Legislative Assembly Hansard 1982
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Queensland Parliamentary Debates [Hansard] Legislative Assembly TUESDAY, 31 AUGUST 1982 Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy Papers 31 August 1982 635 TUESDAY, 31 AUGUST 1982 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. S. J. Muller, Fassifem) read prayers and took the chair at 11 a.m, PAPERS The foUowing paper was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed:— Report of the State Electricity Commission of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1982 The following i>apers were laid on the table:— Reports— Queensland Law Reform Commission for the year ended 30 June 1982 Pyramid SeUuig Schemes Elimination Committee for the year ended 30 June 1982 Proclamation under the Forestry Act 1959-1981 Orders in Council under— State Housing Act 1945-1981 State Housing (Freeholdmg of Land) Act 1957-1980 City of Brisbane Act 1924-1980 Expjlosives Act 1952-1981 Forestry Act 1959-1981 Regulations under— Co-operative and Other Societies Act 1967-1978 Water Act 1926-1981 By-laws under the Water Act 1926-1981 Information relating to payments under the Pensioner Rate Subsidy Scheme 636 31 August 1982 Ministerial Statements MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Investigations by Private Consultants into Railway Department Hon. D. F. LANE (Merthyr—Minister for Transport) (11.3 a.m.): It is my duty to report to ParUament on a Cabinet decision yesterday in relation to the Railway Department. By direction, I have instructed the Commissioner for RaUways and general managers throughout the State that provisions of the Railways Act should be used, when considered appropriate, in relation to bans imposed by raUway employees. I have also been instmcted to engage private consultants to make urgent, extensive investigations into the foUowing aspects of the Railway Department— (a) the management stmcture of the department; (b) the effects of industrial agreements and arrangements with unions on the operation and efficiency of Queensland railways; (c) the feasibility and cost effectiveness of p>rivate enterprise carrying out the maintenance of sections of rolling-stock normaUy carried out in raUway workshops; (d) The cost-effectiveness or otherwise of preserving the poUcy of requiring the carrying of certain commodities by rail under the Transport Act permit provisions; (e) The benefits or otherwise of entering into contracts with private enterprise for the handling and carriage of general goods and parcels now normally carried out by railway employees; (f) The savings which can be made in resources by the implementation of all or any of the above measures; and (g) Any other matters which the Honourable the Minister for Transport considers could benefit from an examination by the consultants. The consultants wiU report directly to me. I am to present that report to Cabinet within six months of commencement of the investigation, and I shall keep Parliament informed. I express the sincere hope that all railway staff and employees wiU co-operate fully in this study, which is very much in the interests of Queensland and the security of employees, which, in turn, depends very much' on the efficiency of the department. The Railway Depyartment, as with any other transport business, must be competitive and reliable lo compete in the market-place. Housing in Queensland Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Burnett—Minister for Works and Housing) (11.8 a.m.): In recent times we have heard much from the ALP, through spokesmen such as the member for, Chatsworth, on the housing situation in Queensland. In answer to some of the criticisms levelled by such people, let me say quite clearly that the Queensland Govemment has an ongoing and diversified program of assisting famiUes and, in fact, has led the nation in dealing with many of the problems in the housing area. The latest move in this area was the introduction of a new $200m housing package which wiU provide for additional spending on both rental and home-ownership programs through the Housing Commission. Spending for rental housing purposes in the current financial year will be increased by 33 per cent and new home-ownership programs will inject an additional $100m into that area. The ALP has consistently attacked the Govemment's program which provides options for the poorer family—policies providing them whh the option of buying or renting a home. Labor makes it quite clear that it considers poorer famiUes should not have this option. Labor is anti-home-ownership. This should be made quite clear to the many thousands of poorer families who have been assisted into home-ownership and to those now seeking it. Our policies are ones which continue to serve those most in need, not those who are more well off. The member for Chatsworth, in this House last week, indicated that once a family obtains a Housing Commission house it should continue to hold that house irrespective of whether the family could afford private rental. What a shocking statement! Let him tell that to the people in need who are waiting to get welfare housing. Qilestions Up<Mi Notice 31 August 1982 637 Much has been made of recent "research" undertaken by the ALP and often quoted by Aie member for Chatsworth. His use of figures has been at least suspect. At best it can be caUed manipulation for political purposes. Let me give an example or two. The member quotes raw construction figures for Housing Commission rental purposes. He knows as well as I that these raw figures are not valid for the purpose of dealing with welfare housing. He weU knows, but has made no attemprt to explain to the pubUc, that what should be examined are the "net gain" figures in welfare rental stock. If the member had taken the fuU statistics from the report he quoted and not just the parts that suited his preconceived argument, he would have reached a conclusion that welfare rental stock did not increase in 1974-75 (a year he is fond of quoting) by 2 059. The report shows that the increase in rental was 877 and, of these, 337 were for non-welfare. This means that the correct figure was 540 and the corresponding figure in 1981-82 was 701. Let me look at some more figures. In 1974-75, after aUowing for sales, etc., tenancies increased by 1597. In 1981-82 the figure was 2 668, or an increase of 67 per cent. The honourable member also uses some of the information I gave him last week on wait Ust figures. He fails to use the full facts, namely, that over 60 per cent of those assessed into priority categories are adequately housed in terms of space and amenities and that, in Brisbane, the rejection rate at the time of allocation is 30 per cent. The member and his cohorts in the Labor Party shed crocodile tears over the pUght of those seeking housing. Yet he and his Labor coUeagues are the ones who have been backing the shorter hours issue and the disruption of industry it has caused. We hear nothing from the member and his colleagues on the increased costs to home buyers that such moves cause. If he is at all genuine, let him speak out on behalf of the home buyer and the rental famUy who cannot get into housing because of increased housing costs. Meanwhile, the Queensland Government is taking positive step)S to help both the rental occupant and home buyer. PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— State Service Superannuation Scheme From Mrs Nelson (500 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will remove all discrimination from the State Service Superannuation Scheme. Aerial Distribution of Herbicides From Mr Frawley (1 696 signatories) praying that the ParUament of Queensland wUI ban the aerial distribution of herbicides in Hazardous Area No. 1. Petitions received. QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE Questions submitted on notice by members were answered as follows:— 1. Convicted Murderers Leaving Place of Detention without Supervision Mr Greenwood asked the Minister for Welfare Services— (1) How many convicted murderers are still undergoing sentences of imprisonment in Queensland? (2) Have some of these been allowed to leave their place of detention during the last 12 months without the supervision throughout their absence of an accompanying prison officer or member of the Queensland Police Force and, if so, how many prisoners were allowed to do this? (3) How many of these were aUowed to leave their place of detention without such supervision on more than one occasion? (4) If any of them were allowed to leave their place of detention without such supervision on more than one occasion, will he indicate the number of occasions with respect to each? 638 31 August 1982 C^estions Upon Notice (5) If the answer to (2) is in the affirmative, were there compelling reasons for allowing convicted murderers undergoing sentence to leave prison whhout such super vision throughout their absence and, if so, what was the nature of those reasons in each case? Answer:— (1) Eighty-one. Additionally, five persons are detained at the Security Patients Hospital, Wacol. (2) Yes. Five. This practice has been in (H>eration since 1969. (3 & 4) Four were granted leave of absence on a daily basis without supervision. Available records do not readily indicate the number of occasions those prisoners actiiidly departed the prison. In addition, one pmsoner is currently hospitalised on a continuing basis. (5) It is an established fact that the majority of people cwivicted of murder eventually retum to the community. The decision in this regard is taken on the recom mendation of the Parole Board, which is an independent statutory body. Given the fact that the majority of convicted murderers do retum to the community, the Prisons Department has a very heavy responsibUity to ensure that such persons are afforded every op>portunity to rehabilitate themselves so that they are no longer a risk to society.