised areas of the court’s administration. I note specifically that the chairperson has the power under clause 82 to do all things necessary and convenient to be done for ensuring the effective, efficient and expeditious performance of the function and exercise of the powers of the commission. In particular, the chairperson has responsibility for determining the order in which matters are considered and in which reports and recommendations are to be made by the commission. As well, he has the responsibility for determining who are to be appointed as additional members of the commission. He also has the discretion to select staff and to engage consultants for the purposes of the commission. That gives the commission a good deal of flexibility and provides it with all necessary mechanisms to perform the job that is contemplated by the Bill. I note with a good deal of approval clause 86, which allows the chairperson to allow members of the commission to conduct meetings by telephone, by closed-circuit television or by any other means of communication. That is a very useful reform which could be included in a number of other areas of Government administration where official bodies are required to meet and deliberate. Another important aspect of the commission’s powers is the power to obtain information in order to inform itself about issues on which it is deliberating. Clause 90, in particular, allows the commission, on giving written notice to any unit of the public sector as defined under the Public Sector Management Commission Act, to require that unit of the public sector to give information or reports on specified matters to the Litigation Reform Commission. The specified matters are any matters that relate to functions of the commission specifically, as I previously mentioned, and also such other matters as the chair of the commission thinks are relevant to the commission’s deliberations. The staff of the commission are public service staff and will enjoy all the rights that public servants enjoy under the Public Service Management and Employment Act. The commission is also accountable as an independent body, as are other bodies that operate using the public purse, namely through annual reports at the end of the financial year to be provided to the Minister, which he is required to table in this House within 14 days of their being received or, when the House is not sitting, to the Clerk who will lay them before the Assembly on the next sitting day. That basically outlines what the commission is, how it is constituted and how it performs its job. The important point to be made is simply that, despite the fact that its jurisdiction has been varied through an expansion of the monetary jurisdiction of the District Court, Legislative Assembly 1873 22 October 1991 the Supreme Court has an enormous workload. The division of the Supreme Court into the Court of Appeal and the Trial Division will enable that workload to be dealt with more expeditiously. However, more than anything else, the Litigation Reform Commission now provides the mechanism whereby the lawyers themselves and, in particular, the judges can spearhead changes to the rules of court, which have been long in need of reform, so that the courts can function much more efficiently and lawyers themselves can take more responsibility for the way their cases are managed, not only from the point of view of the court’s case management but also from the point of view of the lawyers who are acting for clients being required to take more responsibility for the costs they incur on behalf of their clients so that, in the long run, clients get better service from our court system. I support the Bill. Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn) (12.37 a.m.): It is interesting to see that the Minister for Justice and Corrective Services has responsibility for this legislation but that the carriage of the Bill through this Parliament has been assumed by the Premier. If one was kind, one could suggest that the Premier’s personal interest in the legislation has encouraged his participation even at this early hour of the morning. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that, for once, the honourable member will attempt to be kind. Mr HARPER: However, if one was unkind, one could suggest that it demonstrates a lack of confidence in his Minister for Justice. I hope that the former suggestion is correct and that it is simply the personal interest of the Premier which has convinced him to spend an early morning in the House with the rest of us. Be that as it may, neither the Minister for Justice nor the Premier can get away from the sloppiness in the drafting of this legislation. There can be no excuse for the 34 amendments to be introduced by the Government at the Committee stage. Quite frankly, that demonstrates a lack of consultation and proper consideration. As an example, perhaps we should look at the Bill and see some of the changes that have been made at this very late stage. For instance, the divisions of the court have been changed to isolate the Chief Justice. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I hope that the honourable member will not be debating amendments at this point in time, because that would be out of order. He may talk about receiving the amendments lately, but he may not debate them at the second-reading stage. Mr HARPER: What I am suggesting, Mr Speaker, is that the nature of these amendments is such—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is for the Committee stage. I will not allow the honourable member to debate that. I so rule. Mr HARPER: In deference to your ruling, Mr Speaker, I will raise that issue during the Committee stage. Mr SPEAKER: That is a good idea. Mr HARPER: As so often appears to be the case with this Labor Government, in this Bill we witness yet another example of a reasonable proposition being manipulated to bring about a quite unacceptable change to our democratic processes. On this occasion, we are witnessing yet another exercise to facilitate, either by design or by accident—and again, if one was charitable, one could accept that perhaps it is by accident; if one was not charitable one would have to assume that it is by design—the politicisation of our judicial system. I am not too sure whether it was the Premier or the Minister for Justice who drafted the second-reading speech. Mr Littleproud: Probably the Minister for Justice wouldn’t accept it because of all the mistakes. Legislative Assembly 1874 22 October 1991

Mr HARPER: As the member for Condamine mentioned, perhaps the Minister for Justice was embarrassed by the sloppiness of the Bill. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Could I suggest that the honourable member for Condamine interject from his correct seat in future. Mr HARPER: Be that as it may, I suppose I can get over it by saying that in the second- reading speech it has been claimed that this is “the most important single piece of legislation affecting the Supreme Court for over 70 years”. Very well it may be, for it affords party political Government an ability to manipulate the judiciary. This move is made by a Government headed by the Premier, himself a solicitor, and embracing its own in-house philosopher, the Attorney-General, both of whom have made so much play over the years of the separation of powers. What hypocrisy we heard earlier in the debate from another solicitor from within this workers’ party, the member for Brisbane Central, and, of course, subsequently, in the contribution by our learned colleague the member for Yeronga. Both the National Party and I personally have long accepted the argument in favour of a permanent Court of Appeal. Might I add, though, that the present system has served Queensland well and has afforded a flexibility not readily available to a permanent Court of Appeal comprising a relatively few judges. Even the Minister felt obliged, in his second-reading speech, only to claim that a permanent Court of Appeal was likely—and I emphasise the word “likely”—to result in an improved quality of judicial performance. It is claimed by the Minister that the Bill preserves the position of the Chief Justice and provides that he is senior to all other judges of the Supreme Court. As I read it, however, the Chief Justice is being stripped of his responsibilities. Despite the 44 amendments that we will be considering at the Committee stage, as I read it, the Chief Justice is being stripped of his responsibilities, and that, of course, despite the claim also that the Supreme Court of Queensland, as formerly established as the superior court of record in Queensland, is continued in existence. At the Committee stage, I will be dealing with the amendment which demonstrates this taking- away, this stripping, of the powers of the Chief Justice of our superior court of record. Making rules of court also seems to have become the prerogative of the judges of the Court of Appeal. The office of Senior Puisne Judge has been replaced by what is to be termed a Senior Judge Administrator. But that judge is now no longer to be second in seniority within the court, for the President of the Court of Appeal and other judges of appeal will take precedence. Provision is made for the Chief Justice to preside at a sitting of the Court of Appeal, if he is present. But there is no provision in this Bill for the Chief Justice to be an ex officio judge of the Court of Appeal. The Chief Justice may also be the President of the Court of Appeal. On the other hand, of course, there is no provision to ensure that the Chief Justice is even a judge of that court. That is simply an intolerable position and an intolerable situation which the Opposition is not prepared to accept. The court—that is, the Supreme Court—is divided into two divisions. Now, with the amendments which will come before the Committee, there is also to be an office of the Chief Justice. That is a further isolation of the Chief Justice. Of those two divisions, one is to be the Court of Appeal, to which I have been referring, and the other is to be the Trial Division. The ability of the Governor in Council to make regulations further dividing the Trial Division causes me considerable uneasiness, as does the provision for the Governor in Council to assign a judge by commission for a specified term. No doubt it would depend on the wording of the commission; but I hope that there is no intention that a commission of assignment could supersede the original commission of a judge to the court and thereby afford the Government an ability effectively to terminate a judge’s appointment. At present, our Legislative Assembly 1875 22 October 1991 statutes provide for a right of appeal. It should be quite unacceptable that this inherent right of an individual should be taken away by this or any other legislation. The president and the judges constituting the Court of Appeal have power to make rules of court with respect to the practices and procedures of the Court of Appeal. As I have indicated, it seems that there is an intention that those very same judges have the overriding ability to make rules of court for the court as a whole. Certainly, they have power to make rules of court with respect to the practices and procedures of the Court of Appeal. Those rules of court may provide that leave to appeal is required in proceedings specified in the rules. Where, now, are the member for Yeronga and our civil libertarians in the Government party? People must—and I emphasise “must”—retain a right—— Mr Littleproud interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have already asked the member for Condamine not to interject from other than his correct seat. I now warn him under Standing Order 123A. Mr HARPER: As I was saying, people must—and I emphasise “must”—retain a right—and again, I emphasise “right”—to appeal at some level; a right to be heard. That is an inherent right that this Government simply should not—and has no right to—interfere with. The High Court of Australia does have an ability to take away that right of appeal, but this Goss Labor Government has not been given a mandate to deny anyone the inherent right to appeal at the level of our Supreme Court or proposed Court of Appeal. Any such denial of justice by the Goss Labor Government must simply be rejected. And the community will reject it! As has been indicated, both the Opposition and the Liberal Party in this place have grave, sincere and justifiable concerns about the manner in which the Government has taken an opportunity to manipulate an acceptable idea for a permanent Court of Appeal into a piece of legislation, thereby affording opportunity for politicisation of our judicial system. It is about time that this Government recognised the separation of powers and realised that in this area—as in some other areas that have been the subject of recent public discussion—it has no right to politicise our judicial system. If the Government is sincere—if it is not playing politics—it will heed our concerns and accept the amendments that the Opposition and Liberal Party foreshadow moving at the Committee stage. Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts) (12.50 a.m.), in reply: At the outset, I thank my colleagues the Minister for Justice and the Attorney-General who have worked closely with me in the formulation of this legislation. In response to a couple of comments made by the last speaker and some other speakers—I point out that this issue of court and law reform has been processed by a Cabinet committee chaired by me and consisting of those two Ministers as well as the Minister for Education, who is the other Cabinet Minister with a legal background. We considered that this was a matter of great importance; it was a reform that was not only important but also long overdue. It was first recommended in 1982 by the Law Reform Commission to a Liberal Attorney-General. It has been consistently supported by the Bar Association and the Law Society in this State, but had not been acted upon until now. With the growing costs and delays associated with our court system, it became imperative that not just additional judges should be appointed. That is not the way to get productivity and efficiency or to change the existing situation. The answer was to change the system. That is what we are doing—bringing about fundamental change. That is why we took the approach of a contribution by four Cabinet members to produce this final result. I have long had an interest in this area. That is why I took the responsibility to chair that Cabinet committee, to introduce this legislation into the House and to respond tonight. Legislative Assembly 1876 22 October 1991

In addition to thanking those of my colleagues whom I have already mentioned, I thank the Parliamentary Counsel and senior officers of the public service who have assisted in processing this matter expeditiously once the Government made a decision. I remind some members, particularly the last speaker and, I think, the member for Moggill, who raised some concerns about amendments being introduced tonight—and I will come to that in a minute—it is important that, if the 1992 court year is to commence at the appropriate time, we have the framework in place expeditiously so that appointments and practical arrangements, such as the drawing-up of the court calendar for next year, and so on, can be made. That is why it is important to have the substance dealt with expeditiously. As to the amendments—with respect to those honourable gentlemen, I point out that whereas there are 34 amendments, they arrived at the same time as did amendments from the other side of the Chamber. They deal only with a couple of points. In the main, they are consequential or technical. I am sure that honourable members of the calibre of the member for Auburn and the member for Moggill will have no trouble understanding them and quickly coming to terms with them. I mention one thread that ran through the comments made by all speakers, and I thank all of those who spoke for that aspect of their contributions. The spirit of all members who spoke has been very much one of support for the judiciary and, at the same time, support for fundamental reform in both aspects, that is, the Court of Appeal and the Litigation Reform Commission. I sincerely thank all honourable members for that. It is important. This is a far-reaching reform. To the extent that the broad thrust of the Bill has the support of all members, the Bill is something of which the House can be proud and, as a consequence of it, there will be greater community confidence in the need for the reform, which is broadly supported not only here but also in both branches of the profession and, I believe, among the judiciary. The reform, of course, involves much more than the appointment of three additional Supreme Court judges, which has been sought for some time. It is important to provide the extra resources, and the Government is doing more than that because with the Litigation Reform Commission comes additional research capacity. It is more important to change the system, and to change it from within the judiciary and from within the legal profession, than it is to simply provide the additional judges, although, as I say and as I stress, we are doing both. In conclusion in terms of those general comments, let there be no mistake in this place or in the community: change is occurring everywhere. Change must occur right throughout our community, and so it comes to the court system of Queensland in the interests of those who practise there and in the interests of the members of the public who seek justice there and have not been well served by the current system because it has not been the subject of fundamental reform for such a long period. The member for Tablelands, who led the debate for the Opposition, made the point that this is significant legislation. He expressed support for the court system and indicated that the Opposition supports the thrust of the legislation and the need for change. In relation to the Litigation Reform Commission—the member for Tablelands spoke in particular of an experience that he has had and that I am sure many members in this place share, that is, trying to assist constituents caught in a legal maze who have, in many cases, been failed by the legal system. He questioned the role of the Law Reform Commission and whether it is being phased out in favour of this body or whether this body runs in parallel. He is right in the sense that it runs in parallel. Its efforts will be directed particularly towards the issue of court administration. The Law Reform Commission continues in its traditional and wide-ranging role. The Government felt that specific momentum and impetus needed to be directed towards the court system, and that is the reason for that. I trust that the explanation satisfies the query raised by the honourable member. Legislative Assembly 1877 22 October 1991

The member for Tablelands also spoke of the potential for good law reform by this vehicle. He mentioned, in particular, case management and what I took to mean mediation. That is certainly something that the Government is also very keen to see occur. He made the suggestion that in future judges be appointed by the Governor on advice, I think he said, from an independent commission. That is a novel approach and I am not sure exactly what it would solve. Our attitude is basically not so much to dismiss that out of hand but to reinforce our belief that this is traditionally a matter for the Attorney-General to accept as part of his responsibilities. That would be the Government’s approach. The honourable member also raised the sorry issue of Mr Justice Douglas. I would like to think that that was a one-off case. It was quite distinguishable from other appointments or some of the comments that have been made over the years in the sense that the allegation was a fairly serious one in relation to a former Cabinet Minister. It was alleged that he had, in fact, ensured discrimination against Mr Justice Douglas as a result of the suggestion that he might once in his life have voted Labor. It is not the same thing, and a clear distinction has to be made. I ask the honourable member to accept that. In relation to the Senior Puisne Judge and the right of judges generally to expect promotion—it is important that we remember the principle that, once appointed to the bench, there is no legitimate right to expect promotion or to expect preferment. One is appointed to whatever position one goes to and one stays there. In relation to the position of Senior Puisne Judge—the Government, by virtue of the Attorney-General, simply respected the seniority existing in the courts and did not do what occurred on some occasions in the past and pluck someone from the ranks to be Senior Puisne Judge. The Senior Puisne Judge is and should be the next most senior judge, and that was the course of action adopted by the Attorney-General. Beyond that, in a modern era the position does not have great relevance and that is why, in the course of this fairly fundamental reform, it is convenient and not at all inappropriate to remove that position. It lacks the relevance that it may have had in the past. The opportunity and, indeed, the justification are there to establish the new position which is relevant and appropriate, that is, senior court administrator. The courts are crying out, the profession is crying out and members of the public who seek justice in our court system are crying out for administration. We need somebody who is appropriate for the task not by virtue of seniority but by virtue of an ability or an aptitude in respect of administration to be the administrator. That is the key. We must go to the substance and not rely on pot luck that, from time to time, the next most senior person is a good administrator. If he or she is not, the court system and the public lose out. I say in all sincerity to the honourable member that administration is needed. The person to do that should be a senior court administrator, not the person who happens to be the next most senior person. That is not said with any skerrick of disrespect at all for the Senior Puisne Judge. In my opinion, from my observations over the years, he is a person of the highest calibre in terms of his judicial ability. This deals with a separate issue, and that is administration. I also note and appreciate that the member for Tablelands thanked the Minister for Justice for briefing and access. It is appropriate that that occurs more often in these cases. Hopefully, over time, as some of the bitterness of the past subsides, that will occur more and more. It is particularly important that it occur in relation to issues such as this. The member for Brisbane Central again indicated his support for the reform. He spoke of his experience of the continuing legal education program of the Queensland Law Society and stressed the importance of that as one of the many things the profession does to keep itself up to date and ensure that it delivers a proper service. That is indicative of what needs to occur across the board on an ongoing basis. It is consistent with the philosophy adopted in this report. He also referred to the need for and value of Legislative Assembly 1878 22 October 1991 case management and the crucial role of the Litigation Reform Commission. In addition, and very importantly, he placed on record the recently expressed support of the Bar Association and the Queensland Law Society for this reform. I turn now to the comments made by the member for Toowong. Once again, he expressed support for the principle of the legislation and in particular for the two arms of the legislation, the Court of Appeal and the Litigation Reform Commission. The honourable member raised some concerns about the amendments, and the amendments circulated by the Government address those concerns, although not in the same terms. In one respect—that is, in relation to the ex officio suggestion—the amendment does not go quite so far, but the Government has addressed those concerns and we can come to them when discussing the clauses. The member stressed the position of the Chief Justice, and I can foreshadow in general terms the Government’s response to this concern when we come to the amendments. The Government accepts the general concern raised by other quarters as well as the honourable member for Toowong that there should be recognition of not only the seniority of the Chief Justice in terms of our judicial system—and that is preserved in the legislation—but also the right of the Chief Justice to sit on either division of the court, that is, the Trial Division or the Court of Appeal. We also accept that means should be provided whereby that can occur. I will come to the detail of that when discussing the amendments. The member also noted that appeal court judges can sit in the Trial Division. I would point out to him that in addition to that—and very importantly—members of the Trial Division will have the opportunity to sit on the Court of Appeal as and when required. Given the small composition of the Court of Appeal as a core group, there will be a regular requirement for judges of the Trial Division to participate in the Court of Appeal. That is something I think they will appreciate. In relation to the concept of further divisions of the Trial Division raised by the member for Toowong and one or two other members—we are leaving this to the court and the commission rather than establishing an equity, criminal or commercial division here tonight. Rather than making those decisions in this place, the Government believes that it should be left to the judiciary to make those decisions for themselves. That is the reason why that guidance—which was the word used by the member for Moggill and I suppose if this Government had done it would have been called “interference”—is provided in this place. We are really leaving it to the court and the judiciary because that is more appropriate than our determining the matter. The issue of the separation of powers was raised by the member for Toowong. I might say that we could have done the same in respect of case management, or whatever, as was done with the division. We are passing this responsibility back to the profession and the bench itself. The Government has given the momentum and set the direction required by the community and the Parliament, and it must then leave the matter to the people whom we entrust to administer the justice system and who actually undertake that important work rather than have interference from this place. The member also raised the question of what happens when a Court of Appeal judge resigns from that capacity and goes to the Trial Division and what the position is in relation to his seniority. If I understand the question correctly, I assume from the legislation that he goes back to the Trial Division with seniority according to the practice that operates in the Trial Division, namely, the original date of commission to the position of judge. The member also raised concern about the provision for the Court of Appeal to retain a consultant. I assure him now that this relates to matters of administration—for example, a computer consultant or systems consultant in relation to administrative matters—and does not relate to a bit of legal advice on the side. It is a legitimate query, but I think it is important to clarify that. The member for Toowong concluded by expressing his pleasure in supporting the concept, and once again it is important that the Liberal Party expresses Legislative Assembly 1879 22 October 1991 that sentiment, and I note it with appreciation. As the member for Toowong and the member for Moggill said, the Liberal Party has a long track record of supporting this legislation in principle. As we know, when a member of the Liberal Party held the position of Attorney-General, it did not support it in practice but only in principle. I suppose that is half the battle. I concede that the former member for Sherwood, Angus Innes, has consistently been on the record as supporting the concept of a Court of Appeal and other court reform issues in a genuine and knowledgeable way. I thank the member for Yeronga for his contribution. More than any other member in this place, he has consistently raised the need for this specific reform as early as last year and again this year in this place and in other forums. The honourable member made reference to a former chambers colleague who subsequently went to the Federal court, the late Mr Justice Hartigan, who was someone held in high respect in the legal profession and someone who did have a commitment to this kind of administrative reform and to the notion of service to the public by the courts which we would like to think this reform embodies. The member for Yeronga spoke from practical experience of the benefits to the public and to the system of case management, and this speaks for itself. He also spoke in quite forceful terms about the benefits of change and the capacity of a reform such as this in its two aspects of a Court of Appeal and the Litigation Reform Commission to provide rejuvenation for our justice system from within. I turn now to the comments made by the member for Moggill. Once again he confirmed his support and that of the Liberal Party and Mr Innes. He discussed the 34 amendments for a little while. I repeat that they are not difficult. In the main, they deal with a couple of points and they are then repetitive or consequential. They represent a response to concerns that have been raised by members of the legal profession. I am not convinced that some provisions—for example, the reference to preserving the right to trial by jury—are necessary, but they have been included to deal with concerns that have been raised and to reassure people. I also point out to the honourable member the need to process this reform expeditiously in the interests of having the court up and running for the commencement of the 1992 court year. Many matters need to be put in train. Again, I repeat that this legislation was the subject of the Law Reform Commission’s detailed recommendation in 1982 and has been around for a long time. The member for Moggill also referred to courts of appeal elsewhere, and made comments in relation to the importance of the quality of the appointments. Let me say that this Government accepts that proposition. I am advised by the Attorney-General that his potential candidates are of the highest calibre from the bench and bar of Queensland, and that he proposes to restrict his list of potential candidates to people of the highest calibre from the Queensland bar and the Queensland bench. He also made points about delays being attributable to the Government, and I simply say in that regard that nothing was really going to be reformed unless and until the system was fundamentally changed—that is, the system within which judges and lawyers operate. He also referred to the master and made the same point, but the position is that the court is coping quite well with one master and will do so until at least the end of this year, so there is no problem in that regard. I repeat what I said earlier in relation to the court administrator, which is that we need a court administrator who is in fact an administrator and not one of the other judges—irrespective of whether that may be the Chief Justice, the next most senior judge or some other judge—because this is a task that should be entrusted to somebody who has an aptitude for administration for which the courts are crying out. However, of course, out of respect for the Chief Justice’s position at the top of Queensland’s judicial system, that administration should be subject to the closest consultation with the Chief Justice. I have dealt with the matter of the divisions. Legislative Assembly 1880 22 October 1991

I thank the member for Stafford for his contribution. Once again, he expressed his support as a legal practitioner who has practical experience. He referred to his experience being primarily in the Federal Court and also in the Supreme Court. Anybody who shares the experience of those jurisdictions with him knows very well the improvements and the benefits that have been brought about in recent years in terms of the efficient administration of the Federal Court and would know what can be achieved in the Supreme Court if a similar approach is taken. The member for Stafford also dealt with the central role of the Law Reform Commission, and that matter was also dealt with by a number of other speakers during the debate. In conclusion, I again stress that this Bill is an important and significant reform. There are a number of amendments, but when members calm down and consider them, they will realise that these deal with a couple of points only and that they are largely consequential and repetitive. The important matter to bear in mind is that, in the interests of fundamental reform, let us get the substantive matters moving. Already, enough excuses and enough delays have been experienced and since at least 1982 there has been an inexcusable delay. The members of this Parliament now have the opportunity to get the reform process moving and to make arrangements for this court to be in operation next year so that, at last, the benefits will flow through to the public, the profession and the judiciary. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. W. K. Goss (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— Mr W. K. GOSS (1.13 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 4, line 4, after ‘Court’ insert— ‘or Court of Criminal Appeal’.” This is simply a technical amendment to include both arms of the current Court of Appeal system. Amendment agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 6 to 13, as read, agreed to. Clause 14— Mr W. K. GOSS (1.14 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 5, line 19, after ‘Council’ insert— ‘, after consultation between the Minister and the Chief Justice and Senior Judge Administrator,’.” This amendment is simply to clarify what would occur in any event, but should nevertheless certainly occur; that is, in the normal course of events an acting judge would be appointed by the Governor in Council, which is what occurred this year. I thought it appropriate to stress the requirement of consultation first between the Minister and the Chief Justice and the Senior Judge Administrator. I move the following further amendment— “At page 5, line 22, after ‘Administrator’ insert— ‘, after consultation with the Chief Justice,’.” Legislative Assembly 1881 22 October 1991

The same comments as those made in relation to the previous amendment and the requirement of consultation apply to this amendment. Once again, the intention is to regularise what presently occurs, to spell it out, and to reinforce what the Government believes is, perhaps, an obligation to consult appropriately with the Chief Justice. I therefore move the following further amendment— “At page 6, line 2, after ‘Judge’ insert— ‘(not being less than the remuneration paid and provided to a Judge)’.” Once again, this amendment is intended to regularise the current practice whereby, for example, the previous Government and this Government would from time to time appoint an acting judge who would be paid the salary of an acting judge but who may, in addition to that, have continuing expenses for the period of one month, two months or three months in relation to the upkeep of chambers. A contribution is generally made by the Government to defraying those expenses so that remuneration is not less than, but not limited to, the salary of a judge; otherwise, the arrangement would in fact disadvantage the appointee. I therefore move the following further amendment— “At page 6, line 3, after ‘person’ insert— ‘who holds a commission to act as a Judge’.” In my view, this amendment simply contains a phrase that is intended to clarify but not add anything to the Bill. Amendments agreed to. Clause 14, as amended, agreed to. Clause 15, as read, agreed to. Clause 16— Mr W. K. GOSS (1.18 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 6, omit lines 13 to 15 and insert— ‘Divisions of Court etc. 16. (1) The Court is divided into— (a) the office of the Chief Justice; and (b) 2 Divisions, namely, the Court of Appeal and the Trial Division. (2) The Chief Justice may sit as, and exercise the powers and perform the functions of, a Judge in either Division of the Court subject to arrangements made with the Judge responsible for ensuring the orderly and expeditious exercise of the jurisdiction and powers of the Court in the Division’.” I will speak briefly to this because I have addressed this point in my response, and I will simply say that the concern that has been raised in relation to the position of the Chief Justice is recognised in this amendment. It is designed to do two things: firstly, in clause 16 (1) (a), to recognise the position of Chief Justice in terms of its primacy and seniority in Queensland’s judicial system and, secondly, in subparagraph (2), to recognise the right of the Chief Justice to sit in either of the divisions, that is, in either the Court of Appeal or the Trial Divisions—which is effectively what he does at the present time—and to provide the mechanism whereby that arrangement will be made by the respective administering judge in either division. Mr HARPER: During the second-reading debate I indicated concern at what I perceived to be a shedding of powers in the office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in this State. I see clause 16 and the amendments that have now been put before Legislative Assembly 1882 22 October 1991 the Committee as indicative of the stripping by this Bill of the powers of the Chief Justice. I appreciate that the Premier has indicated that the establishment of an office of the Chief Justice has been made with a view to demonstrating that the Chief Justice, indeed, is the most senior or our judges within the superior court of record. I trust that the establishment of that office does not bring about any isolation of the Chief Justice. I appreciate that some of the concerns which I previously had, and which the Opposition has had, that the Chief Justice was not an ex officio member of the Court of Appeal, will be remedied by this amendment, which indicates an ex officio right of the Chief Justice to sit as a judge in either the Trial Division or the Court of Appeal Division of the court. However, I find it repulsive, I suppose, that the amendment submits the Chief Justice to the whims, or the directions, of a more junior judge, for the amendment indicates that the Chief Justice may sit in either the Trial Division or the Court of Appeal Division of the court only—and I emphasise “only”—subject to arrangements made with the judge responsible for ensuring the orderly and expeditious exercise of the jurisdiction and powers of the court in the division. I should have thought that the Chief Justice, as the most senior of our judges, would simply have had an ex officio right to ensure that one of his more junior judges—despite the fact that he may be senior in the division with administrative responsibilities in the division—simply acknowledged the Chief Justice’s desire to sit in that division and acted accordingly. As I say, I appreciate that at least the amendment now appears to give the Chief Justice an ex officio right in the Court of Appeal, but I find it unfortunate that the decision still really rests with the more junior judge who may make arrangements to accommodate the wishes of the Chief Justice. Mr W. K. GOSS: Just briefly on that point, I appreciate that the member for Auburn has acknowledged that this amendment goes part of the way to meeting his concern, but in relation to the second aspect that he raised, that is the Chief Justice being ordered around by a more junior judge, this really needs to be read together with the administrative arrangements for the other two divisions, that is the Court of Appeal and the Trial Division, whereby the administering judge, the person responsible for the day-to-day administration, is required to do so in consultation with the Chief Justice. So the Chief Justice’s participation is not simply determined by this, but read in conjunction with the others. While it might not be as pure or as direct as the honourable member for Auburn was suggesting previously in his comments, this amendment read with the other requires consultation in relation to those arrangements being made in respect of both of those divisions with the Chief Justice. Mr BEANLAND: Certainly on the surface, this amendment seems to go some of the way towards meeting the concerns I expressed during the second-reading debate but, as I think has already been pointed out, it does not really go all the way towards making the Chief Justice an ex officio member of the Court of Appeal. Quite clearly, the words, “subject to arrangements made with the Judge responsible for ensuring the orderly and expeditious exercise of the jurisdiction and powers of the Court in the Division” water it down from making the Chief Justice an ex officio member of the appeal court. I understand that there are arrangements which have to take place, and the Premier popped up a few moments ago to talk about consultation. That is interesting. That is all I have heard this evening—“consultation”. What does “consultation” really mean? I will tell the Premier what it means. At the end of the day , it does not mean a fig; not a damn. All it means is sitting down and having a bit of a chat. The judge responsible for the trial court does not have to take any notice of the Chief Justice. If he does not want to take any notice of the Chief Justice, he does not have to—and the same with the President of the Court of Appeal. If it is purely consultation, he certainly does not have to take any notice. Clearly, whiet the Government may have good reasons for doing this, it does not automatically make the Chief Justice an ex officio member of the appeal court, and it Legislative Assembly 1883 22 October 1991 could mean that somewhere down the track these amendments could cause some problems. Because of the amendments, I will not proceed with another amendment that I had proposed to move later in relation to clause 28 because it would have made the Chief Justice an ex officio member. I will leave it to the goodwill of the system to make this work. I trust that at the end of the day the system will be effective and that the Chief Justice’s role and power will not be curtailed, as I see it being easily curtailed under this proposal, and that the Senior Judge Administrator will pay due cognisance to the role of the Chief Justice, as will the President of the Court of Appeal, and that he is able to sit on the Court of Appeal when and where required and if he so wishes, as we find is the case in New South Wales and with the Lord Chief Justice in England. I will leave it to the goodwill of the system to work this out, but at the same time I must say that I indicate clearly to the Government that we will be keeping a close eye on this matter to make sure that it does work out. If it does not, I can assure the Premier that there will be words said about it. It will be a matter that will be raised in this place at another time, because it is very important, I believe, to ensure that the role of the Chief Justice is not curtailed or down-graded in any manner whatsoever. Mr W. K. GOSS: In response to the member for Toowong—I thank him for his attitude in terms of the strict or literal ex officio amendment that had originally been proposed by his party. I note his concerns in relation to the Chief Justice, but I would urge upon members again a consideration of this amendment in conjunction with the other sections of the Bill relating to the orderly arrangements to be made by the specific persons charged with the administration of those respective divisions. Let me also say that I think he hit the nail on the head when he said that it will depend a bit on the individuals within the system. I think it is fair to make that point, because I suppose to a large extent we as a Government—and I would hope that we can as a Parliament—rely on the integrity and professionalism of people who operate at the highest levels of the judiciary to in fact make these things work. When it comes to these kinds of reforms and these kinds of institutions, we can achieve so much in this place with the letter of the law; but, ultimately, it comes down to the extent to which people are prepared to abide by and to practise according to the spirit of that law or the spirit of that reform. Let me say that I have confidence that that challenge, that responsibility, will be met by the individuals at the highest level of our judiciary the people who will be working with the Chief Justice to ensure that this reform and this new system work. I have that confidence, and I thank the member for Toowong for being prepared to give that approach a go. Amendment agreed to. Clause 16, as amended, agreed to. Clause 17— Mr BEANLAND (1.30 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 6, omit lines 16 to 18 and insert— ‘Further divisions of Trial Division 17. The Trial Division may be further divided by an Act, and not otherwise.’ ” It is clear that the current clause provides— “The Governor in Council may make regulations further dividing the Trial Division.” I heard the Premier indicate that this clause will be subject to proposals coming from the Litigation Reform Commission. Proposals may come from lots of other places, but nothing in the clause sets out that that will be the situation—far from it. It is quite clear that the Governor in Council may make further regulations. I note what is contained in Legislative Assembly 1884 22 October 1991 other clauses but, at the end of the day, there is nothing stopping the Government from making regulations in relation to further division of the Trial Division. This is a very important clause in the legislation. We might have a break-down between criminal and civil matters but in future we might get a division of the courts into equity, land, the environment or a whole range of matters. Any such division is of such importance that it ought to come before the Parliament. It would be an important structural change that would affect the procedure of justice in this State. If we wish to ensure that those things are done properly and not through the Executive arm of Government—we talk about the separation of powers—it ought to come before this Legislature. Because it is so important, I have moved this amendment which provides that, if we intend to divide the Trial Division further—it can be done by an amendment before this Parliament at any time in future—into two or three divisions, this legislation ought to be amended and it ought not be done through regulations or the Governor in Council, as is proposed by the clause in the legislation currently before the Committee. Therefore, I move the amendment to clause 17, which I believe will ensure that there is a very clear separation of powers when it comes to changes to this very important judicial legislation. Mr W. K. GOSS: If the currently proposed clause 17 determined the situation on its own, the member’s objections would be valid. However, I ask him to read clause 17 in conjunction with proposed amendment No. 25 on page 6 of the sheet that he has. That picks up what I have said previously in this Chamber in my response, that is, that it is not proposed that the Government would simply arbitrarily or of its own decision by regulation establish divisions. As I said earlier in my general summary, the Government is putting this back to the court and the Litigation Reform Commission. Nothing will be done until after a report or recommendation from the commission has come forward. In other words, we are not going to determine this. We are throwing this responsibility for determining the establishment of divisions—whether the court wants no extra divisions or whether it wants commercial, equity or crime divisions—onto the Litigation Reform Commission, which is, namely, the judges of the Court of Appeal in consultation with various other people including the Chief Justice, the Bar Association, the Law Society and whomever. The member’s concerns are valid as they relate to clause 17; but, if he links it to the other amendment, he will realise that the Government cannot act unless it is on the basis of a report and recommendation from the commission. I think that clarifies what we are trying to achieve here. Once again, it is coming back to the individuals whom we are going to entrust with this responsibility and our assumption, trust or hope that they will bring in the appropriate reforms. Mr HARPER: I appreciate the fact that the amendment which the Premier has foreshadowed overcomes the natural concern of members of this Parliament about Government by regulation. The clause that is the subject of the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Liberal Party is naturally unacceptable to the Liberal Party and to the Opposition as it stands because it empowers the Governor in Council to make regulations further dividing the Trial Division. The concern that I now have with the foreshadowed amendment—as the Premier just mentioned it, I trust that you will allow me to refer to it, Mr Chairman—is that, although the proposal prohibits a regulation being made under this legislation without a report and recommendation being received from the commission, or a division of the commission, it firstly does not restrict a regulation from being made. However, I must admit that in practice it would be most unlikely that the Government would recommend to the Governor in Council without that being the case. The area in which I still have concern is that this places the responsibility on the commission or, effectively, on the judges of the Court of Appeal because the commission comprises not the Chief Justice but the President of the Court of Appeal and the other Legislative Assembly 1885 22 October 1991 judges of appeal. So the Chief Justice is excluded. He is certainly not deliberately included and not ex officio included. The clause provides for such additional members as the chairperson of the commission appoints to the commission or a particular division of the commission for a particular period or purpose. At the discretion of the President of the Court of Appeal, it could be argued that the Chief Justice could be included. I return to the concerns that the Leader of the Liberal Party and I have previously expressed in Committee that the right of the Chief Justice to take part in these recommendations, consultations or considerations should be a right—an ex officio right—and not simply at the discretion of the President of the Court of Appeal. Mr BEANLAND: I take it from the Premier’s amendments that the regulations will be tabled in the Parliament, as regulations made by the Governor in Council usually are. The second point I want to take up is that just taken up by the honourable member for Auburn about the Litigation Reform Commission. The Chief Justice is not included on that Litigation Reform Commission. I foreshadow that I intend later to move an amendment, but that is not the case at the moment. The Chief Justice is certainly not on that commission unless, of course, in one of those 34 amendments foreshadowed by the Premier he is included. If he is included in one of the amendments, I stand corrected. I am not aware of that at the moment. Mr W. K. Goss: No, he is not. Mr BEANLAND: If his role is not included in one of the amendments, again the Chief Justice does not have a say or a role to play in this matter. Some of my earlier concerns certainly still exist. Mr W. K. GOSS: I will respond to two aspects. In relation to the position of the Chief Justice being consulted and being involved in the arrangements in that capacity as opposed to the strict or literal ex officio capacity—we will have to deal with that when we come to the Litigation Reform Commission; we cannot deal with it here. Obviously, yes, I give the assurance in relation to the regulations that they will be tabled, they must be tabled, and they are therefore subject to debate and disallowance by the Parliament. Amendment negatived. Clause 17, as read, agreed to. Clauses 18 to 20, as read, agreed to. Clause 21— Mr W. K. GOSS (1.41 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 8, after line 8, insert— ‘(10) In subsections (8) and (9), a reference to a Judge includes a Judge who has ceased to be the Senior Judge Administrator or a Senior Judge.’ ” This is simply a machinery amendment to clarify the seniority of a senior court administrator having reverted to the general position of the Trial Division and the appropriate seniority that attaches to that by virtue of the date of his commission. Amendment agreed to. Clause 21, as amended, agreed to. Clause 22— Mr W. K. GOSS (1.43 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 8, omit lines 9 to 16 and insert— ‘Accepting and holding of other public offices Legislative Assembly 1886 22 October 1991

22. (1) Subject to this section, a Judge may accept and hold another public office. (2) A Judge who accepts another public office— (a) must immediately notify the Attorney-General in writing; and (b) must immediately resign the other public office if the Governor in Council determines, after consultation between the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice, that the holding of that office would be inconsistent with the proper discharge of the office of a Judge. (3) A Judge may receive remuneration in relation to the acceptance or holding of another public office only with the approval of the Governor in Council. (4) In this section— “public office” includes— (a) an office or appointment granted or made by the Government of the Commonwealth, another State or a Territory; and (b) an office or appointment in or in relation to a university or other educational institution, a hospital or a charitable institution.’ ” This amendment is to regularise the position that operates at present where a judge may, for example, accept an honorary position as president of the Samford Progress Association. That may or may not be uncontroversial. However, at the moment there is no restriction on his doing that. This amendment regularises and gives the Chief Justice and ultimately the Governor in Council the power to declare that that may be inconsistent. If, for example, Mr Justice Bloggs wanted to accept the position of president of the Labor Party, president of the Liberal Party or president of the National Party, I would think that the Governor in Council, on advice from the Chief Justice, would say, “Look, that is not appropriate.” One would think that that would not occur in practice, but I suppose there would be situations between those two extremes, if one can call the Liberal Party at one end and the Samford Progress Association at the other end two extremes. There might be situations in between those two which would generate the kind of controversy whereby the Chief Justice would want to advise the Minister and/or the Governor in Council that that was inappropriate. There may also be cases, whether it relates to a position on a hospitals board or the chancellorship of a university, in which some meeting fee or minor remuneration is applied to that office. In that case, the judge concerned would have the option, effectively, of accepting that office without remuneration, or there may be circumstances whereby that office would be appropriately accepted with remuneration. An example of that would be, for instance, where the taxation laws, as they do in some cases, stipulate that even if the allowance or honorarium is not accepted, there is still a liability to pay tax in respect of it because it is a statutory entitlement, so there may be circumstances in which that may occur. But, obviously, the object is not to allow it to occur in relation to going off to be a director of Westpac or a senior partner at Morris Fletcher and Cross, or to run a pie van. It is restricted to institutions of an educational or charitable nature. Amendment agreed to. Clause 22, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 23 to 31, as read, agreed to. Clause 32— Mr W. K. GOSS (1.47 a.m.): I move the following amendment— Legislative Assembly 1887 22 October 1991

“At page 12, line 1, after ‘with’ insert— ‘the Chief Justice and’.” This is a straightforward amendment. It is simply to reinforce the entitlement of the Chief Justice to be closely consulted in relation to the administrative arrangements in respect to the business of the court. Amendment agreed to. Clause 32, as amended, agreed to. Clause 33, as read, agreed to. Clause 34— Mr W. K. GOSS (1.48 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 13, line 4, omit— ‘Division of the Trial Division’ and insert— ‘other Division’.” Again, this is a clarifying amendment simply to clear up the fact that it may not necessarily be a division of the Trial Division to which the judge may ultimately go, depending on a report and recommendation that may be made and acted upon by the Litigation Reform Commission and the Government. Given that we do not know what it will report and recommend on, it is best to leave it in more general terms such as “other Division” rather than specify it and subsequently require a technical amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 34, as amended, agreed to. Clause 35, as read, agreed to. Clause 36— Mr GILMORE (1.50 a.m.): I seek to withdraw the Opposition’s foreshadowed amendment in relation to clause 36. I have accepted the Premier’s earlier explanation in relation to this. I believe that he made it quite clear. The Opposition appreciates the reasoning behind the appointment of the Senior Judge Administrator, and recognises that such a complex mechanism as the courts obviously requires a senior administrator. As I said during the debate on the second-reading of the Bill, the Opposition did have some serious concerns about the position of the Senior Puisne Judge. However, it accepts the Premier’s explanation and, as I said, I withdraw that foreshadowed amendment. Clause 36, as read, agreed to. Clauses 37 and 38, as read, agreed to. Clause 39— Mr W. K. GOSS (1.51 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 14, line 1, after ‘Council’ insert— ‘, after consultation between the Minister and the Chief Justice and President of the Court of Appeal,’.” In a sense, this is a clarifying amendment as to what we believe would have occurred in practice in any case in relation to the requirement potentially—but hopefully not necessarily—for additional judges of appeal, that is, that the Governor in Council would make such appointments after consultation between the Minister, the Chief Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal. Legislative Assembly 1888 22 October 1991

Amendment agreed to. Clause 39, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 40 to 54, as read, agreed to. Clause 55— Mr GILMORE (1.53 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 19, line 12, after ‘year’ insert— ‘, but not later than 3 months after the end of the financial year,’.” This amendment is purely tidying up what I perceive to be a problem in respect of clause 55 of the legislation. The CHAIRMAN: Order! There are too many audible conversations on the Government side of the Chamber. If members wish to have private conversations, they should leave the Chamber. Mr GILMORE: Clause 55 requires the provision of an annual report. It states— “As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, a written report of the administration of the Court of Appeal during the year must be prepared and given to the Minister, together with financial statements for the year and a copy . . . ” It states, “As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year”, with no indication of when there is any likely termination of that. I understand that a difficulty arises when judges have trials and ongoing work. However, we need some indication that there will be a practical completion date. That was the reason for the amendment. Mr W. K. GOSS: I accept the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 55, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 56 and 57, as read, agreed to. Clause 58— Mr W. K. GOSS (1.55 a.m.): Once again, this is not really a necessary amendment but perhaps an appropriate clarifying one, because the judges of the Trial Division had not been specifically identified. The amendment simply clarifies and identifies those judges as the persons who will constitute the Trial Division and exercise the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court that are not exercised by the Court of Appeal. I move the following amendment— “At page 20, omit lines 24 to 27 and insert— ‘Composition, jurisdiction and powers of Trial Division 58. (1) The Trial Division of the Court consists of the Judges of the Court other than the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and the other Judges of Appeal. (2) The jurisdiction and powers of the Court that are not required to be exercised by the Court of Appeal are to be exercised by the Court in the Trial Division.’ ” Amendment agreed to. Clause 58, as amended, agreed to. Clause 59— Mr W. K. GOSS (1.57 a.m.): I move the following amendment— Legislative Assembly 1889 22 October 1991

“At page 21, after line 8, insert— ‘(4) This section does not affect any right to trial by jury under an Act, the rules or a practice of the Court.’ ” I am not sure that the amendment is necessary but, because of concerns raised by certain members of the bar, it is included to confirm and specify the right to trial by jury that currently exists in other provisions. Amendment agreed to. Clause 59, as amended, agreed to. Clause 60— Mr GILMORE (1.59 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 21, omit lines 16 to 17.” It relates to the same line as the amendment to be proposed by the Premier. The CHAIRMAN: Order! On procedure, we will have to accept the Premier’s amendment first. Mr W. K. GOSS: I move the following amendment— “At page 21, line 17, after ‘term’ insert— ‘(not less than 5 years)’.” I will try to deal with the amendment in simple terms. It was felt that, if that term could be short, it would place unfair and undue pressure on the judge in that position and that a substantial period of time should be allowed for the court administrator to perform that function. In terms of whether one has a term or one is appointed for life, good arguments can be advanced either way. In that sense, I do not say that the amendment proposed by the member for Tablelands, which the Government will not accept, is necessarily wrong; I simply say that the Government prefers this course of action as appropriate on the basis that the essential thing is to have successful administration. The key to that is to have the right person for the job, that is, a person who has the aptitude and the skill for administration. It might be that somebody who was appointed at the age of 50 was a great administrator but, 18 years later at a crotchety 68—and I make no reference to any member of this Chamber or to any other 68-year-old; I am speaking entirely hypothetically—may no longer have the same aptitude for the latest concepts or reforms in terms of administration. He may not have the same zeal and the same aptitude that he might have had at age 50. It is really a question of ensuring that the senior court administrator is first and foremost an administrator and not there for life and not there simply by virtue of seniority or an original appointment a generation ago. Mr GILMORE: I raise the concerns of Opposition members about the term. I acknowledge that the Premier has gone to some lengths to explain that. We are concerned about the concept. We acknowledge that a person could become crotchety. The Premier will note that the Opposition has sought to amend the legislation a number of times in respect of the appointment for a term. We are concerned that this is contrary to what has been established practice in the past and could provide a lever for an unscrupulous Government in the future to apply pressure to a judge in a certain set of circumstances if he does not pass down a judgment that suits the Government of the day. While he continues to be a judge under clause 61 and acts in that judicial capacity, he also acts as a Senior Judge Administrator and he could be placed under undue influence by unscrupulous persons from outside. The Opposition simply raises those concerns and will not divide the Committee on the matter. I want it to be on the record of this Parliament that this is a matter of concern. Legislative Assembly 1890 22 October 1991

Dr WATSON: I wish to ask a technical question of the Premier. I notice in his second-reading speech he mentioned that the position of Senior Puisne Judge would be abolished. Clause 60 (1) states— “The office of Senior Puisne Judge is renamed Senior Judge Administrator.” I wondered if someone was appointed to an office which is renamed if that person then holds the renamed office automatically. Mr W. K. GOSS: My understanding of the position is that they do not. This is a position that is not only renamed but also is quite different in character by virtue of the duties and responsibilities attached to it by this legislation. I imagine that in practice the Senior Judge Administrator in this case will be one of the current serving judges. That will apply for not less than five years and the person will be drawn from those ranks from time to time. It is not simply a renaming because, when one reads it with the other provisions, one finds that effectively it is a new position. We are simply designating that position by a new name and giving it quite a different character. It is very much a case of semantics. Dr WATSON: I have one other question. I thought the Senior Puisne Judge was appointed by Governor in Council. Am I incorrect? Mr W. K. GOSS: I think that is right. Mr HARPER: I have concerns regarding clause 60 which have been partly expressed by the Opposition spokesman and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. In light of the information the Premier has provided to the Committee, it is misleading that this clause should indicate that the position of Senior Puisne Judge, who is presently the second senior judge in the court, is simply renamed Senior Judge Administrator. The role or the title Senior Puisne Judge would be better if it were renamed the President of the Court of Appeal because in future that judge will be the second senior judge within the court. Be that as it may, I appreciate the need for a Senior Judge Administrator to be given a responsibility and given recognition, because the administration of the courts should be undertaken by a judge who has respect and is able to exercise administrative ability, as the Premier himself would appreciate. This has been demonstrated in the past in the District Court in particular. I appreciate that the object of the exercise, as the Premier has now explained, is not simply a renaming. The Opposition spokesman has concerns regarding the appointment of the Senior Judge Administrator for a term of not less than five years, and so have I. The Premier indicated that it was envisaged that this appointee would come from within the ranks of the court. During the second-reading debate I raised the question of whether a second commission can issue, because that judge has been appointed by commission. It would seem to me that if it is possible for a second commission to issue, that commission must clarify the position of that judge who is presently appointed for life, or until he reaches the age of 70. If a second commission is to be issued, admittedly for a limited term of not less than five years, there would seem to be a conflict. I want to ensure that we do not get away from the established practice of a judge being appointed to the court for life so that—to use the example that the Premier quoted—if after 18 years a judge who had been appointed as Senior Judge Administrator no longer has the attributes that led to that appointment, he or she may simply revert to being a judge within the Trial Division. Is that a correct interpretation? Mr W. K. GOSS: I will make two general points. Firstly, the judges will be appointed. There will be no change to the position whereby judges are appointed for life, whether they be existing judges or judges appointed in the future. That is also the case with the Senior Judge Administrator. Once appointed to the court in whatever capacity, that person remains a judge for life. There will be no change to any judge now or in the future. Legislative Assembly 1891 22 October 1991

Amendment agreed to. Clause 60, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 61 and 62, as read, agreed to. Clause 63— Mr W. K. GOSS (2.10 a.m.): I move the following amendments— “At page 22, line 7, after ‘Justice’ insert— ‘for the administration of the Court in the Trial Division and’ ”; “At page 22, lines 9 to 10, omit— ‘to practice directions in force from time to time,’.” Briefly, let me say in relation to the amendments that the first is intended to clarify, and the second amendment removes the reference to practice directions because they are dealt with in the amendment to this clause, which is currently amendment No. 18 and which will be referred to later. Mr BEANLAND: I rise to address the amendments moved by the Premier to say that in no way do they go towards solving the real problem contained in this clause, which is that in subclause (2) the words “and to consultation” appear in the second line. The subclause states— “Subject to this Act and other Acts, to practice directions in force from time to time, and to consultation with the Chief Justice, the Senior Judge Administrator . . . ” Although, as I understand it, I am not able to move an amendment, it is nevertheless quite clear to me that the words that should appear in the clause should be “subject to any directions of the Chief Justice”, and not “consultation with”. This highlights the point I mentioned some moments ago. The language contained in this legislation means that a great deal of consulting with will take place, but not very much is being done. At the end of the day, that simply means that the Senior Judge Administrator will merely have a talk to the Chief Justice—bearing in mind that the Senior Judge Administrator is fifth, sixth or seventh senior judge of the court and certainly cannot be compared to the president of the appeals court—yet he does not have to take directions from the Chief Justice in relation to the Trial Division. I do not believe that that is what members of this Parliament are seeking to achieve. I believe that the effect of the amendments proposed by the Premier will not give the correct and proper authority to the Chief Justice in relation to these matters. It is quite clear that the amendments moved by the Premier in no way resolve that issue. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I accept the point made by the member for Toowong. The Committee will deal with the amendments that have been moved and further discussion will be allowed in relation to the amendment foreshadowed by the member for Toowong. Mr W. K. GOSS: In relation to the amendments I have moved, I make two points in response to the comments made by the member for Toowong. Firstly, I refer to the point which he made earlier and which I accepted; that is, the success of this reform depends on the integrity and the professional practice of the individuals involved, including in this case the Chief Justice and the Senior Judge Administrator, whose responsibility is administration. Secondly, I make the point that not only is there a requirement for consultation but also that the first line of the clause refers to the Senior Judge Administrator being responsible to the Chief Justice. I think that the combination of those two factors is reasonable in terms of meeting the concern. Beyond that, it is up to individuals within the senior ranks of the judiciary to operate in good faith in conjunction with each other. Amendments agreed to. Legislative Assembly 1892 22 October 1991

Mr BEANLAND: I move the following amendment— “At page 22, line 10, omit— ‘consultation with’ and insert— ‘any directions of’.” Although I have heard the Premier’s comments, they still do not resolve the issues which I have raised and which I believe are valid objections. The objections are different from those that were raised previously, but subclause (2) applies to a different situation and different circumstances. In order to clarify the position, I believe it is necessary to accept the amendment I have moved. Mr W. K. GOSS: I cannot take the matter any further than saying that the amendment is not accepted. Amendment negatived. Mr W. K. GOSS: I move the following further amendment— “At page 22, line 12, after ‘done’ insert— ‘for the administration of the Court in the Trial Division and’ .” This repeats and is consequential upon a previous amendment at line 7. I also move the following further amendment— “At page 22, omit lines 17 to 18 and insert— ‘(b) issuing directions with respect to the practices and procedures of the Court in the Trial Division; and (c) controlling and managing the precincts of the Court in the Trial Division.’ ” As I have said before, this picks up what was previously dealt with at lines 9 to 10 and deals with it in more detail in the appropriate section of subclause (2). Amendments agreed to. Clause 63, as amended, agreed to. Clause 64— Mr W. K. GOSS (2.18 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 22, line 25, after ‘Governor in Council’ insert— ‘, after consultation between the Minister and the Chief Justice and Senior Judge Administrator’.” As with previous amendments, which this repeats, clause 64 reinforces what this Government believes will occur in practice and in consultation between the Minister, the Chief Justice, and the Senior Judge Administrator before decisions by the Governor in Council. Amendment agreed to. Clause 64, as amended, agreed to. Clause 65— Mr W. K. GOSS (2.19 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 23, line 14, after ‘Governor in Council’ insert— ‘, after consultation between the Minister and the Chief Justice and Senior Judge Administrator’.” Legislative Assembly 1893 22 October 1991

The explanation is the same as the previous clause. It is repetitive. Amendment agreed to. Clause 65, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 66 to 69, as read, agreed to. Clause 70— Mr W. K. GOSS (2.20 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 24, line 12, after ‘may’ insert— ‘, after consultation with the Chief Justice,’.” Once again, this is reinforcing the position of the Chief Justice and the requirement of the Senior Judge Administrator to consult in respect of the matters referred to in clause 70. Amendment agreed to. Clause 70, as amended, agreed to. Clause 71, as read, agreed to. Clause 72— Mr W. K. GOSS (2.21 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 26, line 14, omit ‘The’ and insert— ‘Subject to any other Act, the’.” What this amendment will effectively do is provide that where there is an automatic right of appeal, that right is preserved. For example, in the local government jurisdiction, there would be an automatic right of appeal conferred by legislation. As a consequence of this amendment, that is retained, but it does give the court a power in some cases to review the question of the right of appeal. Let me give an example. Where there is an application in respect of a procedural matter, say, before a master, or perhaps an application for discovery, that is then appealed to a single judge and then to the Court of Appeal. It is those sorts of appeals that in the view of many are unnecessary and in respect of which this Government does not seek to make a decision for the court as a Parliament or as an Executive but will simply say, “Let the Court of Appeal be the judge of this”. So the amendment is designed to deal with those sorts of procedural matters that take up much more time than they warrant, as opposed to substantive matters, and it certainly does not rule out automatic rights of appeal that occur in any other piece of legislation, whether it be criminal, local government or whatever. Those appeal rights are preserved by virtue of the provision, subject to any other Act. Mr BEANLAND: I rise in relation to clause 72—I take it, Mr Chairman, that you are going to accept the Premier’s amendment first, then you will come to mine shortly. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I am trying to explain the procedure. The point is, if the Premier’s amendment is accepted, then the honourable member’s amendment cannot be accepted because the Committee has already accepted new words into those lines. So the honourable member should speak to his amendment now. Mr BEANLAND: I thought that could be the case. I move— “At page 26, omit lines 14 to 15.” I do so for the reason that has partly been explained by the Premier. Certainly, the Premier has indicated that subject to other Acts, such as the local government appeal provisions, appeals cannot be changed in relation to that. It is an automatic appeal. However, I am concerned that we are going to change or allow to be changed through the rules of court the automatic right of appeal in other situations. Legislative Assembly 1894 22 October 1991

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask members of the Government to resume their seats. If we have any further interruption, I will ask all members to return to their own seats. Honourable members should keep their conversations down. Mr BEANLAND: The Premier may have indicated to the Chamber in fact that this goes along the way to preserve the automatic right of appeal to the Local Government Court and other areas covered by other Acts. He has indicated that it will allow the automatic right of appeal to be abolished in some circumstances. Already, we have this bone of contention in relation to the High Court where now one does not have the automatic right of appeal. One has to seek special leave to appeal to the High Court, and that is, I think, one of the great bones of contention within the legal fraternity and the community generally. It is very difficult in many instances to be able to appeal to the High Court. If one is going to allow or give the President of the Court of Appeal the ability to be able to change these rules of court, we could easily end up with a very similar situation here, where many of the automatic rights of appeal are done away with. Whilst it is all very right for the Premier to say that perhaps in many instances these matters are frivolous, that is a matter for the community—for the people of this State. If these matters are going to be changed, they ought to be brought back to this Chamber. It is the Parliament that ought to change them, not the Governor in Council or the President of the Court of Appeal. This Parliament ought to change any matter relating to an automatic right of appeal. It is good that the Premier agrees with that. In that case, we ought to delete the whole clause, because if the clause is deleted, the Premier cannot make any alterations to the automatic right of appeal without passing some legislation in this place. That is the whole purpose of my amendment—to ensure that if there are going to be changes, there has to be debate on them in this Chamber. I believe that is essential, because what we are talking about here is not something to do with the judges or the legal fraternity; we are talking about a matter that has a direct relationship to the people of this State, the community at large. Their democratic rights are involved in this clause. We are not talking about the rights of the Premier, the judges or the Chief Justice; in fact, we are talking about the democratic rights of the people of Queensland. I think that we must omit this clause to ensure that we protect those rights. If there are going to be changes, it is this Parliament that should make those changes. Changes cannot be made by some backdoor method without there being full scrutiny of the changes that are taking place. Therefore, to ensure that the situation that we now have in the High Court, which has caused a lot of concern in recent times, does not arise, and to ensure that a number of these automatic rights of appeal are not taken away, I move that subclause (2) be omitted from clause 72. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member for Toowong cannot move that amendment. We are dealing with the Premier’s amendment first. Amendment agreed to. Clause 72, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 73 and 74, as read, agreed to. Clause 75— Mr W. K. GOSS (2.28 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 27, after line 13, insert— ‘(4) Before a report of the Commission or a Division of the Commission is made, the Chairperson of the Commission must consult with the Chief Justice unless the Chief Justice is absent from duty or otherwise unavailable.’ ” This is simply to once again reinforce the requirement for consultation with the Chief Justice. I move the following further amendments— Legislative Assembly 1895 22 October 1991

“At page 27, line 14, omit— ‘(4)’ and insert— ‘(5)’ ”; “At page 27, omit lines 19 to 22 and insert— ‘(6) Without limiting subsection (5), rules of court may not be made under an Act other than this Act, and a regulation may not be made under this Act, unless a report and recommendation from the Commission, or a Division of the Commission, has been obtained on the matter. (7) In this section— “court” includes all courts and tribunals established by or under an Act that are constituted or presided over by a Judge, Magistrate or other judicial officer.’ ” This amendment simply reinforces what I have said a number of times, that is, that this Government is not going to interfere with these reforms. We are going to pass them back to the judiciary and the Litigation Reform Commission to make the reports and recommendations, and we will not act unless and until we get such a report and a recommendation. The definition of “court” is simply there to confirm that we are looking at reform of the whole court system, not just the Supreme Court. Amendments agreed to. Clause 75, as amended, agreed to. Clause 76, as read, agreed to. Clause 77— Mr BEANLAND (2.31 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 27, omit lines 30 to 33 and at page 28, omit lines 1 to 3 and insert— ‘(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Commission consists of the following members— (a) the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and the other Judges of Appeal; and (b) the Chairperson of the District Courts; and (c) a person appointed by the Governor in Council on the nomination of the Bar Association of Queensland; and (d) a person appointed by the Governor in Council on the nomination of the Queensland Law Society Incorporated; and (e) such additional members as the Chairperson of the Commission appoints to the Commission, or a particular Division of the Commission, for a particular period or purpose.’ ” The purpose of the amendment is clear. Firstly, it includes the Chief Justice on the Litigation Reform Commission. Secondly, it includes the Chairman of the District Courts. Thirdly, it includes the nomination of the Bar Association. Fourthly, it includes the nomination of the Queensland Law Society. Those nominations are in addition to those previously proposed by the Government. We are dealing here with a matter of great importance to the judiciary in this State and to the legal profession generally. Therefore, there should be representatives on the commission from the Bar Association and the Queensland Law Society, just as the Chairman of the District Courts should be able to attend and be part of the Litigation Reform Commission, as well as the Chief Justice, whose role I have canvassed previously. The matter is straightforward. I appreciate that Legislative Assembly 1896 22 October 1991 this proposal will increase the size of the Litigation Reform Commission. Although it increases the size, it will certainly bring with it a great deal more expertise and experience of a wide cross-section not just of the judiciary but of the legal profession generally. Mr W. K. GOSS: I regret to say that we cannot accept the amendment. The honourable member for Toowong put forward some good arguments, but basically the Government believes two things: firstly, that a commission or a committee of that size is simply too cumbersome and, secondly, that it is the thrust of this reform that we will have a small core of highly expert and committed people in terms of administrative and court reform to undertake this task. They will, I believe, as a matter of convention, courtesy and practice involve such of those persons and other persons within the community who can make a contribution. However, to make the commission or the committee of that size would make it cumbersome and we would see the same results that we have had for the last 10 years, that is, they will talk and talk and nothing will happen. Those days are gone and we have to get on with it. I have no doubt that there will be consultation, but let us leave it to a small core group of people to get on with it. The supercommittee just does not work. Question—That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause—put; and the Committee divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I remind honourable members that, for all further divisions at the Committee stage of this Bill, the bells will be rung for two minutes. Clause 77, as read, agreed to. Clauses 78 to 89, as read, agreed to. Clause 90— Mr W. K. GOSS (2.41 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 32, line 11, omit— ‘President’s’ and insert— ‘Chairperson’s’.” This amendment corrects a typographical error. Legislative Assembly 1897 22 October 1991

Amendment agreed to. Clause 90, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 91 to 97, as read, agreed to. Clause 98— Mr GILMORE (2.42 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 34, line 15, after ‘year,’ insert— ‘but not later than 3 months after the end of the financial year,’.” This amendment is identical to the previous amendment. Mr W. K. GOSS: I accept the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 98, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 99 to 101, as read, agreed to. Clause 102— Mr W. K. GOSS (2.43 a.m.): Mr Chairman, with your indulgence I will move the first and third of those three amendments at the same time and withdraw the second. I move the following amendments— “At page 36, line 9, after ‘determine’ insert— ‘, at or before the time of their appointment,’ ”; “At page 36, line 18, omit— ‘this section’ and insert— ‘subsection (1)’.” The second amendment is consequential upon the first, which is simply designed to reflect the fact that the determination of conditions by the Government is made initially because it is a new category of appointment; thereafter it will be determined by the tribunal in the normal way, as occurs for other judges. Mr FOLEY: I welcome this amendment. It cures a potential problem of separation of powers which might have appeared on a construction of the original clause 102. It clarifies that the determination by the Governor in Council to provide remuneration is a determination made at or before the time of appointment of the judges of the Court of Appeal, and it thereby clarifies and avoids any impression that the Governor in Council has an ongoing role in making determinations to which the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal would give effect. It is plain from the scheme of the clause as amended that the subsequent decisions about rates of salaries and allowances would be a matter for the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal, and that would overcome any potential problem with the separation of powers. Amendments agreed to. Clause 102, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 103 to 111, as read, agreed to. Schedule 1— Mr W. K. GOSS (2.47 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 40, line 15, omit— ‘1952 (No. 2)’ Legislative Assembly 1898 22 October 1991

and insert— ‘1955 (No. 2)’.” This amendment relates to a typographical error. Amendment agreed to. Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Honourable the Premier has several amendments to make to Schedule 2. I will accept them all at once. Schedule 2— Mr W. K. GOSS (2.48 a.m.): These are consequential amendments that require the removal of headings which are now redundant as a result of other amendments and legislation that has already been approved by the Committee. I move the following amendments— “At page 50, line 15, omit— ‘the’ ”; “At page 51, line 20, omit— ‘the’ ”; “At page 52, line 16, after amendment relating to sections 1 and 2 insert— ‘Section 3 (Heading)—omit all words after “seals” ’ ”; “At page 53, line 8, after amendment relating to section 17 insert— ‘Section 18—omit.’ ”; “At page 56, line 6, after amendment relating to section 5 insert— ‘Section 7 (fifth sentence)—omit.’ ” Amendments agreed to. Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr W. K. Goss, by leave, read a third time.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (2.52 a.m.): I move— “That the House do now adjourn.”

Mammography Testing and Education Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs) (2.52 a.m.): I raise a concern about a promise made by the Federal Government before the last election that, in cooperation with the State Government, $64m would be spent on mammography testing and education. The simple facts of life are that only $1m of the $64m which was promised has been spent. People, particularly country people, are concerned that three permanent mammography testing units and two mobile units have been built in Brisbane. Stationary units are to be Legislative Assembly 1899 22 October 1991 built at Southport, Toowoomba and Townsville. Quite simply, it is not good enough that, prior to the last election, the Federal Government went around to various women’s organisations and made promises about what it would be doing, and then literally thieved votes by not keeping those promises. It concerns members of the Opposition greatly that, when the program started, it started in Brisbane. Quite frankly, those mobile units should have been placed in country areas. I do not know how people in places such as Jericho and Emerald can travel to Rockhampton where, I might add, there is no Government unit. A private unit is set up and, of course, a charge is made for the service. That charge is not claimable on Medicare. Again, the people of the bush are being discriminated against in no uncertain terms. I am asking the Federal Government and the State Government to tell us what they will do with the program. As I read through the notes that have been given to me, I notice that the program is lacking in direction and inspiration. It appears that nobody is terribly interested in either maintaining or pursuing it. Mr McGrady: What have you done so far besides this speech? Mr LESTER: That is an inane comment from a person such as Mr McGrady. He should be backing me to the hilt to try to make sure that those units are placed in the bush to serve Emerald, Longreach, Mount Isa and all of those places. While people make inane comments such as that, Governments are allowing women in the bush to die. Government members: Ha, ha! Mr LESTER: No, it is not a laughing matter, yet that is the way the ALP wants to carry on. It wants to let the women in the bush die because the units are not available in the bush. It is more than just a matter of mobile units travelling around. It is about education on how women can carry out self- assessment programs and, to some extent, help to diagnose a problem. It is no laughing matter. It astounds me that, when I raise this serious matter tonight, some members of the Labor Party are treating this very lightly. That explains how the program has not got going. Mr McGRADY: I rise to a point of order. I object to the comment made by Mr Lester. Nobody on this side of the House has taken this matter lightly. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr LESTER: I should think there would be no point of order. Opposition members want to know when a program will be completed—— Time expired.

Health Services Mrs EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha) (2.57 a.m.): Australia and indeed Queensland have, more so than most countries, successfully contained HIV infection and minimised its spread by actively providing non-judgmental health-care and information to the major risk groups. It is absolutely vital that we continue to do so without becoming complacent and to include new risk groups as they become apparent. Recently, I identified several risk groups that I believe should be targeted, including the disadvantaged young. Young people are at risk of STD and it is therefore important that they are given education that includes the need for health education, illness prevention and early action in a social and life-style context. Traditionally, funding of health systems is biased toward treating illness. Investment in prevention, early diagnosis and early treatment has many advantages both in cost/benefit terms and in the psychological and social impact of the disease upon the patient and the community. These issues are increasingly recognised by Queensland Legislative Assembly 1900 22 October 1991

Health and are incorporated in the design and delivery of the health services in this State. Young people need access to a full range of health services, both specific and mainstream, and they must be enabled to use them. Disadvantaged or homeless young people are extremely vulnerable to STDs and other health problems. In its report on our homeless children—more commonly known as the Burdekin report—the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission found that young people do not utilise health services generally and that homeless young people were even less likely to utilise health services. These young people often lack adult introductions into these health systems and cannot access information about the availability of services. They have a culture of risk-taking behaviour, especially sexual risk-taking in the context of binge drinking and drug use. This reinforces the relationships between social and economic disadvantage, limited access to services and poor health status. Queensland Health has undertaken to develop programs that are sensitive to these issues. A range of community-based programs are being developed to target disadvantaged young people—to deliver services that are non-judgmental, accessible, culturally and linguistically sensitive, inviting and located where young people will use them. A significant number of young people will be catered for by mainstream services. A number of non-Government youth sector agencies play very important roles in delivering these services. At this stage it is worth noting that, of the 10 programs activated around Australia as a result of the Burdekin report, five are Queensland programs, and the Health Minister must receive the credit for Queensland’s lead in this problem area. I would like to take this opportunity to outline some of the new services available to disadvantaged youth. The innovative health service for homeless young people is a joint Commonwealth/State initiative that is piloting five community-based primary health-care services for young people. The services are available in Cairns, Mount Isa and Brisbane. There are two services specifically designed to target Aboriginal and Islander youth. This service aims to raise the awareness of existing health services to the different cultural and age-appropriate health needs of homeless young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their families. The services provided are clinical, outreach, facilitation of referral to existing health services, preventive health education and nutrition counselling. One service is specific to young women. The services provided include antenatal care, referral to existing antenatal services, provision of support advocacy for young women and postnatal follow-up. The mobile outreach health service is a State-funded pilot program which provides primary care from a custom-built bus. One service is located with a community organisation at Logan City and the second service is located with the South Coast Regional Health Authority. Each service aims to improve the health status of high risk young people. The two services employ a registered nurse and two youth health workers. The AIDS matched funding program is a State/Commonwealth joint program aimed at developing prevention and treatment services for the control of HIV and AIDS. A range of community- based organisations throughout Queensland receive funding to develop youth-specific HIV/AIDS prevention programs. PACT, or Protect All Children Today, is a program funded under the joint Commonwealth/State national women’s health program. This service is establishing a telephone network for families of sexually abused children and survivors of sexual abuse. The aim of the program is to help non-offending relatives and survivors cope better with the aftermath of child sexual abuse and to increase their physical and mental well being. Several Queensland health services, although not age specific, provide sexual health services to young people. These include the women’s health sexual assault program, the AIDS medical unit and the special clinic based at the Miami sexual health clinic. Time expired. Legislative Assembly 1901 22 October 1991

Mr R. Osmak; Closure of Woodford Correctional Centre Mr CONNOR (Nerang) (3.02 a.m.): While I was absent from the Chamber earlier tonight, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services made a cowardly attack on me. The Minister is no doubt aware that the Liberal Party only has the opportunity to speak twice in each Estimates debate because, as Leader of the House, he has limited each Estimates debate to four hours. Because the parliamentary duties of the Liberal Party’s Police spokesman did not end until after he had delivered his speech tonight in the Estimates debate and the Liberal Party’s Emergency Services spokesman also had to speak, I was left no opportunity to speak. I have a few words to say about Mr Mackenroth’s disastrous police record, but I will speak on another subject. Mr SCHWARTEN: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is misleading the House. He has plenty of opportunity to address this House and he has not taken that opportunity. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr CONNOR: Tonight, I wish to speak on what I believe is one of the greatest travesties of justice ever perpetrated in Queensland. Today, I learnt that the prison professional Mr Robert Osmak, who previously worked at the now closed Woodford Correctional Centre, has been sacked. His appeal has been denied. It is important to remember that Mr Osmak would have lost his job anyway as a result of the closure of the gaol. However, because he had the intestinal fortitude to speak out about the terrifying manner in which Queensland’s criminal justice system is being run, he was sacked. He was sacked because the Goss Government did not want the true picture of what was happening to emerge. Today. some of the true picture was released in the Police Service annual report. The Goss Government had to admit the truth of what the prison officers of Queensland are telling me and what Mr Osmak and the prison officers of Woodford wanted to tell the people of Queensland a few months ago. A letter to the people of Woodford states— “Crime in Queensland is growing at an alarming rate — in just one year overall crime of every type has increased by 25% — armed robberies alone have increased by a staggering 65% in just one year. Much of the rise in crime is due to prisoners being released after only serving a small part of the sentence given by a judge. A judge will sentence a criminal to 4 or 5 years, yet often the criminal will only spend a year or even less in jail.” Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Rockhampton North will cease interjecting. Mr CONNOR: The letter continues— “In a recent murder case, the criminal had only served 1/4 of his sentence for assault; released and then almost immediately murdered another man. . . . Some prisoners admit to deliberately committing crime so they can come to prison, especially in winter. Some deliberately come to prison because they enjoy playing football for the prison team. Criminals know that if they commit numerous crimes, if caught, they will still usually only serve time for one crime. The other crimes will be served at the same time as the one he’s been charged with. This gives the criminals incentive to commit as many crimes as they can because they will only be sentenced for one and so serve only a short sentence. Legislative Assembly 1902 22 October 1991

Dangerous criminals are being let out on one or several days’ leave soon after coming to jail. Some have not come back after going on leave. Police are risking their lives having to re- capture dangerous escaped prisoners. Some while on leave commit crimes. . . . Coming to jail means sometimes being treated almost like royalty. Free medical and dental care, free psychological care, free legal service. For many prisoners life in jail is much more pleasant than life outside. . . . It’s the Commission and the Government that are responsible for much of the increase in violent crime, such as murder, rape, assault and burglary by deliberately releasing criminals back into the society well before their release as determined by the judge. The sentence of a judge is almost completely ignored. Woodford Prison and other prisons in Queensland have today fewer prisoners because most of the criminals that should be in prison are roaming the streets busy re-committing the same crimes for which they were released too early by the Commission. . . . The alarming rate of increase in every type of violent crime must be stopped. Already there are too many murderers, rapists, burglars, etc roaming the streets free. Already the police are unable to cope with much of the crime, having neither staff nor time to even investigate many crimes. If the trend continues soon we and our children will not only be unsafe in our streets and playground but in our homes as well. Criminals, because of ‘soft on crime’ policy and ‘prisoners as royalty’ policy, are becoming more brazen every day.” That letter was signed by 38 prison officers. Because of that letter Mr Osmak, a father of seven young children, not only lost his job, but also lost any future he had in the public service. In addition, he lost any redundancy that he could hope for as a result of losing his job at the closure of Woodford. How can this Government justify closing prisons and moving more prisoners back onto the streets when we have crime statistics like the ones released today? This Government is a disgrace. Its “revolving door” prison policy and “soft on crime” attitude will lead this State to be known as the Chicago of the south.

South East Freeway Landscaping Mr FENLON (Greenslopes) (3.07 a.m.): I rise in this debate to discuss some issues that are of significant interest to the people of the Greenslopes electorate and in some respects of significant interest to the wider community. I refer to the South East Freeway which traverses the Greenslopes electorate and various other electorates along the southern corridor. The South East Freeway is a major entry point to the City of Brisbane for vehicular traffic travelling from the south and it is an entry point to Queensland. As I travelled in northern Queensland last week with the Travelsafe Committee, I was reminded of the significance of the entry points to Queensland’s cities. In particular, I was struck by the beauty of those city entrances, particularly in cities such as Mackay and Rockhampton, where a good Labor council established much of the landscaping. Mr Schwarten: What a shame the tories have taken it away. Mr FENLON: Yes, it is a great shame, but I am sure that Labor will be back. The central road’s verges are lined with foliage that provides a very distinctly tropical feeling Legislative Assembly 1903 22 October 1991 and includes varieties such as bougainvilleas, palms and native trees. The aesthetic impact of those planting projects is, substantially, that they make a fine contribution to the tourism industry in those centres because they create a tropical feeling that is compatible with the marketing images that Queensland presents. This situation stands in marked contrast to the South East Freeway because, indeed, the Goss Government has inherited a landscaping disaster. I refer in particular to the stretch of the freeway extending southbound to the Marshall Road exit, because this stretch of freeway exhibits mainly dry grass and occasional stands of wattle that are mainly past their use-by date. It is either dead or well on the way to being dead, and this situation is a direct result of a public relations sham perpetrated by the National/Liberal Party Government in the late seventies. Indeed, it was in 1977 that a stretch of roadway measuring 3.41 kilometres—linking Marshall Road to the Juliette Street bridge and costing $17.5m—was completed and opened. I refer to the 1979 Main Roads Department report which mentions visual environmental planning in relation to the South East Freeway and the research that was conducted. In the light of the history of this matter, one can only conclude that the statement was a sheer front designed to convince people that the department was doing something about the aesthetics of the area. However, at that point, the Main Roads Department was not serious about landscaping. The current situation is that the various plants and trees are stunted because there was never any provision made for irrigation, in spite of the fact that it was clearly necessary, and there was no intention on the part of Main Roads to provide any ongoing maintenance. Along that stretch of the South East Freeway, this Government has inherited a sheer disgrace. I draw to the attention of the Minister for Transport, in particular, the situation that presently exists and at the same time immediately convey my gratitude to him for the start that has been made on work to improve some of the landscaping in the area. At the end of Arkwright Street near the freeway, the Minister has arranged for improvements to be carried out to the landscaping. This issue has significance not only for the Department of Transport but also for all departments and the Government generally, because by conveying the sense of Queensland indeed being a tropical State through presentation of a very fine, aesthetic profile and pleasant entrance to the City of Brisbane and to the State of Queensland, great assistance would be given to the tourism industry. Time expired.

Compensation for Cooloola Timber Industry Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (3.12 a.m.): I rise to participate in this debate to point out the misrepresentation engaged in by this Government in relation to the compensation package that has been offered in respect of the cessation of logging on Fraser Island and in the Great Sandy Region. I would have thought—and I believe that every member of this House would have understood—that the compensation package was intended to be paid to those who would lose their jobs and livelihood as a result of the cessation of logging in the Cooloola area, the Great Sandy Region and on Fraser Island. However, I found out that this is simply not the case only because I attended a public meeting last week in Maryborough where I asked the Treasurer about the compensation that was likely to be offered to mill-operators who had been waiting for quite some time to receive a reply to their correspondence and a response to the applications for compensation that had been lodged. The Treasurer said that because the mills concerned were drawing timber from the Cooloola region, they would not be eligible for compensation of any description and that Legislative Assembly 1904 22 October 1991 compensation was payable only in respect of any loss that eventuated as a result of the cessation of logging on Fraser Island. Mr Johnson: It could be the same as the compensation paid to Ravenshoe. Mr STEPHAN: It is certainly shaping up to be the same type of situation as the one that occurred in Ravenshoe, because the compensation proposal is nothing more than a political exercise designed to prop up the member for Maryborough and the member for Isis. I am certain that the Government’s action will be seen by the public for what it is, particularly in light of the fact that because the suggestion of the cessation of logging in Cooloola was made before the decision in respect of Fraser Island, those involved in the timber industry in Cooloola are not eligible for compensation. There can be no better example of a political exercise than that because it in no way measures up to the recommendations that were made in relation to the compensation package offered to people involved in the logging industry in the Great Sandy Region. The sum of $450,000 for a thinning project in the Kilcoy/Jimna plantation areas will supposedly provide employment for up to 10 workers as part of the compensation package. If the Government is serious about that proposal, it should be honoured; otherwise, there is no purpose in announcing it. If the Government has no intention of providing compensation for groups other than those located in the Maryborough/Hervey Bay region, it should not put forward proposals of the type to which I have referred. Mr Elder: How did your exercise go? Mr STEPHAN: The member for Manly is typical of Government members who ignore the Gympie and Cooloola areas, and this is the point that I am making. The Government said that this package would include compensation, but it has no intention whatever of providing it. It is also of interest that this particular package provides for a public information liaison officer for Maryborough. What is that if it is not just something to prop up the member for Maryborough and the member for Isis? This project will provide employment for a public relations person to facilitate the flow of information during the implementation phase of the Fraser Island report. That little exercise will cost approximately $70,000 per annum. It is nothing more than a prop for the members for Maryborough and Isis and a straight-out donation to the re-election, or possible re-election, of those gentlemen. This is why I say it is nothing more than a political exercise. This is why I say it is an indication of the type of compensation that the Labor Government is offering—nothing to do with real jobs, nothing to do with what the Premier has complained about—Mr Hawke wanting to give real jobs. The Premier wants to give real jobs, the Cabinet wants to give real jobs, but they are not doing that. They have not gone out of their way to offer real jobs, but just to give the impression that they know what is going on. Time expired.

Goods and Services Tax Mr ELDER (Manly) (3.18 a.m.): Mr. Speaker—— Mr Johnson: This will be good, this lot. Mr ELDER: It should be, too, at quarter past three in the morning, because it is not often that I have a chance, particularly in this Chamber, to rise and support the efforts and endeavours of the parliamentary members of the Liberal Party. I thought that tonight was such an occasion. I can only plead with the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Beanland, to continue the hard work or, I should say more aptly, the silent work, because it pays dividends for us in the Redlands area. What the honourable member should do, and I give him an open invitation—— Legislative Assembly 1905 22 October 1991

Mr Schwarten: He is not in the Chamber at the moment. Mr ELDER: None of the members of the Liberal Party is in the Chamber—my apologies, one member of the Liberal Party is in the Chamber. They come and go, as did the new Liberal Party spokesman for Police and Emergency Services. He was not around very much today. He missed the debate on the Police Estimates, came in to speak for five minutes in another debate, said virtually nothing, and was gone again. As I have said, I invite Mr Beanland to come to the Redlands more often. I was looking through the local paper the other day and I saw an article headed, “Libs get down to business”. Alongside the article was a picture of the Liberal Leader talking to a local real estate agent in front of a sign post at Raby Bay. Can anyone imagine anything more ludicrous than the Leader of the Liberal Party standing in front of a sign post, in a millionaires’ playground, relating his concerns about unemployment? I do not think anyone has told the honourable member—I am sure the honourable member would not have posed for the photograph if he had been told—that there are not too many people on unemployment benefits living at Raby Bay. The honourable member has been peddling his scurrilous nonsense in various electorates around Brisbane. The fact is that the Labor Government has done more than any other Government to deal with the issue of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, and the initiatives that all honourable members have canvassed in the Estimates debate— Mr Quinn interjected. Mr ELDER: I have something for the honourable member as well. Maybe he would like to tell the House about the Liberal reform movement and the GST? Is the honourable member going to be the Jim Ritchie of Queensland? When the GST is announced, will other Liberal members jump on the bandwagon with Santo and lead the crusade in Queensland? The simple fact of the matter is that this Government has committed $3 billion to a capital works program which will create 8 000 jobs in this State. This Government has also provided an additional $70m this year to the TAFE sector. I did not see that commitment from honourable members opposite when they were in Government in this State. There is a $8m commitment to the QTTC. The Liberal Party has done nothing right across the board. The honourable member is a flea. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Manly to withdraw that comment. Mr ELDER: I will withdraw it, with due reference to you, Mr Speaker. As he races around the State, Mr Beanland talks about crime. As I have said in the past, Opposition members have selective amnesia. The simple fact is that no-one can at any stage criticise this Government’s commitment to the Fitzgerald reform process. After underfunding the police force for 30 years, the Opposition has a hide to come into this place and criticise what this Government has done in the area of policing. Mr Beanland is rolling around the State. I say that it is silent work, because no-one has heard about it. I would not have known about it if I had not looked at page 40 of this publication I have here. The fact of the matter is that if the honourable member wants to whip up an issue about which to get excited, and if he wants something that is going to be really popular, then I suggest, as I have said previously—and I know the member for Merthyr would take it up—that the honourable member jumps on the GST bandwagon. The Liberal reform movement will be the one that will lead the debate on GST in this State. Did I not hear Robert Sparkes speaking on this subject? What is the National Party’s position on GST? There is silence. National Party members should tell me. Are they supporting the Liberals on a goods and services tax? Robert Sparkes is certainly not supporting it at any stage, so what are the National Party members going to do about it? What are they going to do when the GST rolls around and they have to make a decision Legislative Assembly 1906 22 October 1991 about it? Poor old Russell. This is an illustration of how bad Russell is going in the metropolitan area. He cannot get a story in the local paper. In fact, I was reading through the paper until I got to page 60 when I said to myself, “Heavens above, the Russell Cooper column! What is in this?” I read through it before I saw in fine print at the top “Advertisement”. The Opposition is doing so poorly that it has to place advertisements in the local papers. Time expired. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 3.23 a.m. (Wednesday)