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. On 9 October the ALP's Mr David Hamill told Parliament that the relocation of a road from Tamborine to Oxenford involved 'gross impropriety' and `. . . conflict of interest' which may have needed approval by state cabinet . 3 Mr Hamill said the contribution of taxpayers to the $2 million cost of the road represented a 'considerable advantage' to the Hinze gravel company, Maralinga Pty Ltd. Mr Hamill told Parliament that Maralinga could now use the old route for its gravel trucks without interference from other traffic, while the new road was built at the request of Maralinga to coincide with an expansion in its operations. These difficulties for Mr Hinze followed his earlier and continuing confrontation with the ex-TAB chairman, Sir Edward Lyons, also a personal friend of the Premier. It will be recalled that Mr Hinze and Sir Edward were engaged in a gladiatorial struggle earlier in 1985 which led to the removal of Sir Edward Lyons as chairman of the TAB and his resignation from the position of trustee of the National party. The furore over the departure of Sir Edward Lyons from these important positions lingered, particularly because it was known that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen had been irritated with the role that Mr Hinze had played in those matters. The allegations against Mr Hinze by Mr Hamill therefore destabilized Mr Hinze's position at least temporarily, though his difficulties were not confined to that particular set of circumstances. Specifically, a Hinze family company, Junefair Pty Ltd, was alleged to be interested in securing a TAB branch licence at Oxenford. Suggestions were made in the House that Mr Hinze, as the responsible minister, had obstructed the application for that same TAB licence which had been filed by an Oxenford-based business group. Despite all of these difficulties, Mr Hinze remained secure in his ministerial position at the end of the year, although doubts about his long-term tenure were fuelled by reports that he was about to enter hospital for major knee surgery. The previous chronicle provided details of the state electoral redistribution which was initiated via the Electoral Districts Act 1985. An error within that earlier legislation forced an amending bill to be introduced in the House on 28 August. The specific matter requiring amendment was relatively minor, though the necessity to amend the legislation delayed by several months the completion of the redistribution exercise. The incident also highlighted the difficulties that are sometimes caused when legislation is forced through Parliament without due consideration. Nor was the state government particularly pleased by the necessity to introduce this amending legislation. It provided an opportunity once again for the Liberal and Labor parties to attack the thrust of the redistribution, which enshrines the zonal arrangement, and in particular allowed for the Opposition leader to question the credentials of one of the commissioners appointed to draw up the state electoral boundaries under that redistribution. The specific allegation which Mr Warburton levelled was at Sir Thomas Covacevich, also a Cairns solicitor. The Opposition leader alleged that Sir Thomas, in 1979, had sought funds for the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation on behalf of the National party. Mr Warburton expressed the view that, while it was the prerogative of Sir Thomas to seek funds for the National party if he so desired, it was inexcusable for the National party's state president, Sir Robert Sparkes, to enlist the services of a Bjelke-Petersen Foundation fundraiser as an electoral commissioner. The other matter of an electoral nature to come before the state Parliament during the period under review occurred on 9 October, when the Attorney-General, Mr Harper, announced the state government's intention to cooperate with federal authorities regarding a joint enrolment card.

The Executive The government did not enjoy a particularly comfortable time during this six-month period. The series of difficulties and embarrassments which it faced in Parliament have already been identified, and outside 270 Political Chronicle the House it was besieged by a variety of other problems. Mr Brian Cahill, the National party MLA for Aspley, was quoted as saying that he had paid the $400 fine which had enabled Mr Bob Gibbs (MLA, Wolston) to be released from his 40-day prison sentence for failure to pay a fine arising from a conviction against Mr Gibbs under the Traffic Act. 6 Mr Cahill reiterated this position the following day, only to then indicate, the very next day, that he had merely been joking in his earlier claims that he had paid the fine. The incident was obviously a very politically costly one to Mr Cahill. In September the former Opposition leader, Mr Tom Burns, produced a 'resource document' which catalogued what he described as the broken promises of the Bjelke-Petersen government relating to proposed new developments. While the document was not discussed at particular length in Parliament itself, its contents were widely circulated, and presented the government with some problems in terms of the short-fall between proposed and completed capital works projects. While the government scoffed at the document, there is little doubt that, for an administration which has prided itself so long on its ability to generate capital works projects and new jobs in Queensland, the contents were embarrassing.

Federal-state relations Hostility to Canberra is a familiar theme within Queensland politics, and one which Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen as Premier has developed during his years as the state's leader. The period under review was no exception in terms of this long history. The state government sided with the proponents of a flat-rate tax, and continually criticized the federal government for alleged short-changing of the state in various commonwealth-state projects, such as Medicare. The state government also regarded the crisis in the sugar industry as yet another issue upon which it could mount an assault against Canberra. The crisis within that industry had festered for some time, and during 1985 there were serious concerns expressed that a significant number of the state's sugar producers could be forced out of the industry unless some agreement was able to be reached between the federal and state governments over the issue of price support. The state cabinet refused in mid-November to join the federal government scheme for support to Queensland's 6,300 sugar producers. Under that proposal, Canberra was prepared to contribute $150 million over a three-year period, and the state government was requested to support the project to the extent of $72 million over the same time frame. Those funds were to be used to provide a base of between $220 and $230 per tonne, the figure cited by industry leaders as subsistence level for sugar growers. The issue became somewhat tricky for the state government, however, when the general secretary of the Queensland Cane Growers' Council indicated that there were eleven National party seats in Queensland where canegrowers could vote out sitting members, and this was the threat contained within his statement. Nor was the position of the state government made easier when the Queensland Proprietary Sugar Millers' Association indicated its support for the Hawke government in its battle with the Queensland government over funding for the sugar industry. The general secretary of that association warned growers they could lose control of their own future unless they accepted the need for the deregulation of the state's sugar industry, and such deregulation would mean the closure of several mills in North Queensland. The federal Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, had made the acceptance of such deregulation a condition of federal aid for the industry, but the Queensland government had refused to accept such aid or contribute to this aid programme because it believed canegrowers would not accept deregulation.

Redlands by-election A by-election for the state seat of Redlands was necessitated by the death on 10 September of the local member and Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services, Mr John Goleby. Mr Goleby, who died in a tractor accident on his property, had represented the seat for 11 years, and before that had served as a councillor on the Redlands shire for 13 years. Much of the early interest in the campaign centred upon a somewhat messy pre-selection contest for ALP endorsement. That contest, which involved a three-way struggle between Mr Con Sciacca, Mr Peter Beattie, the ALP's state secretary, and Mr Ron Pokarier, was not a helpful one to Labor's cause, focusing public attention on the party's factional problems, and raising doubts about the ALP's ability to select good candidates. Mr Sciacca, a local solicitor and the unsuccessful ALP candidate for the seat in both 1977 and 1980, enjoyed strong local-branch support. Mr Beattie, on the other hand, enjoyed public recognition as the party's state secretary since 1981, and was probably a much stronger candidate in a by-election the result of which was likely to have significance for each of the parties in the lead-up to the 1986 general election. As expected, Mr Sciacca won the local plebiscite very comfortably (he secured 103 votes to Mr Beattie's 47, and Mr Pokarier's 4, with 3 votes being impounded, and 1 held over). At the same time, there was a perception that Mr Beattie could still muster sufficient support in the electoral college to secure endorsement. In fact he failed to secure that level of support, winning only 21 of those college votes (eight from the Socialist Left faction, two from his own Centre Left group, and only eight of the expected seventeen from Labor Unity). Beattie's failure to win the endorsement was attributable to a combination of factors, including the alleged circulation to college delegates of misinformation regarding Political Chronicle 271 the support required by each candidate to win the pre-selection, the collapse of Beattie support amongst the Labor Unity faction (significantly, the factional group of the Opposition leader, Mr Warburton), and a more broadly based antagonism directed at Mr Beattie and related to a host of factional issues and considerations. In any event, the bloody pre-selection process inside the ALP did absolutely nothing for the early health of Labor's campaign, and served only to remind voters of the continuing divisions within that party in Queensland. Other party pre-selections for Redlands were less troublesome. The Liberals selected Mr Max Bolte, a second cousin of the former Victorian Premier, Sir Henry Bolte, and a Redlands- based nursery/landscape businessman. The Nationals also chose a local, in this case a little known solicitor, Mr Paul Clauson, who joined the National party just four days before that party's pre-selection meeting. The decision of the Nationals to select the unknown Mr Clauson was apparently made on the basis that, in the absence of an obvious `big name' or prominent local candidate, the party would be advised to select a candidate with potential television skills. It was this same formula which led to the National party's endorsement in 1983 of Earle Bailey in Toowong and Brian Cahill in Aspley. Both of them won their contests at that year's election. The three major-party candidates were joined in the Redlands contest by four other contestants: Mr Thomas Aeon-Masterson (Anti-Hashish Labor party); Mr Jackson Brown (Union Solidarity party); Mr Bernard Irving (Independent); and Mr Richard May (Australian Democrats). The campaign which preceded the 2 November by-election was dominated by several issues: the National party government's dangling of electoral carrots (including a proposed nursing home, a $3 million 40-bed hospital, extra police, and the promise of a $12.1 million rail link to Cleveland); the attempts of the ALP and the Liberals to highlight the various problems and embarrassments which had plagued the National party state government over the preceding months; the efforts of the Liberal party to revive its support level; and the state government's practice of industrial relations in Queensland. The Redlands contest proved to be as close as pundits had suggested. The ALP's candidate, Mr Con Sciacca, secured 43.28 per cent of the primary vote, compared with the primary tally shares of Mr Paul Clauson (National) 37.21 per cent, Mr Bolte (Liberal) 14.26 per cent, Mr May (Democrat) 3.39 per cent, Mr Irving (Independent) 1.25 per cent, Mr Aeon-Masterson 0.36 per cent, and Mr Brown 0.25 per cent. After the distribution of the Democrat and minor candidates' preferences, Mr Sciacca had increased his tally to 45.61 per cent as compared with Mr Clauson's 38.37 per cent, and Mr Bolte's 16.02 per cent. 25.14 per cent of Mr Bolte's preferences drifted to Mr Sciacca, but Mr Clauson still won the seat by a margin of 213 votes. The final result, then, was Mr Paul Clauson 14,722 votes (55.36 per cent) to Mr Sciacca's 14,509 (49.64 per cent). This result for the National party was a very satisfactory one. While its vote was significantly down on 1983 levels, it must be remembered that this was a by-election, and the opportunity was thus available for the electorate to register a protest vote. It is also the case that the previous National party member and minister, Mr Goleby, had enjoyed strong personal support in the electorate, his years in state Parliament having been preceded by a lengthy term of office in local government in the area. The Nationals also ran, in Mr Paul Clauson, a candidate who was virtually unknown in the electorate, and who took a reasonably passive role in the campaign. The Liberals, on the other hand, had nothing to lose in Redlands. It was inconceivable that they would fail to improve on their 6.2 per cent primary vote showing recorded in 1983, while pre-poll findings indicated the likelihood that they would approach their 16.9 per cent figure of 1980. In the event, they were slightly short of that mark, but their vote was a fillip for party morale, and suggested to them that if reproduced across the metropolitan area they had some chance in 1986 of retaking some of the territory lost to the National party in the 1983 rout. The ALP, while disappointed that it lost the seat, would have been pleased that its primary vote improved on the 41.4 per cent figure recorded by Labor in Redlands in 1983, and the 40.7 per cent secured when Mr Sciacca last contested the seat in 1980. In particular, the ALP was relieved that in the Redlands contest its vote moved back toward its 1983 state-wide level. Despite that consolation, Redlands was an important opportunity lost by the Labor party, and lost in large part through its own doing and as a result of the messy pre-selection struggle between Mr Sciacca and Mr Beattie.

Other political party matters The period under review proved to be an unsettling one for the Nationals, especially for the party's state organizational wing. The earlier resignation of executive director Mike Evans had proven a difficult loss for the party organization to absorb. During the current period, however, the party also lost his successor, political director Col Walker, who phased himself out of that role in the wake of open-heart surgery. In September, Miss Jenny Russell was appointed the party's public relations director, but by year's end there was still no indication of the party's plans for a replacement for Mr Walker. Nor did Mr Evans, now in private practice as a consultant, endear himself to the Nationals with his reported comments in September that the National party government's direction and performance threatened its prospects of retaining government in its own right. Sir Joh reacted angrily to Mr Evans's remarks, and dissociated himself so completely from Mr Evans that observers questioned the likelihood of the Premier permitting his party even to consider retaining Mr Evans as a consultant, or in any other capacity, for the 1986 state 272 Political Chronicle election campaign. Despite the Premier's reaction, there is little doubt that elements within the National party were concerned about possible electoral fallout from such embarrassments and problems as the continuing Hinze-TAB row, the government's handling of the abortion clinics raids, and the behaviour of metropolitan backbencher Brian Cahill. The party also was concerned about one other completely unrelated matter, namely, suggestions that the commonwealth parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, or the federal government itself, might seek to investigate the structure and funding activities of the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation, via the alleged donations to the foundation of the National Free Enterprise Corporation. The Queensland branch of the Australian Labor party initiated in July a $30,000 mini-campaign which targeted itself at elevating the public profile of its parliamentary leader, Mr Warburton, while at the same time attacking the policy and financial priorities of the Bjelke-Petersen government. It did this by suggesting that the government placed 'Jets before Jobs'. Despite that campaign, Labor's electoral fortunes, as registered by successive opinion polls, did not improve, and a rating of 36 per cent for the ALP later in the year prompted speculation that Mr Warburton's leadership might be challenged before any state election. The respective factional strengths inside the Labor parliamentary caucus assuredly doomed any such prospective challenge, and that recognition—coupled with the realization that there was not a settled position within the party regarding the leadership succession— stifled further interest in the issue. Labor's position throughout this period may not have been assisted by Mr Warburton's distinctly low profile, yet Labor at this time was faced almost daily with much more damaging publicity arising from its own internal, though publicly- waged factional disputes. . The Liberal party in Queensland has long been disadvantaged by its geographically-limited political base in this state, while the effects of coalition government (pre-1983) and the maintenance since 1949 of a zonal electoral system have made the task of broadening that base a most difficult one. In that context it is significant that in July the Liberals in Queensland established a Country Development Board to oversee its new 'push' into the non-metropolitan areas of the state. That board, headed by the party's first northern director, Mr Bill Mason, also included Senator Warwick Parer, Mr Paul Everingham (the Liberal party's federal spokesman on northern development), Cr Ian Macdonald (from Ayr), and Mr Andrew Rankine (Cairns). In other developments, Mrs Beryce Nelson in July joined the ranks of a number of other prominent people who in recent years have resigned from the party. She gave as her reason for doing so her disappointment at the party's lack of commitment to policy development. It will be recalled that Mrs Nelson, who was a Liberal party member of 14 years standing, was MLA for Aspley for three years (1980-83), losing the seat to the National party's Mr Brian Cahill.

NOTES 1. Courier-Mail, 26 November 1985. 2. Courier-Mail, 27 November 1985. 3. Courier-Mail, 28 Novermber 1985. 4. Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 17 October 1985, No. 7, 2080-81. 5. Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 9 October 1985, No. 6, 1683-87. 6. Sunday Mail, 25 August 1985. P.C.