QUEENSLAND State Parliament State Parliament Sat for 30 Days During the Period July to December 1985
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Political Chronicle 267 QUEENSLAND State Parliament State Parliament sat for 30 days during the period July to December 1985. In all, 66 pieces of legislation were introduced during that period, including 49 bills of an amending nature, 16 new pieces of legislation, and one private bill. Fifty-seven bills passed the third reading stage of treatment. The Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, brought down his second budget as state Treasurer on 5 September 1985. The framing of this particular budget had clearly been a difficult exercise. For a number of months the Queensland government's management of the state's economy had been under attack, and in a more general sense there were indicators that the Queensland economy was weaker than those of certain other states. Sir Joh and most of his ministers refused to acknowledge these criticisms, though the state's economic difficulties were reflected in the extremely cautious budget document which was presented by the Premier in September. That the government's budgetary options were significantly limited by the state of the economy was reflected in the fact that the budget itself included very few new initiatives, and was widely regarded as 'steady as you go' in its approach. The Premier himself presented the budget as one containing no increases in taxes or charges. He also pointed to the $20 million of support allocated to sugar-cane farmers, and $16 million in payroll deductions, as indications of his government's continued commitment to the support 268 Political Chronicle of the state's farming and business interests. As in previous years the budget also included provision for an increased number of school teachers, nurses and hospital staff, and police officers; in turn, those increases were regarded by the relevant unions as inadequate given demographic growth. One of the few initiatives contained in the budget was for a restructuring of the State Government Insurance Office in a way which, in the government's view, would better position it to compete with private enterprise, and to increase its ability to invest on behalf of its policyholders. The restructured body, to be known as Suncorp, nevertheless retained its six-person board of management. Much of the heat in the parliamentary debate surrounding the budget focused upon the Premier's claim that the budget was a `balanced' one in terms of receipts and expenditures. For some time this particular claim of the state government had come under fire not only from the Premier's political opponents in Queensland, but also from data available from other sources, such as that of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This particular assertion of the Premier's was one of those upon which the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Warburton, seized in his reply to the budget. He also attacked the Premier's claim that the budget itself contained no new taxes or charges; that was probably a reasonable line of attack given the fact that in recent years the state government had deliberately removed increases in taxes and charges from the budget framework, presumably to distance itself from the political odour associated with such increases. Another line of attack by the state Opposition in the budget debate focused upon the state government's refusal to accept any of the blame for the current condition of the Queensland economy. For years Sir Joh and his ministers have refined to an artform their attacks upon other states and, more particularly, successive federal governments. In the 1985-86 state budget, for example, Sir Joh claimed that the Queensland government had been short-changed by Canberra to the extent of some $362 million. Regardless of the accuracy or otherwise of that estimate, this particular line of attack against Canberra is as familiar as it has been successful. Yet, it has become in recent years a more difficult one to prosecute given the indications that certain of the other state economies—currently administered by state Labor governments—are performing better than that of Queensland. Nor is Sir Joh's position particularly assisted by the relatively strong indicators associated with the current Australian national economy, or by the increasingly strong criticisms of the Queensland state government being levelled by the state's mining and sugar industries. Following representations earlier in the year by Brisbane's newly-elected Lord Mayor, Sallyanne Atkinson, the state government moved to intervene in the long-running Brisbane garbage dispute by mobilizing two separate pieces of legislation—the City of Brisbane (Variation of Refuse Contracts) Bill, and the City of Brisbane (Garbage Services) Bill. Both of these pieces of legislation were introduced in late November and passed by the House in early December. The provisions of these pieces of legislation provided the Brisbane City Council with a permanent set of emergency powers to ensure that garbage is collected. The Brisbane City Council is empowered to instruct its contractors who, in turn, are able to direct employees to empty bins. Non-compliance by the unions with these provisions leaves them open to the possibility of $250,000 fines, and individual members with $50,000 penalties. Another piece of controversial legislation which moved through the House during the period under review was that of the Liquor Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill which was introduced into the House by the Attorney-General, Mr Harper, on 5 November 1985, and which completed its passage two weeks later. The amendments to that legislation make it illegal for hotel licensees to serve 'drug dealers, sexual perverts or deviates and child molesters'. The government's intention in introducing this legislation was presumably to prevent those whom it regards as having anti-social sexual practices from using licensed premises to plan or carry out these practices. The legislation further provides that inspectors from the Licensing Commission will be invested with the authority to check upon the behaviour of licensees in enforcing these provisions. This particular legislation was bitterly debated within the House, with the Labor party attempting to delete from the legislation the provision identifying those categories of individuals who should be prevented from entering licensed premises. That particular move was lost on the voices, though in an interesting twist the National and Labor parties voted together to defeat by 71-6 a Liberal party amendment adding 'homosexuals and other persons convicted of any sexual offences' to the section. In moving this legislation the state government probably regarded public sentiment as being on its side, and perhaps it is. At the same time, the legislation is widely regarded as being quite unworkable, and was condemned by a variety of church, civil liberties, and other spokespeople. During the period under review, the state government found itself quite frequently in an uncomfortable position on the floor of Parliament. The Speaker of the House, Mr Warner, has not enjoyed a particularly easy term since his election just after the 1983 election. His rulings have often been greeted with dismay, and his ability to control the House has been brought into question on a variety of occasions. These particular difficulties have been coupled with suggestions from inside the National party that the Speaker no longer enjoyed the support of the government. That particular position was tested during the period under review, with an attempt by the Labor Opposition to move a vote of no-confidence in the Speaker. That particular vote was lost by forty votes to thirty-seven, following a decision by the six Liberals and Mr Col Miller (Independent, Ithaca) to vote with the Labor Opposition in that motion. That particular incident occurred in late August; yet, the Speaker's position did not improve during subsequent weeks. The matter was brought to a head by a newspaper headline in late November that the 'Speaker cannot manage the job, says Joh'.i Political Chronicle 269 The position was not improved when, the following day, the same newspaper featured an equally prominent heading 'Ministers out to get him: Speaker'. 2 The very next day a further article indicated that the Speaker had 100 per cent support from the Premier. 3 From that point on the issue receded, though at the close of the parliamentary year there was openly expressed doubt about whether Mr Warner in fact would resume his position as Speaker in the New Year. The government's handling of the Parliament was also seriously questioned in an incident on 17 October when the government walked out of the House rather than be forced to vote with the Labor Opposition. The incident was triggered when the leader of the Liberal party, Sir William Knox, called a division on his motion that standing orders be suspended to allow the House to debate the federal government's controversial tax reform proposals. 4 The government's walk-out to avoid voting with the ALP against the motion left the six Liberal MPs 'in control' of the vacant government benches for a period of seven minutes. This move of the Liberals was seen as a tactic to end the Premier's criticism of them as 'socialists' because they had voted with the ALP and against the government on more than 60 occasions in this Parliament. The action of the government in vacating the House may have overcome an immediate tactical difficulty, but at the same time it was a dangerous one in potentially allowing the control of Parliament to fall to one of the other parties. The drama of the occasion was further heightened because of an allegation that the Premier had nudged in the ribs a member of the parliamentary Liberal party, Mr Terry Gygar. The government was also embarrassed in the House over continuing allegations regarding the alleged behaviour of its local government minister, Mr Hinze.