Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4953

WEDNESDAY, 6 MAY 1992

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I have to inform the House that today I have received from the Auditor-General the report on audits of the Aboriginal and Island councils for the financial year ended 30 June 1991. Ordered to be printed.

PETITIONS

The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Abortion Law From Mr Pearce (8 signatories) praying that action be taken to ensure that the law prohibiting abortion on request be enforced. Similar petitions were received from Mr Horan (177 signatories) and Mr Veivers (160 signatories).

Herston/Kelvin Grove Mobility Plan From Mr Beattie (108 signatories) praying that as the Herston/Kelvin Grove Mobility Plan proposed by the Brisbane City Council does not address the needs of the workers, the Parliament of Queensland initiate concerted action to solve this long standing problem. Yeppoon Police Station From Mr Pearce (1 398 signatories) praying that an adequate number of uniformed police officers be appointed to the Yeppoon Police Station on a permanent basis so that the station may be manned 24 hours a day. Petitions received. PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under— Grammar Schools Act 1975 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982 Industrial Development Act 1963 Retail Shop Leases Act 1984 Report of the Board of Teacher Registration for the year ended 31 December 1991. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT 4954 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

State Corporate Card Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (2.33 p.m.), by leave: In the Leading State economic policy document released last week, the Premier announced that the Government planned to introduce new arrangements to pay its suppliers, namely, through a State corporate card. This system will, in effect, fast-track payments to suppliers of goods to the Queensland Government, which a recent review found to be, quite frankly, a slow payer due to unnecessary layers of red tape. Indeed, the State corporate card system is expected to mean that these suppliers—most of whom are small business operators—will receive immediate payment. This will be a major benefit to small business operators throughout the State, particularly those in regional Queensland. The State corporate card system is also expected to cut transaction handling costs and reduce paperwork. This has been the experience at the Federal Government level and in other States where a corporate card system operates. I am pleased to inform honourable members that today, the Government has taken the first step towards introducing this new payment system to Queensland by issuing an invitation to supply the corporate cards. The State Government believes that a number of private sector financial institutions will be interested. Once an appropriate arrangement has been entered into with a financial institution to supply the cards, the Government will then start a six-month trial of the new system. The cards, which will carry a $1,000 purchase limit, will be used by six Government departments and agencies during the trial. They are the Departments of Administrative Services, Housing and Local Government, Lands, and Primary Industries, as well as the Queensland Police Service and Queensland Rail. In conclusion, I recognise that there may be those who fear that State corporate cards could be open to misuse by some public servants. However, I point out to the House that State corporate cards will not be handed out to every single Queensland public servant—they will be permitted to be used only by authorised purchasing officers. In any case, amendments to the Public Finance Standards will be issued shortly to ensure that appropriate internal controls are in place to accommodate the trials. I point out also that the recently amended Financial Administration and Audit Act includes severe penalties for public sector employees who misuse such a card.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Administrative Services Department Compendium Hon. R. T. McLEAN (Bulimba—Minister for Administrative Services) (2.36 p.m.), by leave: The Administrative Services Department has produced a new guide to help businesses gain more of the $1,600m that the Government spends each year on goods and services. We have produced a compendium which comprises a user-friendly guide to all the ins and outs of our highly successful State purchasing policy. The guide is about the size of a phone book but is easy to read and is designed so that the reader can go straight to the information required. What makes the service especially worth while is that the compendium comes in a loose-leaf binder and the sale price includes a 12-month subscription service for all developments in the policy. The policy is not something that is set in concrete and can adapt and change to meet the needs of the marketplace. When we launched the policy last year we issued supporting documentation. But we wanted to make the policy more accessible and easier to understand in order to help Queenslanders sell their goods and services to us, thus keeping money in the State economy and employing more people. The policy applies to all goods, equipment, construction contracts and service contracts involving departments and statutory bodies. With this compendium, companies can see exactly what rules and conditions apply and the instructions that govern how Government buyers should reach decisions. Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4955

The compendium has been welcomed enthusiastically by Small Business Corporation General Manager, David Eagle, who said— “It has been very difficult in the past to demystify the Government’s purchasing process and we welcome this initiative and embrace it wholeheartedly. Small businesses in the regions will benefit tremendously.”

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE FOR ELECTORAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

Submissions Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (2.37 p.m.): I lay upon the table of the House submissions received by the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review on whistleblowers’ protection. The committee received 14 submissions. In accordance with established parliamentary practice as set out in Erskine May, Twenty-first Edition, at page 635, the committee has determined not to table three of those submissions which contain material which is confidential or potentially defamatory in respect of some person or persons.

LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE Mr CONNOR (Nerang) (2.38 p.m.): I seek leave to move a motion without notice regarding prisoners on strike. Question—That leave be granted—put; and the House divided— AYES, 30 NOES, 52 Beanland Watson Ardill Livingstone Booth Barber Mackenroth Borbidge Beattie McElligott Connor Bird McGrady Coomber Braddy McLean Cooper Bredhauer Milliner Dunworth Briskey Nunn Elliott Burns Palaszczuk FitzGerald Campbell Pearce Goss J. N. Casey Power Harper Clark Robson Hobbs Comben Schwarten Horan D’Arcy Smith Johnson Davies Smyth Lester De Lacy Sullivan J. H. Lingard Dollin Sullivan T. B. Littleproud Eaton Szczerbanik McCauley Edmond Vaughan Perrett Elder Warburton Randell Fenlon Warner Rowell Flynn Welford Santoro Foley Wells Sheldon Gibbs Woodgate Slack Goss W. K. Springborg Tellers: Hamill Tellers: Stephan Neal Hayward Prest Stoneman Quinn Hollis Pitt Resolved in the negative. Mr CONNOR proceeding to give notice of a motion——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr CONNOR: It is only a couple more sentences. 4956 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not the point. The member for Nerang is placing a motion on the notice paper. It ought to be in the form of a motion. I will listen to the honourable member’s motion and I will ask the table staff to put it in the correct form before it appears on the notice paper. Mr CONNOR: I seek leave to have the letters incorporated in Hansard. Government members: No! Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is not granted. Mr CONNOR: I table the letters to which I have referred. We will have to play it by ear and assess the situation as it unfolds. The second letter is a reply to a log of claims by prisoners—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Under the circumstances, I rule that out of order. I have told the member for Nerang what he can or cannot do in giving notice of a motion, yet he is still on his feet and talking about letters that he wants to incorporate in Hansard. The notice of motion will appear on the notice paper in the correct form and the letters will not be incorporated in Hansard.

LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (2.45 p.m.): I seek leave to move a motion without notice—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Question—That leave be granted—put; and the House divided— AYES, 30 NOES, 52 Beanland Watson Ardill Livingstone Booth Barber Mackenroth Borbidge Beattie McElligott Connor Bird McGrady Coomber Braddy McLean Cooper Bredhauer Milliner Dunworth Briskey Nunn Elliott Burns Palaszczuk FitzGerald Campbell Pearce Goss J. N. Casey Power Harper Clark Robson Hobbs Comben Schwarten Horan D’Arcy Smith Johnson Davies Smyth Lester De Lacy Sullivan J. H. Lingard Dollin Sullivan T. B. Littleproud Eaton Szczerbanik McCauley Edmond Vaughan Perrett Elder Warburton Randell Fenlon Warner Rowell Flynn Welford Santoro Foley Wells Sheldon Gibbs Woodgate Slack Goss W. K. Springborg Tellers: Hamill Tellers: Stephan Neal Hayward Prest Stoneman Quinn Hollis Pitt Resolved in the negative.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1. Prison Escapees, Prosecution Mr FITZGERALD asked the Minister for Justice and Corrective Services— Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4957

“(1) How many prisoners have been charged under the Criminal Code for escaping from lawful custody since 1 January 1991? (2) How many of those cases have been processed by the courts? (3) What were the penalties imposed by the courts?” Mr MILLINER: (1 to 3) The following information has been provided by the Corrective Services Investigation Unit, which is an independent police unit attached to the Queensland Corrective Services Commission. That unit’s records show that three escapees have been charged under the Criminal Code, and all have been dealt with by the courts. One escapee was convicted and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. The escapee appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The conviction was quashed and the escapee was sentenced to the rising of the court. The second escapee was convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, the sentence to be served cumulatively. The third escapee was convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, the sentence to be served cumulatively. It is possible that police in other parts of the State could have charged escapees under the Criminal Code, but I am not in a position to gain this information quickly.

2. Bread Industry Authority Act, Prosecutions Mr FITZGERALD asked the Minister for Primary Industries— “(1) Has he ever received a request from the Bread Industry Authority for funds to proceed with counsel advice and then a prosecution under the Bread Industry Authority Act 1990 and, if so, what was his response? (2) How many prosecutions were launched against major manufacturers and retailers of bread under the Bread Industry Authority Act 1990?” Mr CASEY: (1 and 2) Yes. In its report to me on 31 August 1991, the Bread Industry Authority raised that proposition, along with a large number of other matters. Section 3.15 of the Bread Industry Authority Act specifically precludes moneys being appropriated from Consolidated Revenue for any purpose associated with the establishment, maintenance or operation of the authority. It is my understanding that the Bread Industry Authority, which is the body responsible for the enforcement of the Bread Industry Authority Act, has not launched any prosecutions under the Act.

3. Public Service, Recruitment Advertisements Mr SANTORO asked the Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts— “What is the total cost of all newspaper advertisements including display advertisements for recruitment to the public service, which have been placed in the Courier-Mail and the Australian since January 1990 and the percentage of those advertised positions awarded to non-public servants?” Mr W. K. GOSS: I have a detailed two-page answer to the honourable member’s question. I seek leave to table that answer and have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Let me begin by reminding honourable members of the Fitzgerald report and its strong emphasis on the need to advertise all senior positions. As most honourable members would realise, a key reform of our Government has been to open recruitment and selection processes, particularly at senior executive and management levels. We are keen to advertise nationally to ensure that the best possible applicants are selected and appointed on merit for the Queensland public service. As most honourable members would realise, this Government does not discriminate on the basis of previous employment or keep centralised summary details of advertising/recruitment costs. Each chief executive of each public service department is accountable for recruitment and selection of staff under his/her control. However, the available information has been collated for the purpose of answering the question of the 4958 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

member for Merthyr. It is noted that separate job advertising costs are only available since January 1991 when this Government entered into under master media agency arrangements with Neville Jeffress Advertising. It is further noted that this information is not limited to public service positions about which the honourable member enquires but is for the public sector as a whole, covering Government departments, all statutory authorities and bodies such as universities and hospitals. Since January 1991, I am advised that public sector agencies placed 5339 advertisements in the Courier Mail (at an average cost of $642.50) and 3339 advertisements in the Australian (at an average cost of $1088). This advertising largely covers positions with remuneration arrangements in excess of $40 000 per annum. It is important that honourable members understand that the vast majority of positions are only advertised in the Queensland Government Gazette. Such positions have been advertised for a number of reasons including the amalgamation of departments, regionalisation of departments and retirements. In addition it is noted that some types of positions have been advertised and re-advertised to attract suitably qualified and skilled applicants. Statistics show that the vast majority—more than 75 percent—of appointments to the Queensland public service, including senior appointments, are of people who are already Queensland Government employees. While this is reassuring, the advertising dollars spent are, nevertheless, considered appropriate. At this point I would like to suggest that the newspaper advertising costs borne in the last 28 months are likely to be greater than in future years as the amounts indicated have included the costs for advertising the majority of senior executive positions across the Queensland public service. As I indicated early, separate statistics are not available for the filling of all public service positions. Whilst the Government has spent significant advertising dollars, it is noted that the Government has generally preferred this strategy to the use of very expensive executive search consultancies, clearly indicating the Government’s preference for open, competitive merit selections.

4. State Reporting Bureau Mr SANTORO asked the Minister for Justice and Corrective Services— “With reference to the restructuring measures that have been taken at the State Reporting Bureau— How does the composition of staff (full time, part time, casual, including the amount of overtime paid, etc) compare with the previous arrangements?” Mr MILLINER: Following the review and the recommendation of the Public Sector Management Commission in July 1991, the Court Reporting Bureau and the Court Recording Section of the Department of Justice were amalgamated to form the State Reporting Bureau. In addition to that merger, the State Reporting Bureau has been restructured along functional lines, and more cost-effective systems have now been introduced. Included in the restructure was the abolition of positions known as pen writers. The provision of services using pen writers was both antiquated and extremely costly in comparison with the more modern techniques of producing identical work. All pen writers affected by the abolition of those positions were given the option of being retrained, redeployed or accepting an early retirement package. All but a few opted for the latter option. Other support staff utilised by the pen writers have and continue to be retrained within the bureau. Part of the restructure of the bureau included a strategy for the decentralisation of services to centres outside Brisbane. Computer assisted transcription systems—CAT—and audio reporting centres have since been established in Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton and Southport, and audio reporting centres have also been established at Mackay and Maroochydore. This strategy has most importantly provided work for a significant number of people located in those rural areas and has also provided a more effective service to the courts in regional areas and will have a major impact on reducing staff travelling time and the travel vote for the bureau. As a result of this restructuring there has been a reduction in the total number of permanent staff Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4959 actually employed from 137 to 118. On the other hand, there has been an increase in the employment of casual reporters and word processing operators, but they are only employed as and when required. I am pleased to record that, as a result of the restructure, the average turnaround time for the supply of transcripts for the Magistrates Court has been reduced from a maximum of six weeks to approximately three and a half days. In addition, bureau workload to address the needs of superior courts has increased by approximately 22 per cent. This increase in workload has also generated additional overtime which is now equivalent to five full-time employees per day as opposed to three and a half full-time employees per day. As judges, court officials and bureau staff continue to embrace more modern techniques for providing transcription services, the bureau’s efficiency and cost-effectiveness will be enhanced.

5. School Grants Mr FENLON asked the Minister for Education— “With reference to the additional benefits gained by schools through increased funding of school grants— Will he indicate the extent of additional services that Parents and Citizens’ Associations are now able to provide to their school communities as a result of these initiatives?” Mr BRADDY: I can indeed confirm that the additional funds paid to schools by the Goss Government under the school grant has made a considerable difference. In fact, the Goss Government has increased payments under the school grant by more than $9m. Those funds have been used by school communities to meet the cost of important operational items such as general expenses, equipment repair, library and resource centre items, grounds care and early education. In addition, special funds have been provided for items such as literacy and numeracy and administrative assistance. Principals have told me that the new administrative assistance enhancement program the Government has introduced has been enormously helpful to schools. As members would be aware, under the previous National Party Government, Queensland had the lowest level of education funding of any State in Australia. The burden for many basic school items therefore fell on hardworking p. and c. associations to put up the tab. The additional funds we have provided have helped relieve that burden. In the honourable member’s own seat of Greenslopes, more than $959,000 has been provided for school grants under this Government. It is important, however, to ensure that the funds provided to schools are having the maximum impact. I have recently met with representatives of the Primary Principals Association to discuss how we can best communicate with school communities on the administration of the school grant. Yesterday, I met also with the Secondary Principals Association and discussed similar issues. Parents and principals have welcomed the additional funds the Government has provided. We now need to talk to them further to gain their insight into how these can best be spent. Unlike the previous Government, the Goss Government is providing long-overdue funds to assist p. and c. associations and is prepared to listen and respond to the community’s wishes.

6. Toohey Forest Protection Society Mr FENLON asked the Minister for Environment and Heritage— “With reference to the Toohey Forest Protection Society— (1) What has been his recent involvement with the society? (2) What is the important role that the society now performs for the protection and management of Toohey Forest for the future?” Mr COMBEN: I seek leave to table my answer and have it incorporated in Hansard. 4960 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Leave granted. I have had a close involvement with the Society in recent years and spoke at their meeting on April 6. The Society, like many conservation organisations throughout the State, performs a very valuable role in the protection and enhancement of their local environment. They have a long history of concern for the conservation of the nature values of Toohey Forest and have led the campaign to have it properly protected and managed. The election of the Labor Brisbane City Council heralded a new era of cooperation with State Government over the protection of Toohey Forest. The Council is now reviewing the draft management plan for the area and I am certain the Toohey Forest Protection Society will be playing a very active and prominent role in the development and implementation of this plan. To assist the Society in fulfilling this role, I was pleased recently to announce a grant of $1,100 to them as part of the $150,000 program of grants to the voluntary, non- government conservation movement throughout the State.

7. Queensland—Leading State Mr STONEMAN asked the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations— “With reference to the statement contained within the document of deceit ‘Leading State’ at page 62 which says, ‘For new tourism resorts and tourism related infrastructure, the Government will support the industrial parties in further such proposals which involve the use of composite wage rates and working arrangements which recognise the requirements of sevenÐday-a-week operations.’— (1) Is this statement an admission that the current industrial relations policy imposed through legislation by his Government has failed? (2) Why is the principle of recognising seven-day-a-week operations extended only to new tourism resorts and related infrastructure and not the thousands of situations where such a proposal could bring immediate benefit to both employer and employee and open up further employment opportunities?” Mr VAUGHAN: (1) No. If the member for Burdekin had read page 61 of Leading State, as well as page 62, he would have seen that the Industrial Relations Act already allows for greater flexibility in the workplace. To quote in part from Leading State— “The Act provides for enterprise awards with flexibility in the spread of daily and weekly hours . . . To date, ten enterprise specific awards have been created by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.” Any amendment to current legislation would be the result of the Government’s ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness of its legislative and administrative framework in furthering the economic development of the State. (2) The premise of the member’s question is false. The principle of seven-day-a- week operations is not limited to any particular industry. The Government’s aim is to facilitate the negotiation of more flexible working arrangements between unions and employers throughout business and industry. The tourism industry is singled out in Leading State simply as a particularly relevant example of an industry sector which could benefit from more flexible working arrangements.

8. Payments to Trade Union Officials Mr STONEMAN asked the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations— “What assurance will he give that the disgraceful situation that occurred in respect of payouts to former officials of the TWU which effectively gutted the resources of that union, will not happen in any State registered union given that Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4961

the Federal legislation that allowed the TWU debacle has been faithfully mirrored by the Goss Government to assist its little mates in the union hierarchy?” Mr VAUGHAN: The matter of payments to outgoing TWU officials has been before the courts. As I am advised that it is still subject to action, I do not feel that it is proper to make comments about this as a specific case. However, with regard to the trade union movement generally, over the past two years our Government has completely revamped the legislation covering union practices and industrial relations. The Industrial Relations Act sets out extensive requirements in relation to the keeping of union accounts and auditing of those accounts. Should the shadow Minister wish to improve his knowledge of those provisions, I direct his attention to section 13.80 to section 13.98. I can also assure him that work continues on dealing with the recommendations of the Cooke inquiry. I repeat my public support for the general thrust of those recommendations and my commitment to dealing with them by the end of the year.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Commissioner of Police Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the very limited grounds of appeal to the Supreme Court in respect of a finding of a misconduct tribunal, and I ask: in an attempt to remove any doubt that Commissioner Newnham has been the victim of a political vendetta, will the Premier consider urgent amendments to the Criminal Justice Act to widen the grounds of appeal to those that exist under the Criminal Code? Mr W. K. GOSS: Let me first nail again this offensive and untrue—and, I will show in a minute, deliberately untrue—suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition that there has been some form of political vendetta. That is an important part of the question and I propose to deal with it first. Members will recall that, the other day, the Leader of the Opposition asked a question of me in relation to Mr Newnham, in which he purported falsely—and, I believe, knowingly—to quote a complaint from Mr Newnham that he had been the victim of character assassination in the course of the processing of the C100 computer tender. What Mr Borbidge said at the end of that question, furthering this claim that we have heard again today about a political vendetta, was that Mr Newnham was not trusted, that his advice was not sought and that he was the victim of a secret character assassination. Of course, that secret character assassination reference comes from a report done for Mr Newnham in which he does, indeed, make reference to character assassination. What Mr Borbidge left out, unless he wants to blame his staff, was this—and I will read from page 20 of Mr Newnham’s report, in which he said— “Why has Qucom gone to such inordinate trouble to attempt to assassinate the character, integrity and professional reputation of Mr Window.” Not Mr Newnham, but Mr Window! In other words, it is one of the worst abuses of the privileges of a member of this House that came knowingly and deliberately from the Leader of the Opposition. That is the level of the dirty tricks and falsehoods that regularly underpins questions from this member in this place. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members will cease interjecting. Mr W. K. GOSS: The first part of the question refers to narrow grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal are quite reasonable and they are not uncommon in terms of the laws of this land. The grounds of appeal are threefold. The first two are the grounds of natural justice and an error of law. The third one is also important. Mr Borbidge: They’re less than a murderer gets. 4962 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Mr W. K. GOSS: The Leader of the Opposition complains about the Act. It is an Act that the National Party brought into this place and asked us to support, and we supported it. The National Party limited the commissioner’s rights of appeal to the terms that are in that National Party legislation, and now the National Party members complain about it. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Warrego will cease interjecting. Mr W. K. GOSS: Three years ago, it was adequate and appropriate legislation; now, it is somehow limited. Of course, the third ground of appeal is very important in the sense that, even if the finding of guilt of official misconduct were upheld, there is an important argument there to be had in respect of penalty. I am not going to speculate on any appeal by Mr Newnham. I think that would be quite wrong. I am not going to speculate on his grounds of appeal. Once again, I think that would be quite wrong. I think it would be highly unusual for a Government to interfere with the reform process, and we have not done so until now. The reform process has been followed to a T in relation to the Misconduct Tribunal proceedings. There has been no Government involvement. It has all been administered by the CJC as part of a division of its legislation. It is highly unusual to interfere with the reform process as it is going through. I think all members should acknowledge that there has been no interference up to the present, and it would be unusual to interfere. I spoke to Noel Newnham a few days ago when I rang him to tell him about the option to claim some of his costs from the Government and to suggest that his solicitors may contact the appropriate authorities. I asked him whether there was anything else the Government could do and he said there was not at that stage. He simply expressed a general wish that the appeal and the whole process be over as soon as possible. Mr Borbidge: A murderer has more rights than the Police Commissioner. Mr W. K. GOSS: It is National Party legislation. I make the point before I conclude that it is quite wrong of the Leader of the Opposition, and quite unfair to Mr Newnham for the Leader of the Opposition, to suggest that Mr Newnham in any sense has been convicted of a criminal offence, because he has not been. He has not been put before the criminal courts or a jury, or convicted of a criminal offence. To make a comparison with a murderer or any other person who has been convicted of a criminal offence is quite wrong and quite unfair to Mr Newnham. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member for Gympie under Standing Order 123A. Mr W. K. GOSS: That said—and I made reference to the highly unusual nature of interfering with the reform process—if Mr Newnham put up a case for some special or new grounds of appeal in relation to his case, obviously the Government would give it due consideration.

Deputy Premier’s Criticism of Economic Policies Mr BORBIDGE: I refer the Deputy Premier to his criticism of the economic policies of senior members of his own party, and I ask: in view of his role as party organiser, State secretary, Federal president, member of Parliament, and senior Minister and Deputy Premier, what has he specifically done to protect Queensland workers and Queensland jobs? If he is genuine in these concerns, why did he oppose ICI relocating to Queensland, why did he oppose the Sanctuary Cove development and why has he been a constant critic of the level of foreign investment in the tourism industry that, under the previous Government, provided tens of thousands of new jobs? Mr BURNS: I thank the honourable member for the question, and I also thank him for his support after my press conference yesterday. He was out there kissing my bum. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw that. Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4963

Mr BURNS: I withdraw that statement. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego! I have asked the Deputy Premier to withdraw. Order! Mr BURNS: After 30 years in the Labor movement battling against the Tories and the National Party, against all the things that they did to members of the ETU who were taking part in a legitimate strike, and with the graft and the corruption that went on in this place when they took money from the bosses and killed the worker, they have the hide to ask what have I done for the workers. They spent their time in this place—— Mr Littleproud interjected. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Condamine! I warn the Leader of the Opposition under Standing Order 123A for interjecting. Mr BURNS: I think probably the most important role I have played in helping the workers was getting rid of the National Party.

Queensland Ambulance Service Mr PREST: In directing a question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I refer to the Queensland Ambulance Service and the changes that have taken place since the new Ambulance Service Act was put in place in mid-1991, and I ask: will he advise if the restructuring process is proceeding as planned, and when can we expect to see finalisation of the remaining appointments of the officers in charge of ambulance stations? Mr WARBURTON: I recognise the work for the ambulance service that the honourable member for Port Curtis has done in his electorate over a long period. The restructuring process is going ahead as planned. The six regional assistant commissioners are in place. The district superintendents have been appointed, and applications have been called for other positions, including the district operational coordinators, the communications centre supervisors and the officers in charge of the various stations. Applicants will be interviewed in the very near future, and those positions will be filled. I am sure all honourable members will be interested to hear that in the very near future ambulance officers will have computer access to all information regarding subscribers in this State. Under the old system, manual records were kept at each station. If, for example, a Brisbane resident was holidaying in Gladstone or Cairns and had to use an ambulance, there was a very expensive and time-consuming series of telephone calls and faxes between Brisbane and the centre concerned to verify that the person was a subscriber. This change is tremendously important, and just one of the many progressive changes that are now in train to reduce expensive administration time for ambulance stations. There is a new subscription scheme in place, and this week honourable members will be receiving in their electorate offices letters and brochures explaining the position to them and their constituents. Finally, a plug for the Queensland Ambulance Service—this year is the centenary of the service; 100 years of serving and caring for the people of Queensland. I would like to see each and every honourable member here heavily involved in the many events that are taking place throughout the State this year. One of the major events will be a marathon run from Cairns to Brisbane that commences on 16 May. That event will raise funds for the people competing in the Paralympics in Barcelona—a very worthy cause. I understand that the Treasurer, Mr De Lacy, has agreed to lead off the marathon, and the next leg from Edmonton to Gordonvale will be run by Mr Warren Pitt. In all seriousness, I would like to see—— Mr FitzGerald: Have you invited anyone else, or only Labor Party members? Mr WARBURTON: I am inviting the honourable member now. Honourable members interjected. 4964 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gregory! The Treasurer! Mr WARBURTON: I conclude by saying again that I hope all members will participate in this event. I agree with the Deputy Premier—I am glad that he threw them out of Government.

Rural Communities Mr PREST: I accept the Minister’s invitation. In directing a question to the Minister for Primary Industries, I refer him to comments made in the State’s economic development policy, Queensland—Leading State, regarding the inability of many small rural communities to provide the infrastructure for water and sewerage that the larger centres enjoy. I ask: can the Minister advise what the Goss Government intends to do to redress this longstanding problem? Mr CASEY: During my frequent travels throughout Queensland I have been continuously reminded of the appalling attitude of the previous National Party Government to the provision to the smaller communities of this State of water supply and sewerage services of a standard which is necessary to promote long-term self- reliance. As a result of National Party neglect for something like 30 years, I am able to advise that there are approximately 90 communities—not including Aboriginal and Islander communities—having a population in excess—— Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr CASEY: You listen to this, because in 30 years of Government you were concerned only with looking after all your white-shoe brigade mates on the Gold Coast—and you still are. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr CASEY: That is why you are on the nose and on the beach, and out of the rural areas of this State. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest to the Minister that he direct his comments through the chair. Mr CASEY: He is not supposed to be interjecting, either. In 1992, there are approximately 90 communities in Queensland with populations in excess of 100 people that are without a reticulated water supply. There are also approximately 80 existing water supply schemes that are below accepted standards in terms of quality and quantity of supply. In addition, there are approximately 160 communities with a population of fewer than 100 that do not have reticulated water supplies at all. Many of those small communities do not have the financial means or capacity to correct the situation under the existing State Government Local Bodies Annual Capital Works Program, which is the loan subsidy scheme, or under COWSIP, which is the Community Water Supply Improvement Program between the State Government and local authorities. Towns such as Burketown, which is a very small town in this State, receive funding that is sufficient only to provide a basic water supply which is below normally accepted standards. The honourable member for Auburn knows the problems associated with standards. In some of the towns in his electorate, the Government has provided assistance in an attempt to correct some of the problems. I refer in particular to places such as Mulgildie. Under the Leading State package, which was announced by the Premier last week, the Government is determined that all Queenslanders will benefit from having a decent water supply scheme and a decent sewerage scheme irrespective of where they live. The scheme will be operated through the local authorities, and its aim will be to improve the standard of water supply and sewerage facilities in small communities. The Goss Government will assist in providing the infrastructure, with the operation and maintenance costs being met by the communities involved. These small communities and their development are totally dependent on the presence of a decent water supply and waste water disposal system. This will not preclude the matching grants system under COWSIP, which will continue. Operational details will be finalised in this year’s Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4965

Budget, and administration of this undertaking will be carried out by the water resources group of my department. I will work in close liaison with my colleague the Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government, Mr Burns, to make sure that the program is put into effect. It is truly ironic that members of the National Party in this State who claim to represent the people of country areas could not even provide them with a decent drink of water.

HOME Scheme Mrs SHELDON: In directing a question to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government, I refer to financial problems facing hundreds of New South Wales residents who have taken out loans with a scheme similar to the HOME scheme which operates in Queensland, and I ask: is it not a fact that the architect of the New South Wales scheme was a Mr Richard Persson, the director-general of the Minister’s department, who has implemented a similar scheme in Queensland? What are the critical differences between the scheme established by Mr Persson in Queensland and the one established by him in New South Wales which ensures that unsuspecting Queenslanders will not suffer in the same manner as their New South Wales counterparts have? Mr BURNS: I thank the honourable member for the question. I should call her “Dorothy”, because I have been waiting for this question for a couple of weeks. Firstly, the allegations that are coming from Mrs Sheldon and others in the Liberal Party about the HOME scheme are based on the accusation that this Government kept the scheme a secret and never told anybody. We produced pamphlets that we handed out to people in this State. Mr Littleproud: That’s not right. Mr BURNS: Yes, it is. We handed out pamphlets to everybody. Mr Littleproud: No-one’s ever received them. Mr BURNS: Mrs Sheldon did. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BURNS: An article in the Courier-Mail states— “A State Government home loan scheme was a debt-trap with repayments which increased dramatically after 10 years. . . . Liberal Deputy Leader Mr David Watson slammed the Government for not telling home buyers of a 6 percent increase in repayments under HOME.” That report appeared in the Courier-Mail, as I said, and members of the Liberal Party said that the scheme was a secret. I have the brochure in my possession and I wish to read it to honourable members. I have it with me so that I can read it and, in fact, it will probably take me the 52 minutes for which I asked yesterday to read all of it. The brochure states— “Your monthly repayments will be 27% of the income which was used to calculate your loan. Repayments will increase by 6% each year on the anniversary of your loan. . . . What Is Meant By Permanent Income? The loan is based on permanent or sustainable income, generally not including family allowance, maintenance or overtime. For example, if you are a two income family and you think you will only have one income in the future you should base your loan on that one future income. If both incomes will be continuing, you may borrow the maximum available using the combined incomes. You should think carefully about this because repayments on the loan increase by 6% per year. 4966 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

There is no provision to lower repayments under this scheme if you borrow to your maximum capacity.” Most members of this Parliament have written to me stating, “You’re too slow.” The former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Cooper, said that it is a good scheme but he also said that it was too slow. He made that statement which is recorded in Hansard. I can locate the relevant copy of Hansard for the honourable member. Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order 70, which speaks of the relevance of the answer to the question. My question was: what are the critical differences between the New South Wales scheme and the Queensland scheme, and it did not ask for a debate on the program set out in the brochure. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BURNS: I am defending the HOME scheme which is under attack. The question was about the HOME scheme. Let me also say that people who are involved in the scheme are then sent a document containing questions and answers. Under the heading “Shopping around for finance”, the document states— “There is probably no such thing as the ‘best’ home loan. Different types of loans suit some people better than others. H.O.M.E. Loans are designed to be more suitable for those who have insufficient deposit or cannot borrow enough from a bank or building society. H.O.M.E. is not meant to compete directly with these vendors. The best advice is for you to shop around and see what else is available.” Mr BEANLAND: I rise to a point of order. I refer to Standing Order 70, which refers to the relevance of answers. I do not believe that the speech being made by the Minister relates to the question that was asked. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BURNS: I turn now to the difference between the New South Wales scheme and the Queensland scheme. In New South Wales, the Liberal Party contracted out the scheme to cooperatives to sell loans. The greater the number of loans, the more money was made by the contractor. In New South Wales, there were cooperatives that were lending to people without any concern for what the borrower would end up paying. The Goss Labor Government’s scheme has been praised by the entire real estate industry, the building industry and people in the home loans industry. It is not designed to compete with other financial institutions in the market. When the department has a home buyers’ night, every bank and building society is invited to join in and the department says, “When all else fails, come to HOME. Try the others first.” We do not have any penalty, either. When people want to leave the scheme, they can do so without penalty, but some other schemes impose a three months’ interest payment penalty. In some cases, people pay up to $3,000 as a penalty, but there is no penalty under the Queensland scheme. The Government assists people to get out of the scheme if that is what they want to do. In New South Wales, if the repayment was due on the 20th day of the month interest was not credited until the 30th day of the month, and there was a benefit to the Liberal Government of 10 interest-bearing days on every account. That was the New South Wales Liberal Government’s scheme. That is the scheme for which Mrs Sheldon should take the credit. Under the scheme, cooperatives were out to make a quid, or a profit. However, because of the large number of safety nets built into this Goss Government’s scheme, we have only had to sell up one person—one only. The Government did not set out to do what the New South Wales scheme did. New South Wales is lending $1,500m a year. At one stage or another, each and every honourable member has asked me to bump people up the list, to speed up the process. All the industries do the same. Throughout the Treasurer and the Premier, the Government has said, “Maintain the loans tough.” The Government is tough. It sends more people away and receives more complaints about knocking people back than it grants approvals. Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4967

The scheme is still good. It is fixed interest and low start. It is true to say that people start paying low. For the first couple of years, they may not even repay the interest repayments on the loan. They are told that up front. Anyone can ask for those details. My department will draw up the payments for 10 years, because the loans are at fixed interest for only 10 years. One cannot predict what the inflation rate or the interest rate will be when people renegotiate their loans. However, in his document, Dr Watson can say that inflation will be 2 per cent for the next 18 years. Who could ever predict that? Members should think back to what the interest rates and the inflation rates were 18 years ago. When I referred to economic wankers, there is one up there—a real economic wanker.

HOME Scheme Mrs SHELDON: Obviously, there is no difference between the New South Wales scheme and the Queensland one. I direct a question to the Deputy Premier—— Mr Hamill: You’re on the way out and we aren’t. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mrs SHELDON: If I may, Mr Hamill. In directing a question to the Deputy Premier, I refer to a schedule of payments given to a young couple on the Sunshine Coast, which they had to request—and which I now table—that outlines repayments under the Government’s HOME scheme for a loan of $69,000. As the schedule shows clearly—— Mr Elder: Come on knocker! Mrs SHELDON: Listen, Mr Elder. As the schedule shows clearly, after 10 years of repayments the amount of the loan has increased by $8,000 and the monthly repayments have almost doubled. I ask: will the Minister suspend the granting of all new HOME loans until there is a full investigation of that prima facie case of loan-sharking? Mr BURNS: A lady who represents the Liberal Party that is now in diabolical trouble in New South Wales for loan-sharking should be ashamed to raise her head in this place to talk about the HOME scheme. I explained it to her before and I will go very steadily through it again. The fixed interest scheme is 10 years and the interest is fixed for 10 years. The pamphlet states— “For example, if your income is $500 per week, you can borrow up to $76,000 (based on the interest rate of 12.9 per cent).” That rate is now 12.4 per cent, and the increase in repayments is 4 per cent a year. The pamphlet states— “Your repayments will be: Year 1 $135 per week Year 2 $143 per week Year 3 $152 per week”. Those people can have the figures for 10 years. If they ask for the figures for 20 years, we will try to predict them. However, one cannot predict the interest rates for the next 10 years, let alone 20 years. The honourable member should think back to what interest rates were 10 years ago, or even two years ago, and try to predict interest rates. Then my department is expected to predict inflation. Dr Watson said that inflation will stay at 2 per cent for 18 years and, as a result of that, people will be paying back half of their income. The department gives people as much information as it can, but it is not in the magical habit of writing academic-wanking documents. The Government is in the process of trying to help people. The instruction I give to my department is, “Do not lend money if the people cannot make the repayments.” 4968 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Green Island Resort Mr PITT: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the announcement in last week’s economic statement, Queensland—Leading State, of the $30m project to upgrade the Green Island resort near Cairns, and I ask: can he outline the benefits of that project to the tourism industry in the Cairns region and far-north Queensland in general? Mr W. K. GOSS: It is an important and worthwhile project for north Queensland and, in particular, the tourism industry. Last Thursday afternoon, I had the opportunity to inspect Green Island for a brief period, and it really is in a fairly sorry and dilapidated state—a state quite unsuitable for a first-class tourist destination. It needs an upgrade. That $30m upgrade is important in two senses. Firstly, it is $30m, or a bit more, worth of development and jobs for the Cairns region, which I am sure will be welcomed. Secondly, it will restore Green Island to the position of being a quality tourist destination, something that it has clearly lost in recent times. There are additional benefits. For a start, as a result of the negotiations with the company involved, the Government has secured the surrender of a certain part of the lease. Thus, the national park on Green Island will be expanded by about 15 per cent to 8 hectares. In addition to that, an announcement was made by Daikyo and Thiess Contractors that Thiess Contractors would come into the operation on an equity basis. It is pleasing to see a long and well established Queensland company becoming involved in a partnership with a foreign investor. That is something that will be generally welcomed in Queensland and in the Cairns region. The sum of money that is being spent is substantial. However, it will not just result in first-class tourist facilities. Some of the infrastructure badly needs to be upgraded, too. I refer in particular to the tertiary sewage treatment facilities, on which a considerable amount of money will be spent. That will result in much greater protection to surrounding reefs, which have been the subject of some degradation in recent times from the previous sewage discharge arrangements. Furthermore, a management plan, negotiated between the company and the Government, will be put in place to maintain the quality of the environment on Green Island. That is a very positive feature of the preparedness of the two companies to maintain the quality of the environment and to adopt a responsible approach. All round, it is a very positive initiative and a very positive development not only for the Cairns tourism industry but also for the Cairns economy generally.

North Coast Line Mr PITT: In directing a question to the Minister for Transport, I refer to claims by the member for Hinchinbrook that he was excluded from a meeting of railworkers in Innisfail and that the North Coast Line was not being maintained, and I ask: are those claims accurate, and what is the state of the North Coast Line between Townsville and Cairns? Mr HAMILL: Yesterday in the House, I had the pleasure of recounting how this Government is overseeing the rebuilding of the long-distance passenger trains in Queensland and the fact that we have programmed for refurbishing the Sunlander and the Midlander. Already we have relaunched the Queenslander, which I consider to be a very successful move and a very positive contribution to tourism in this State. In what I consider to be one of the lowest acts of political sabotage that I have seen in a long time, a couple of days before the Queenslander set course for Cairns, the member for Hinchinbrook, the member who used to be the shadow Minister for “tropical fruit” in this place, hopped out and claimed that the North Coast Line between Townsville and Cairns was unsafe. He said that he was expecting a major derailment on that line. One thing that is absolutely inviolable within Queensland Rail is the fact that safety is of foremost concern. Indeed, supervisors inspect that section of track between Townsville and Cairns four times a week. In fact, there are further monthly inspections. The track recording car goes over that section to ensure the safety of that track. In the last two years, in what has been the major reconstruction project in this State for a very long Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4969 time, two out of every five sleepers on that section of track between Townsville and Cairns have been replaced. Yet the member for Hinchinbrook had the temerity to go public and claim that the track was unsafe, that he expected a derailment and that this Government was neglecting its responsibility to the travelling public of Queensland in not maintaining the track. I ordered an immediate inspection of that track. The report that came back to me allowed me to give the assurance that that track was absolutely safe. Indeed, I gave that public assurance and the chief executive of Queensland Rail gave that public assurance. The general manager for infrastructure in Queensland Rail gave that assurance. But that was not good enough for the member for Hinchinbrook. It was only at a meeting attended by a large number of railway workers in Innisfail that the member for Hinchinbrook met his match. When he got up and made these false allegations in front of that crowd of people, he was not content with the assurance given by me, the chief executive or the general manager of infrastructure. At that meeting, Mr Bill English, a gentleman who had worked for 19 years on that track, got up and said, “I am sick and tired of people who don’t know what they are talking about going public and questioning my competence. I don’t care about the politics of the situation. I have worked on this track all my life.” As Mr English said at that meeting, that track is in better condition today than it was at any time in the last five years. It is little wonder that I told the honourable member for Hinchinbrook to sit down and shut up because I was concerned about his reputation. He was embarrassing himself at that meeting, which took place on 14 April. However, that just added insult to injury, because on 13 April a facsimile request came to my office from the member for Hinchinbrook demanding that he be able to participate in the meeting. In that facsimile, he said— “As the elected representative of an electorate in the region, I believe I am entitled to participate in the issues raised.” Without hesitation, I acceded to that request because I believe that this Government has a very proud record in rail reform. We are showing how to rebuild railways in this State, how to give confidence to the railway system and how to invest in the railway system, and the proof of the pudding can be seen in our performance. Obviously, the experience of the member for Hinchinbrook at that meeting was of acute embarrassment to him, because not only did he have to sit down and shut up at the meeting but also a week later he was quoted in an article in the Innisfail Advocate as saying that he was angry because he had been snubbed and had not been allowed to attend. If I was embarrassed in the way that he was, I would not like to remember it, either. Mr ROWELL: The Minister for Transport is misleading this Parliament. Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is question time.

Use of Rail Passes by Pensioners Mr STEPHAN: I refer the Minister for Transport to the Government’s decision to alter the ability of pensioners to use their rail passes on rail travel for selected destinations, and I ask: why have pensioners travelling to and from centres which are considered to be a part of the metropolitan area—for example, Gympie—been informed that their forward and return journeys must be completed in one day? If the tickets are being used on more than one occasion, as has been claimed, why are the tickets not punched on inspection? Mr HAMILL: This Government has extended a wide range of benefits to pensioners in this State through the introduction of the Seniors Card, which has been a very significant innovation and a recognition of the contribution that the senior citizens of Queensland have made to the development of this State. One of the very important benefits of the Seniors Card is that it entitles a pensioner to two economy trips per year on Queensland Rail which can be converted to a first-class ticket. As well as that, on the urban rail service, pensioners can obtain a 50 per cent discount on travel. That is a much better range of benefits than existed previously, a range of benefits of which we are 4970 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly very proud and a range of benefits which the pensioners of this State greatly appreciate.

Police Foot Patrols in Fortitude Valley Mr BEATTIE: I direct a question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Following crime problems, in 1991 the Queensland Police Service began foot patrols in Fortitude Valley. Can the Minister advise the House how successful these patrols have been and whether crime has been reduced in the Fortitude Valley area? Mr WARBURTON: I thank the honourable member for that question. I would also like to thank him for bringing a number of those important issues before me. With the assistance of senior police officers, we have been able to deal with them very effectively. It has been decided to proceed with the pooling of police resources in the Fortitude Valley and nearby police divisions. This means that, from 8 June this year, we will see a substantial increase in the number of motorised and beat patrols. This decision was reached at a meeting of senior police officers only one week ago. I have met with representatives of the Valley business community and they are exceptionally pleased with what has occurred. As a matter of fact, only last night a number of police officers attended a meeting and one police officer has been appointed specifically as a liaison officer between the business community and the Police Service. I am confident that this proposed cluster scheme—which is similar to the one that is already successfully working from the Toowong area—and the beat patrols in Fortitude Valley will provide an increased and very highly visible police presence in that area, which includes the Brunswick Street and Chinatown Malls. It is anticipated that these steps are going to have two very desirable effects. One is the detection of crime in that area, which has not been good over a long period of time. The second effect is, of course, the prevention of crime. Some other very positive moves are being made, and I shall advise the honourable member about them. One is the establishment of a Juvenile Aid Bureau at the Fortitude Valley Police Station. Some detectives were transferred from that station at the time of the opening of the North Brisbane regional centre at Boondall. A number of those detectives will return to the Fortitude Valley Police Station. I am pleased that the honourable member has kept me well advised as to the difficulties of policing in the Valley area. I can assure the honourable member that the representatives of the Valley business houses are very pleased with the progress of the new schemes.

Public Housing Mr BEATTIE: My second question is directed to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government, who has spent a considerable amount of time and energy working towards improving the standard of public housing in Queensland. I ask: is Green Street housing planned for Brisbane’s inner suburbs? What programs are in place for improving the standards of public housing generally and, in particular, those being occupied by pensioners and senior citizens? Mr BURNS: I thank the honourable member for Brisbane Central for his question. He is one of the members of my legislative committee. It is true to say that, as a result of 32 years of neglect by the previous Government, the department has faced a major problem in trying to overcome the backlog in maintenance and to improve the standards of inner-city housing for people. The problem is that a large number of public-sector houses are situated at Kingston, Woodridge and Caboolture, and very few are in the inner-city area itself. The feeling has been generated, to a large extent by the Liberal Party, that people should not buy private houses in those areas because the public housing downgrades the value of their properties and the tenants are somewhat second rate, which is not true. As a result, the department has had to do a number of things, one of which has been to hire a number of architects from private enterprise. It has encouraged those architects to provide new designs not only for the houses but for the landscaping and the grounds themselves. A structure at Bromley Street, Kangaroo Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4971

Point, is worth seeing. It has been entered in an Australian architectural competition, and I think it will probably win its category. It is a set of four flats in an inner-suburban area. The structure does not look like the average six-pack. It is very well designed. There is privacy for each of the residents. This Government has spent a considerable amount of time in trying to establish that structure at a price that does not send it broke. There is not much value in spending too much money on land in town if land can be purchased very cheaply 30 miles out of town. In the inner city we must get value for money. Amcord is a good example to follow. The Amcord and Green Street arrangements provide for smaller blocks, longer frontages, smaller backyards and a house that takes up most of the yard. Under those arrangements, a number of private enterprise people are starting to become involved. The department is implementing the schemes in most inner-city areas. It has purchased a considerable area of land at Spring Hill, Windsor, Merthyr and suburbs such as that to try to upgrade its housing. The department has spent about $13m on car tracks, painting, and new security screens, especially for pensioners. We cannot allow pensioners to live in houses, and in ground-floor flats in particular, without a security screen on the front and back doors so that the doors can be left open in the hot weather to let a bit of breeze blow through the house or flat. It is too dangerous to do that without security screens. We have provided air-conditioning in public-sector houses in the west. In many houses we have also provided new kitchens, bathrooms and vinyl floors, and cupboards in some of the bedrooms—a general upgrading. Other measures, such as the provision of new fencing and security lighting, have been taken. Most people find, as they get older, that they become more concerned about their security. As a result of a lack of policy direction from the top under the Government, some of the houses have been badly neglected and badly maintained. As a result, the honourable member for Brisbane Central and the members on my committee have visited Western Australia and South Australia to look at what is happening there. I believe that as a result of the work of the committee, the department is now providing for its tenants a better home in a better location, and at an economical price.

Water Supply in Mackay Region Mr RANDELL: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries: is he aware of the great hardships being suffered by farmers and others in the Mackay region because of the lack of a major water supply at the top of the Pioneer Valley? I remind the Minister that he took steps to stop the building of the Finch Hatton dam, which, at this time, would have been storing water and would have carried the valley through the current disastrous season. An environmental excuse was given at the time. Such an excuse, according to the report that I have read on water resources in the Pioneer Valley, is not valid. The Minister indicated that the Teemburra Creek dam is being investigated as an alternative site for water storage, and I am told that it will be at least four years before any of that water is flowing. I ask: is that timetable correct? Are the reports in the Daily Mercury of 28 April of a uranium deposit in the region of the site correct? Can the Minister assure this House and the canegrowers of the valley that the Teemburra Creek dam will not be rejected because of any environmental impact that the uranium deposit could have. Mr CASEY: The honourable member’s question is a good one in the sense that it will allow me to dispel a myth that prevailed in the Pioneer Valley and other areas of Queensland about the progress that the former National/Liberal Party and National Party Governments in this State were making in regard to water supplies. At the moment, the basic requirement for the whole of the Mackay valley is a decent water supply. So far this year, records and stream flows have indicated the lowest run-off since 1916. Last year, that river system experienced a record run-off. With the huge variations in the run- off from the major stream sources throughout the length and breadth of Queensland, one would think that previous Governments would have done something in an endeavour to ensure adequate storage, thus enabling an averaging of those particular 4972 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly supplies. However, the former Government, which now sits in Opposition and attempts to criticise everything in this State, did very, very little indeed. Some years ago, the previous Government, as part of a study of the Pioneer Valley, instituted the Finch Hatton Gorge creek scheme. When the Labor Party took office in December 1989, I conducted a thorough search of the records of the Water Resources Commission, and I could find no commitment whatsoever from the previous Government to go ahead with the construction of a water storage facility in Finch Hatton Gorge. I repeat that there was no commitment and no Cabinet decision from the previous Government in regard to that work. Yet the honourable member for Mirani and other members of the National Party try to indicate to the people of the Pioneer Valley that they were doing something about the project. They did absolutely nothing. Mr Milliner: They were “gonnas”. Mr CASEY: “Gonnas”, that is what they are. They were “gonna” join the artillery. They were “gonna” do this and they were “gonna” do that. They did absolutely nothing except deceive the people of the Pioneer Valley. This Government confronted the problem in the Pioneer Valley straightaway and undertook a study of the water resources of the valley. That study covered the irrigation requirements of the valley, its future industrial requirements, and the urban requirements of the members of the community in the valley, the City of Mackay and the Shire of Pioneer. That study also took into account environmental issues, which is something that the previous Government had not done. Once the results of that study became known, this Government adopted the recommendation that Teemburra Creek was the preferred option for the future because it could service all parts of the Pioneer Valley, not just the upper reaches. Yet members of the previous Government, including Mr Randell, still talk about Teemburra Creek’s small storage capacity. Nobody in this House, apart from the member for Mirani, is foolish enough to expect that, following the decision regarding the preferred option, a dam will be built overnight. It takes time. It is a major storage area. First and foremost, an assessment must be made of the water requirements of each and every farmer in the Pioneer Valley. An assessment of the future water supply requirements of the Pioneer Valley must also be made. Those are the types of things that have to be done. Last year, under this Government, those assessments commenced immediately after I made the announcement. Further studies are now being undertaken. Once those assessments have been completed, the results will be made known to members of the community so that the scheme can be explained to them. They will also have explained to them the cost of the scheme as it relates to the sugar industry. The package will then be formulated, construction can begin, and the dam will get under way.

Brisbane Freight Study Mrs EDMOND: I direct a question to the Minister for Transport. The Minister is aware of my concerns regarding heavy traffic through suburban streets in the western suburbs. I ask: could he please inform the House of the details of the Brisbane freight study being undertaken by the Department of Transport? Mr HAMILL: Over a period, a number of traffic studies have been undertaken in Brisbane and the surrounding areas of south-east Queensland. Those studies have highlighted the need to consider the movement of heavy vehicles through urban areas. For that reason, the Department of Transport—in conjunction with the Brisbane City Council, the Logan City Council, the Pine Rivers Shire Council and the Ipswich City Council—is studying the movement of heavy vehicles in urban areas in the core section of south-east Queensland. The study will consider the placement of industrial areas and the generation of commercial and industrial traffic in the region. It will consider solutions to the impact that that traffic has upon the enjoyment of suburban areas by residents. It is becoming a very important issue in terms of noise pollution, air pollution and road safety. Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4973

Of course, the member for Mount Coot-tha has been very heavily involved in such issues as they relate to her electorate. As a result of decisions made by previous Governments, those roads that collectively became known as Route 20 were earmarked by previous Governments and, indeed, by the previous Brisbane City Council administration as the major route for heavy industrial traffic through the western suburbs of Brisbane. I believe that that action was totally inappropriate, given the closely settled suburban areas adjoining that particular route. That decision has highlighted the need for a closer examination of freight movements, given the rapid population growth and commercial growth of south-east Queensland. It follows on from extensive studies undertaken by the Transport Department regarding the movement of dangerous goods around the Brisbane area. I look forward to making some announcements in the near future regarding the outcome of that work which will not only lead to an improvement in road safety but also to the enjoyment of those suburbs by the people of Brisbane.

Rosalie House Mrs EDMOND: In directing a question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I refer to the concern that has been expressed in the community regarding planning applications and work currently being done on the old police residence at 118 Fernberg Road. Can the Minister explain the purpose of this work? Mr WARBURTON: The project to which the honourable member refers is very interesting and worth while. I recognise the dedication of the members of the committee that has put so much effort into the project. That committee is known as the Community Support for Police Committee. Rosalie House, as it will be known, is a refuge, a place where police officers who are facing difficulties and their families can go. The refuge is the idea of a former police chaplain, Father Wal Ogle. He suggested that the old police residence should be a site where the police chaplaincy could provide important counselling facilities. The Government has allocated approximately $30,000 for the refurbishment of Rosalie House. It will be a very important program for the Police Service. Queensland is the first State to have an extensive network of counsellors who work closely with police chaplains, police welfare officers, doctors and psychologists—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook) (3.52 p.m.), by leave: My personal explanation relates to a matter raised by the Minister for Transport. As the Minister indicated, on 13 April I issued a press statement. That statement was issued in good faith. I also faxed a message to the Minister’s office. In accordance with that message, I received permission to attend the meeting the following day. I then informed the editor of the Innisfail Advocate of that permission. However, some seven to ten days later he subsequently issued the statement that appeared in that newspaper. I assure members that at that time the editor of the Innisfail Advocate was well aware that I was allowed to attend that meeting. In fact, he attended the meeting, as the Minister would recall. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member must state how he has been personally affected or misrepresented. Mr ROWELL: That is what I am getting to. In accordance with a question that was asked of him, the Minister issued a statement about my claim that there were some problems with the railway line. Mr Hamill: Yes, you did, and you were wrong. Mr ROWELL: Yes, I certainly did. I did that, because the report from Queensland Rail stated that, of 458 test locations, 148 had greater than 10 per cent of their sleepers condemned, and the highest percentage of sleepers condemned was 59 per cent. That is why, prior to that meeting, I issued the press release concerning the safeness of the 4974 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly track. I wish to table that document, because it shows clearly that there were problems with the track. Mr Speaker, do I have your permission to table that document? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is granted for the member to table that document.

MATTER OF SPECIAL PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Goods and Services Tax Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise the House that I have received a proposal for a Special Public Importance debate pursuant to the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 16 July 1991. The proposal submitted by the Honourable the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs is for a debate on the following matter— “This House notes with alarm the findings of a Women’s Electoral Lobby survey on the impact of the proposed Goods and Services Tax on household shopping items and calls on the Queensland National and Liberal parties to withdraw support for this iniquitous and cruel quality proposal.” I now call the member for Springwood to speak to the proposal. Ms ROBSON (Springwood) (3.55 p.m.): The results of the recent survey carried out by the Women’s Electoral Lobby—WEL—in Brisbane clearly indicate to me just how outdated and fraudulent is the proposed Hewson Fightback package. That WEL survey, which was conducted over a five-week period and covered some 499 household items, including food and appliances, clearly indicates and documents that, of the 499 items surveyed, 454 would increase in price. So only 45 of those items would remain at the same price or, in fact, become cheaper. This information serves to support the views of many informed people in our community that the proposed addition of a 15 per cent goods and services tax on consumer spending will only exacerbate the dire financial straits in which people currently find themselves. This notion of reducing a range of taxes and charges to compensate and offset the GST is sheer nonsense. For instance, the Liberals promise up to 40 per cent cut in personal tax, but one must be earning a reasonably high level of income in order to benefit. The approach is Robin Hood in reverse; it takes from the middle and lower income earners and gives to the rich, Ferrari-driving set. The reality is that the GST would add 15 per cent to the cost of everything bought by consumers. There is no guarantee that it would stay at 15 per cent. In the United Kingdom, the rate of GST increased from 10 per cent to 17.5 per cent, and in New Zealand, from 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent. Every country in the world that has introduced a GST or its equivalent has increased the rate. Fightback will do nothing for consumers who are on low or middle incomes—those whose expendable income levels are low. We are talking about expendable income and the GST. It will do absolutely nothing to create jobs or fix this ailing economy. If a person spends all his money making sure that his family survives, he will pay more tax than those who can afford to save. Everyone will have to pay GST on every purchase made, regardless of his or her ability to pay. The whole Fightback package is based on outdated, rejected models of economic and social reforms. These reforms ignore women’s relationship to the economy and strike a body blow at all women as consumers and in the job market. Women tend to be overrepresented in the lower income brackets and in part-time employment. For many, the promised personal income tax cuts will leave them financially disadvantaged when offset against the price rises associated with the GST. Sole-parent families on low incomes will be in big trouble, as will single-income families with two parents. I shall illustrate a case history that was carefully put together. I will call the people involved in that case the Smiths. Mr Smith is a Liberal supporter, but his wife is not a Liberal supporter. In fact, she is a Labor supporter. He is quite supportive in the initial stages of this proposed GST package, but after having worked it through and thought it Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4975 through, he is starting to have doubts about it. He is surprised that a family such as theirs, with two children, on $41,000 a year has been classified as well off. He says, “My expectation is that $41,000 certainly isn’t enough to do the type of things that we would like to do.” If the GST is implemented, because of the lower tax scales and increased spouse rebate the Smiths will have an extra $3,005 a year, or $58 a week to spend. But after calculating the impact that the 15 per cent consumption tax will have on the regular family shopping consisting of groceries, meat, fruit and vegetables, much of that increased pay packet will dwindle. There will be even less left after calculating its impact on other incidental but inevitable items such as pharmaceuticals, doctors’ bills, children’s toys and clothes, entertainment, utilities charges, veterinarians’ bills and the occasional meal at McDonald’s. In this case, the wife is disappointed that what was supposed to be a generous addition to the family allowance turned out to be just over $1 per child per week. I am talking about a two-child family. They will save about $5 a week in petrol, but the wife says that this will be dissipated through the increased maintenance costs of their five- year-old vehicle. “I think that the average Liberal voter will be frightened”, she said. “They will see the extra cash in the pay packet but they will see the cash in hand dwindle very quickly.” The couple’s wish to have more children means that they will have to move from their terrace house, which has been valued recently at about $270,000. Any sale would mean paying increased real estate agent’s fees and solicitor’s fees. Most items related to babies, such as cots, food and clothes, will be more expensive under the GST. Joanna said, “Mr Hewson says he wants to re-establish values economic and social—but it doesn’t sound as if I’ll be able to stay home and look after my children under a GST.” However, Mr Smith, the husband, has some hope. He believes the Hewson package will benefit his family more as his income rises. The GST will make a big dent in the disposable income of low wage families and, because it is women who perform the financial balancing act of putting food on the table and shoes on the children’s feet, it is the women who will feel the brunt of the attack. We know for a fact that there is still a large percentage of families in which men who are the sole income earners keep tight control of the purse strings. For many women, the reality of the coalition tax package will be that their partners will get the benefit of the tax cuts and it will not be passed on to them in the household budget. The promise of relief from fuel excise may bring relief for the drivers of petrol-hungry cars, but it remains to be seen whether that relief will be passed on in the form of reduced fares for the users of public transport. On the subject of housing, I point out that women and low income earners will also feel the pinch. Domestic rents will not be subject to GST. All the goods and services which landlords input into rental properties will be hit. Will the landlords bear that cost themselves or will they pass it on to the tenants? Mr Ardill interjected. Ms ROBSON: Of course they will not, as the honourable member for Salisbury accurately points out. The Australian Taxpayers Association has commented that house purchase costs will rise. Anyone borrowing $60,000 for a home purchase now would, under this package, have to borrow $82,500 to buy the same property. Women, through low incomes and lack of equity, have always found it exceptionally hard to borrow money. This package will just make it harder. Increases in tax relief on savings will not make a jot of difference to those people. They simply do not have any savings and they will not be able to save under this system. The excellent research carried out by the Women’s Electoral Lobby clearly and realistically illustrates the impact of the Liberal proposals. They are a disaster waiting to happen and, as far as I am concerned, “They ain’t never going to happen.” I was amused to read a recent debate in Federal Hansard, when Mr Willis discussed the inadequacy and inappropriateness of a basket of consumer goods chosen by the Liberal Opposition to demonstrate how little impact in real terms the GST would have. Mr Willis, who was then Federal Treasurer, said— “Why does this basket that the Leader of the Opposition thinks is so typical only cost 4.8 per cent more? The basket seems to be very heavy in some areas. It 4976 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

is extremely heavy in pet food—it contains seven kilos of pet food. The dog and the cat are going to be all right. This is also a household that is very clean. It has masses of cleaning products: disinfectant, dishwashing liquid, stain remover, starch, laundry detergent, household cleaning spray, toilet cleaner and bleach.” Mr Elder: They will be clean cats and dogs. Ms ROBSON: They will be clean cats and dogs internally. Mr Willis continued— “The householders are strong not only on keeping the house clean, but on keeping themselves clean. . . . This basket contains tissues, toilet rolls, toilet soap, toothpaste, shampoo, conditioner and baby powder. But all of these cleaning items and the pet food carry wholesale sales tax. So the Opposition has chosen a very heavy loading of items that carry a wholesale sales tax. Of course, the difference between the goods and services tax and the items carrying the wholesale sales tax is going to be much less than if there is no such wholesale sales tax applying to an item. . . . The message of all of this is: if you want to survive under the goods and services tax, you will have to learn how to eat Pal and drink Harpic.” I find myself in complete agreement with Mr Willis. I again congratulate WEL on its constructive and sensible survey, and on behalf of millions of Queensland consumers who are trying to distil some sanity out of all of the misinformation that the Liberal Party keeps churning out about the GST, I thank it. Mr SLACK (Burnett) (4.04 p.m.): To begin with, we should look at the topic before the House. It reads— “This House notes, with alarm, the findings of a Women’s Electoral Lobby survey on the impact of the proposed Goods and Services Tax on household shopping items, and calls on the Queensland National and Liberal Parties to withdraw support for this iniquitous and cruel policy proposal.” The first question that we have to ask ourselves is: why has the Government put forward a Federal issue for debate when there are so many State issues that this House should be debating before we branch off into the Federal arena? The Minister could name several within her own portfolio, I am sure. Secondly, having ventured into the Federal field, one would have expected that the topic would be at least credible. Surely, if the Parliament was going to debate the proposed goods and services tax, one would have expected the topic to be Fightback versus One Nation rather than some statement of very questionable validity that pertains to only one aspect of the Fightback package. It is deliberately misleading and deceitful to take one aspect of a total package without putting it in context. Mrs Woodgate: Why? Mr SLACK: If the honourable member will listen, I will explain it. But, worse than that, it is totally irresponsible to draw conclusions from findings of a so-called Women’s Electoral Lobby survey without having verified the authenticity of the findings. I ask the members opposite if they have done their own survey and balanced the effect of the proposed abolition of all wholesale sales tax, fuel excise duty and payroll tax. Are they prepared to state, in this House, that the findings and conclusions of the Women’s Electoral Lobby survey are correct taking into consideration the fuel excise duty, payroll tax and sales tax exemptions in toto? The Opposition says that it is not! If, as we claim, the figures are misleading, then we have to question the objectivity of the Women’s Electoral Lobby and ask whether it is a propaganda outlet for the Labor Government. The Women’s Electoral Lobby claim of a 10 to 15 per cent rise in the prices of household goods, following the introduction of a goods and services tax, conveniently overlooks the cost savings generated by the abolition of petrol excise and payroll tax. This destroys the validity of the survey and clearly demonstrates the lack of objectivity attached to such surveys. Unfortunately, it is this type of simplistic approach that is Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4977 being peddled by the Government that misleads people about the Fightback package. The simple fact is that even the Federal Government’s own assessment of the coalition Fightback shows that the effect of abolishing both petrol excise and payroll tax would mean a reduction in consumer prices of at least 3.2 per cent. Having demonstrated a major flaw in the assessment, we must then question the credence of the figures produced. Another calculation, based on the independent compilation of shopping items published every week in the Courier-Mail’s “Checkout” feature, reveals that by abolishing wholesale sales tax the cost of the basket of goods would rise by only $2.51, or 6 per cent, after the application of a 15 per cent goods and services tax. Other calculations based on similar baskets have estimated the cost increase at only 4 per cent. After adding the 3.2 per cent benefit of the abolition of the fuel excise and payroll tax, honourable members can see that we have a topic before us today, the basis of which has been completely discredited. As I said, the real issue, and what the public have to judge, is the Opposition’s Fightback package, and Mr Keating’s belated, questionable One Nation document. Suffice to say that Mr Keating has been in office, either as Prime Minister or Treasurer, for 9, approaching 10, years. During that time, we have seen the Australian economy plunged into the worst recession/depression since the Great Depression. I do not need to tell honourable members in this House that the Australian public can only judge a Government on its performance, and it is on that performance that the Australian public will judge this Keating Government at the next election. The Australian public will not be misled by rhetoric that suits the occasion, or shonky survey figures. The facts are that during the period of stewardship of this Federal Labor Government, we have the only recession/depression deliberately engendered by a Government. Remember the words: the recession we had to have. There is record unemployment. Almost a million Australians are unemployed—and the figure would be much worse if the people who are at TAFE, university and wherever were included in the figures. So, when compared to the figures in the Great Depression, it is not a comparison on a like with like basis. It is the worst situation since the Great Depression, and under a Labor Government. What makes it so much worse is the hopeless position in which so many of our youth, our future generation, find themselves. Record numbers of businesses have gone broke. Crime, domestic violence and youth homelessness are all escalating—and the Minister would be well aware of that. The primary production sector is on its knees with cheap, often low quality, imports flooding the country. Our net foreign debt has gone up from $28 billion to well over $130 billion in those 9 to 10 years. Our balance of payments deficit is still in the order of $900m. I remember when it was $600m—no doubt the members of this House remember also—and I remember the then Treasurer, Paul Keating, saying that the J-curve was going to work. Every time it came in a little higher, he would say, “Don’t worry, fellas. The J-curve is going to work. We are going to have to wait.” Then, of course, when it got to nearly $2 billion, the excuse was that it was within the range of market expectations. He did not say, “It might be a little bit higher; forget about the J-curve, it does not matter any more; there are different circumstances.” He did not say to forget about the J-curve; he just conveniently forgot to mention it. Members opposite support a Prime Minister who has absolutely no credibility, and neither does his One Nation statement. Every economist’s assessment that I have read claims that it is based on an unachievable growth factor, and it is therefore fundamentally flawed. In comparison, the Fightback package has wide support with the economic and business community and the National Farmers Federation, because it is realised that Keating’s policies have led this country to disaster, and the measures contained in the Fightback package are the only chance this country has of getting back on the rails. The Labor Government talks about costs, and has embarked on a deliberate campaign to frighten and scare people, but do the members opposite—the good Labor people that they are—realise that since Paul Keating has been in charge of Australia’s finances, our grocery prices have almost doubled; inflation has gone up 75 per cent; and 4978 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly the Federal Labor Government now collects more than twice as much personal income tax, three times as much sales tax and five times as much petrol tax as it did in 1983? It has always been a contention of mine that workers have never been worse off than they are under a Labor Government, and the figures and experience of the last 10 years only confirm that. A Government member interjected. Mr SLACK: The honourable member might interject, but that is true. The past 10 years for the economy in this country have been an absolute disaster, and the honourable member must admit that. She knows it is right, but she is not prepared to admit it. Another contention of mine is that Labor people are not managers, they do not come from that background and, there again, the events of the last 10 years only confirm that. We should have known. Look at the history. We witnessed the great success of the ACTU President Bob Hawke’s ventures into the business world with the ACTU petrol, the Solo issue, and Bourkes in Melbourne. Both ventures were failures, as is this Federal Government. The member for Springwood mentioned New Zealand and claimed that the GST was a failure in New Zealand. It was introduced by a Labor Government in New Zealand. It was also supported by Paul Keating, the present Prime Minister. There are several quotes to justify my claim that he supported a goods and services tax, but it is not convenient now for him to support it because he was done over by some people within the Labor ranks. His own Prime Minister at the time did not support him. The situation then turned on him—he is the Prime Minister, and it is convenient for him not to support it. A package similar to the Fightback package was introduced in New Zealand by a Labor Government. I refer honourable members to the Australian dated 4 April 1992. This is contrary to what the member for Springwood says. It states— “New Zealand’s radical experiment in economic reform is finally starting to pay bankable dividends. There has been a remarkable improvement in the competitiveness of many New Zealand industries and a virtual revolution in its labour market. After a traumatic decade, business confidence is returning and the economy seems set to embark on a period of moderate but sustained export-led growth.” Mrs Bird: Who said it? Mr SLACK: Who said it? It states— “The fact that New Zealand has had a hard time of it in recent years should be no surprise. We are not, as many would have it in Australia, an experiment that failed.” That was said by Douglas Myers, chief executive of Lion Nathan. Mrs WOODGATE (Pine Rivers) (4.15 p.m.): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in this debate. For quite some time, I have been watching and listening with interest to the coalition partners in Canberra pushing their barrow uphill in an endeavour to sell to a disbelieving public their mistaken belief in the benefits of the goods and services tax—or, to use a sexist term which seems relevant to this debate—the mother of all taxes. As I pointed out in a speech I made in this Parliament last year, one does not need to be Einstein to work out that if a family receiving $16,000 per annum is paying an extra 15 per cent on its grocery bill of, say, $120 a week, including petrol for the family car, dog food, haircuts and one litre of milk a day—the list is endless—that family is very much more disadvantaged than a family earning $40,000 or $50,000 per year which is paying the same tax on its grocery bill, haircuts, petrol and one litre of milk a day. Each family will be hit with a tax of 15 per cent on all goods and services, but the family at the lower end of the salary scale will be left with a much smaller slice of the weekly pay packet than the family at the top end. It just does not make sense and it is just not fair. It was interesting to read the article in yesterday’s Courier-Mail headed “Warning on GST price rises” and the story of a massive consumer survey carried out in Brisbane by the Women’s Electoral Lobby which quite convincingly proved the devastating Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4979 effect that the GST would have on the family shopping budget. Mr Speaker, let me also say, as the member for Springwood did, that public opinion finds this survey much more convincing and credible than that now discredited supermarket sweep debacle to which people were subjected last year on national television and which showed John Hewson with his shopping trolley purchasing the daily necessities from a Brisbane supermarket. As the member for Springwood pointed out earlier, in common with lots of other Liberal Party hoedowns, it must have seemed as though it was a good idea at the time. But was it convincing? All that it proved was that if the groceries in Dr Hewson’s shopping basket were an indication of the ordinary everyday necessities of life, the average family post-GST has been portrayed as living in the cleanest home imaginable, with the best fed and fattest dog in the neighbourhood, but that, unfortunately, the family would starve. Luckily, our supermarket shoppers—more than 70 per cent of whom are women—are much more astute than that. One message getting through to the Canberra coalitionists is a repeat of that old adage, “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but it’s another thing to fool all of the people all of the time.” Women must be especially disadvantaged by the imposition of a GST. Women in both city and rural areas—non-working women in the home—will feel the effects of the consumption tax by way of an increased bill at the weekly, or in the case of some country women, monthly visit to the supermarket. Women, both working and non-working, who are vainly striving to balance the family budget are again disadvantaged because of the fact that the consumption tax will apply to their electricity and telephone accounts, which was confirmed by Dr Hewson recently. For some women in the bush, the phone is their only connection to the outside world. Furthermore, I am sure that the women pensioners would like an explanation as to how they will be compensated for this impost. They deserve such an explanation. How will they be compensated? Mr Stoneman: I’ll tell you in a moment. Mrs WOODGATE: I await that response with interest. Will it be average compensation? In other words, will those women pensioners who have to use the phone a lot be unfairly penalised? Will Dr Hewson provide the States with the wherewithal to rebate the consumption tax on aged women pensioners’ electricity accounts? Let there be no mistake—Dr Hewson wants to launch the most pernicious attack in the history of Australia on the poor, the less well off, and the women of this country. Under the coalition, there will be no social justice for people in the bush and no social justice for pensioners, all because of the Federal coalition’s desire to introduce a consumption tax to pay for the abolition of the capital gains tax and to line the pockets of the rich. Let me examine the effect of the GST on working women at the lower end of the wages and salary scale. The coalition’s industrial relations policy, which was unveiled in its consumption tax package, will create an underclass of employed women on very low wages. The policy makes a mockery of coalition claims that lower income earners will be better off as a result of the consumption tax. The coalition says that it would allow employees and employers to choose to opt out of the award system and enter into private contracts. On paper this sounds great and it sounds benign. In reality, the choice lies only with the employer. It means that individual women workers can be exploited. There is nothing in the coalition’s policy to prevent unscrupulous employers forcing women employees out of the award wage system, with the threat that jobs would go if these workers do not agree. There is nothing to stop unscrupulous employers from sacking women workers on the grounds that they ought to accept a pay cut and then rehiring staff on a contract basis on much lower wages. Mrs Sheldon interjected. Mrs WOODGATE: I point out to the Leader of the Liberal Party that it is all stated in the package. Under the coalition, there would be no role for the Industrial Relations Commission to review these contracts to ensure that they were fair and entered into without duress. The umpire has been removed. The coalition document claims that it would set a minimum wage and standards for occupational health and safety to prevent 4980 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly exploitation. This minimum wage is likely to be set at a level equivalent to, or below, the current lowest award rate of pay, that is, below $300. The policy contains nothing to stop employers imposing these minimum wages on women workers. It is a low-wage scenario which is bound to create animosity, disputes and low productivity. The question that must be asked is, “Who will suffer?” It will not be the women workers in strong unions; it will not be professional women or business executives; but it will be those who are unskilled or semiskilled, those who are not organised through effective union representation, many women workers, young women workers and migrant women workers. Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Burdekin will cease interjecting. Mrs WOODGATE: It is these people who benefit most from the protection of award rates of pay and the minimum award conditions of employment set by the Industrial Relations Commission. It is these women workers who will be most easily forced out of the award system and whose wages and conditions will be reduced to the absolute minimum. Decent employers will see unscrupulous competitors force down wages. For many, it will be a case of either matching the lower wages or going out of business. In fact, there is a proposition in the consumption tax package that will result in employers sacking workers—unfortunately, it is the women workers at the lower end of the wages scale—and hiring unemployed people at 80 per cent of the coalition’s minimum wage, which is below $240. The coalition calls this Austrain. It will be unique in the world—a so-called training package that does not require training. A more honest title would be “Aus-slave”. From a woman’s perspective, the consumption tax package is a document of deceit. It contains a thinly disguised nasty—a blueprint to create a low wage economy in Australia. It is a fundamental tenet of the Accord that the maintenance of a strong award system—with minimum wages and conditions reviewed and adjusted over time in national wage cases—is absolutely necessary to ensure justice for women and other disadvantaged workers. Women workers would be among the worst affected victims of the Hewson consumption tax package. As well as the extra tax burden that it would impose on working women, the package proposes to cut out Government activities which have broad community support because they are especially designed to help women overcome the everyday problems they face at work. These programs include the Affirmative Action Agency and two special programs run by the Department of Industrial Relations. The Affirmative Action Agency was set up by the Government to ensure that equal employment is a practical goal and not just another platitude. There are very few areas where consumption tax will not catch the average Australian woman. It seems to me that, from the time we wives and mothers give birth to our children to the moment we women depart this life, we will be caught up in the consumption tax net. Take the birth of a woman’s first child. Surely, that would be one of the happiest times in a woman’s ladder of life. What do we find happens with the advent of GST? Exactly what the member for Springwood said: medical bills, hospital bills, baby clothes, baby foods—including rusks—baby equipment such as prams, cribs and safety harnesses, which are now all exempt from sales tax, will skyrocket in price. They will all attract 15 per cent consumption tax. What is the last straw? We now find that coffins, which were previously exempt from wholesale tax, will be 15 per cent more expensive because we, or our families, will have to pay the consumption tax. Even the undertaker’s fees will increase. This mother of all taxes, this “to be avoided at all costs” consumption tax even spreads its dark net over us when we are dead and gone. One thing that springs to mind—— Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Burdekin under Standing Order 123A. I note that the member will speak later in the debate. I suggest that he keep his comments until then. I warn the member for Burdekin formally under Standing Order 123A. Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4981

Mrs WOODGATE: One thing that springs to mind is the effect of the GST on the acquisition of the second family car. Now, we all know about equality of the sexes, but I must admit that, in most two-car families of my acquaintance, it is mum—the woman—who drives the second, or should I say the second-hand, car. Do all honourable members realise that an $8,000 second-hand car will attract a tax of $1,200 with the introduction of GST, bringing the total cost of the new second-hand car to $9,200? Unlike new cars, second-hand cars are not presently subject to a wholesale tax. The result of a GST? New cars—dads’ cars—are cheaper by $2,000 to $3,000, and second-hand cars—mums’ cars—are 15 per cent more expensive. Let me point out that that is a scenario quite relative to the average wage-earning family. Of course, in the upper salary and wage bracket class, the phrase “Life was meant to be easy” would take on a new meaning where dad drives the Porsche and mum drives the new Volvo. In conclusion, let me stress how important it is that women in our society be aware that they are being sold a pup by John Hewson with his GST Fightback package. It is pleasing to see groups such as the Women’s Electoral Lobby carrying out a survey such as the one that was published this week. I see it as the task of us women parliamentarians together with women’s groups to spread the word that, with the introduction of Hewson’s GST, women in this country have earned themselves yet another title, “Hewson’s leading losers”. Time expired. Mrs SHELDON (Landsborough—Leader of the Liberal Party) (4.25 p.m.): After listening to the level of debate from the member for Springwood and the member for Pine Rivers, it is no wonder that this country and this State are in the economic mess they are currently in. What absolute sexist claptrap! There were no facts. Mr Elder interjected. Mrs SHELDON: Obviously, those honourable members have not read the Fightback package, and neither has Mr Elder. If they had read the package, they would not have uttered the rubbish that they did, such as the total 15 per cent levy. They know that, when the total package is taken into consideration, the levy is more like 3.5 per cent, not the humdrum type of pedantic Labor drivel that we get in this House. The WEL survey on supermarket prices after the implementation of the Fightback package is no survey at all; nor have the facts or speeches presented in this House had any substance. It is the sort of simplistic claptrap which reinforces all of the old prejudices about a woman’s place being in the home, preferably barefoot and pregnant. This document says that women cannot count. If one is silly enough to regard the Women’s Electoral Lobby as representative, it means that women are capable only of wandering around supermarket aisles with a calculator, asking simplistic questions of the shopkeeper and adding two plus two and getting five. The most obvious thing wrong with the WEL survey is that it ignores totally the weight of $12 billion in Federal Government taxes on supermarket prices. It is politically dishonest and economically inept, as, indeed, are the women members on the other side of the House. Worst of all, it is an insult to the intelligence of every woman in our community, and certainly every woman parliamentarian. Mr Elder interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Manly will cease interjecting. Mrs SHELDON: I realise that WEL tried to cloak the survey in some sort of credibility by a mention in passing that the survey took no account of the abolition of the payroll tax, a fuel excise, superannuation and training levies. However, that was not put up front. In fact, that vital qualification rated a mention in about paragraph 13 of yesterday’s expose in the Courier-Mail. WEL mentioned also as an afterthought that it was not really happy with the confusing and expensive wholesale sales tax system. Again, the women members on the Government side of the House forgot that it exists. Every Australian should be outraged by that hidden tax regime which allows the Canberra Treasury to take $10 billion a year out of people’s pockets, without their knowledge in most cases. If WEL wanted to bring the taxation debate to the fore, I 4982 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly could give it a couple of numbers which it should have known about before that rather silly shopping survey was put in place. For example, guess what sort of household goods are now taxed at 20 per cent before they go onto the supermarket shelf? The answer is “many”, and most are certainly not luxury. As WEL is so concerned that the GST will put a tax on knowledge through tax on books and writing paper, what does WEL think happens now? The fact is that WEL’s favourite Labor Government levies a 20 per cent sales tax on all school exercise books, paper, pens and pencils and even pencil cases. I notice a little quietness on the Government side of the House. Labor even has a 20 per cent surprise for kids taking their lunch to school. There is a 20 per cent tax on sandwich bags, cling wrap and aluminium foil. I will read to the House a list of other items that are taxed at 20 per cent wholesale by the Labor Government in Canberra. As the Labor members in this House are so knowledgeable on the subject, they can nominate which items are luxuries and which ones will not be more affordable under Fightback. The list includes: soap, toilet paper, toothpaste, nappy wash/sterilisers, baby oil—— Government members interjected. Mrs SHELDON: We are talking about women, remember. The list continues: baby bath wash, teething rings, lanoline, infant strawberry milk powder, talcum powder, cot mobiles, infant pacifiers, deodorant, shampoo and conditioner. I could go on and on, and they are only some of the things that Labor taxes at 20 per cent wholesale. Now I will go to some of the basic dishonesties of the WEL survey. I will not quote statements and figures from Dr Hewson and the Fightback package. I will start by quoting the Australian Supermarket Institute and I will then move on to quote Dr A. J. Preston, Deputy Secretary of the Federal Treasury in Canberra. Yesterday, the Supermarket Institute issued a press release, which I would like to table. Leave granted. Mrs SHELDON: The press release urged people to regard with caution the results of the WEL survey. The Assistant Director of the ASI, Mr Ken Henrick, said— “The list of supermarket items selected by WEL certainly points to the unfairness and inconsistency of the current wholesale tax system.” It should be noted that Dr Henrick referred to “the current wholesale sales tax system”. That system is Labor’s baby, which it will not abolish. That system gives Mr Keating $10 billion each year in hidden taxes—that is $10 billion, girls—from every supermarket, every garage and every pet shop in this country. It goes straight out of the consumers’ pocket to Canberra. I return now to the statement by the Supermarket Institute. Mr Henrick, in a gentlemanly fashion, tries to caution the ladies from WEL that they have got it badly wrong. He says things such as— “Certainly, many of the products in the WEL list are not those the average customer would buy every week.” He goes on— “The other major fault is that it does not take reasonable account of the concessions in the Fightback! package, which admittedly requires a very complex set of calculations. As a result, it is difficult to imagine what sort of impact these WEL figures would have on a genuine family shopping list or weekly budget.” Mr Henrick was very restrained. He obviously can handle the calculations involved in any meaningful tax reform in this country. For the purpose of this exercise, I wish that Mr Henrick was a Mrs Henrick, because, should she have been in it, we would then at least have one woman in the Women’s Electoral Lobby who could handle basic economics. I have tabled a copy of the media release, which I commend to all honourable members. Mr Henrick sets the record straight without dwelling on the intellectual shortfall of the ladies from WEL. He did not go so far as to say they are airheads who have no idea what payroll tax, fuel tax and all the rest do to the price of a basket of food and goods. Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4983

I turn now to the 27 November 1991 assessment of the Fightback package by Dr Preston, Deputy Secretary to the Federal Treasury. Members might remember those TV images of the lights burning all night in the Treasury building as the Labor Government tried to destroy the basis of the Liberals’ Fightback package. Treasury crunched the numbers and crunched them again, and then Dr Preston had the unpleasant duty of telling the Labor Government that Fightback was a goer. This is what the Federal Treasury minute said about the effects of Fightback on agriculture, which, I point out for the benefit of WEL, is where our fresh food comes from. Dr Preston reported that Australian agriculture would benefit by $288m from the abolition of wholesale sales tax; $697m from the abolition of petrol tax; and $166m from the abolition of payroll tax. So the short answer is that, under the Fightback package, our agricultural sector, where food starts its journey to the supermarket shelf, would have a massive $1 billion in costs totally abolished. Dr Preston and his Treasury unit then examined the next stage of the journey from the farm gate to the supermarket shelf—the transport and storage sector. Again, that infrastructure had been ignored totally by that giant in Canberra, Mr Keating. For the benefit of WEL, I point out that that sector is the bit where fruit and vegetables are carried from the farm to the market, to the warehouse and thence to the supermarket. Dr Preston concluded that, with Labor’s taxes out of the equation, the cost of transport and storage would fall by $2 billion—made up of $635m in wholesale sales tax, $1.25 billion in petrol tax and $406m in payroll tax. Then Treasury turned its attention to what Labor’s taxes do to the wholesale and retail trade. Again for the benefit of WEL surveyors, I point out that the retail trade is another name for the supermarkets where members of WEL were wandering around with their calculators and getting all the answers wrong. Dr Preston of Treasury worked out that Labor’s taxes on the wholesale value of goods, payrolls and petrol add a massive $2.9 billion directly to the overheads of the warehouse and supermarkets. Again, the ladies on the Labor side of the House have gone strangely silent. The hidden taxes go further than the supermarket shelf. Again according to Dr Preston, Fightback would lift a $860m tax burden off the backs of the finance and business services sector. Even the direct costs of electricity generation across Australia would fall by $526m. This is the sort of nitty-gritty economics that the ladies from WEL and the Labor ladies opposite do not understand. They say there will be a rise in the tax on food and clothing, which on the face of it is now tax free, but it is really hit by Labor’s hidden taxes all along the way. There is no sales tax on bread, but the price is increased by the fuel excise to harvest the wheat, and the sales tax on the harvester. There are more taxes on transporting the wheat to the mill and transporting the flour from the mill to the bakehouse. There is sales tax on the machinery in the mill and payroll tax on the jobs of the workers. Finally, there is a 20 per cent tax on the wrapping around the loaf that is bought in the shop, and similar sales tax on the lunch bag that a child uses to take a sandwich to school. This is the way Labor does business, by hidden taxes and charges that cost the consumer heaps—tax by stealth—but do not cost Labor votes because people do not even realise that their pockets are being picked. The same Treasury document assessed that there would be a price rise of around 3.6 per cent with the introduction of Fightback. I wonder where WEL has been in recent years. It may be significant that the Brisbane chapter of WEL burst onto the political scene not too long after Dr Anne Summers joined the staff of Prime Minister Keating as a women’s adviser. Dr Summers was, of course, a foundation member of WEL when it was set up to manipulate the women’s movement and help the Whitlam Labor Government. It looks like Dr Summers put the word out again. Time expired. Hon. A. M. WARNER (South Brisbane—Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs) (4.35 p.m.): It seems to me that the only point that any member of the Opposition has made in the debate so far that is at all to the point was to question the validity of this document that was prepared by an independent group that states that it does not like the sales tax provisions, either. The members of that group demonstrate quite clearly that they are not party political. Over the last few months, 4984 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly many women have come to realise that a number of so-called experts are talking about computer print-outs and computer assessments of what the GST will mean, but the reality is that it will not be computers which will actually assess the impact of GST, it will be real customers in real stores. That is how this group of women, in a very practical and traditional female fashion, assessed it. They did not rely on abstract knowledge or academic knowledge. They went to what they described as the coalface, the businesses that are going to implement GST, if we are ever unfortunate enough to have to suffer such an imposition. They asked those businesses direct, concrete questions such as: how would you implement this tax? Then they made the assessment on the basis of the answers that they were given. One of the mistakes that I think members opposite make—and the Deputy Premier pointed out that, unfortunately, a number of other people in Canberra often make it—is to think that economics is just about mathematics. It is not just some kind of abstract science. It is a real study in which human behaviour and human attitudes are as important as figures on a page. That being the case, this study represents a much better assessment of what the real effect of GST is likely to be. It was the businessmen, the people in the shops, who said that they were not going to take into account the compensatory effects of payroll tax deductions on the ground that, in most cases, they did not actually pay it. They were not going to take into account the so-called fuel cost reductions, because that is quite often what businesspeople do. What they said was that in a time of recession, they were automatically going to put up their prices. That is the real effect on the Australian population of GST. I am very grateful to the members of WEL, not for their slighting comments about the Labor Party in respect of sales tax, but for providing some understanding and some indication of what would really happen on the ground if Australians were ever silly enough to vote for a party that would put their economic future in such danger. The other point is that one of the fundamental questions that has never been answered in this whole debate by any member opposite—either National or Liberal—is this: how will a consumption tax, a value-added tax, fix up the economic problems of this country? How will adding 15 per cent at the shop level affect or improve the capacity of Australians to produce more goods? Mrs Sheldon interjected. Ms WARNER: How will it do that? There are no responses of any rational description to that basic question. What earthly use is the GST in economic terms, apart from making everyone pay more? We all know what its disastrous effects will be. Mr Hamill: Except for the rich. Ms WARNER: We know what its effects will be on the general public. It was timely that WEL carried out this survey, because WEL represents the interests of women in our society—something the Opposition has never thought was politically salient or important. Women are among the poorest Australians. How many honourable members are aware of women who earn more than $70,000 a year? It is only the women in that wage bracket who will be compensated by tax cuts for the extra that they will have to pay when they purchase cheese, eggs, butter and milk—basic essentials for any family. Women on $70,000 a year will under GST receive another $7,000 in the form of tax cuts to spend on eggs, cheese, butter and milk. However, a woman on $7,000 will only get an extra $6 a year to spend on cheese and eggs—forget about the bread and milk, because she could not afford those under the GST. Make no mistake, the proposed $10 billion slice out of expenditure that is proposed under GST—under the Opposition’s economic package—will further disadvantage the disadvantaged. Women are the disadvantaged. They are clustered in part-time work. In the main, women are the recipients of the sole parents benefit, and they tend to sacrifice their jobs to care for others, such as their children and their parents. These are the people Dr Hewson has in his sights. Dr Hewson will attack the living standards of the ill, the disabled and the unemployed. Under the Opposition plan, 42 000 women—and their 52 000 children—will be taken off the sole parents pension. When the youngest child reaches 12 years of Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4985 age—a time of adolescent uncertainty, a time when expenses go through the roof, with school expenses and growing appetites, bodies and feet—Dr Hewson cuts off the family income. Opposition members would realise that if they did not live in the rarefied atmosphere of privilege, because this package comes from those who are privileged. The Opposition Fightback package will attack the vulnerable. It will attack only those members of society who are least able to defend themselves. Under the Hewson plan, benefits for people with severe disabilities will increase, but 86 per cent of people who are presently in receipt of a disability pension will be harassed by annual medical inspections to determine whether or not their disability is sufficient to enable them to retain that pension. When one talks about a 70 per cent impairment, one is talking about people who are profoundly deaf, people who have lost both their legs above the knee, people who are so psychiatrically disabled that they are mute and incoherent. These are the people that the Opposition is going to assess on an annual basis to see if they deserve to have the pension. The Opposition estimates that some 34 000 people would no longer qualify for the disability pension. In addition, some 10 500 of those people with dependent wives would lose their carers pension. In the society that is proposed by members opposite, who will care for those people? Not satisfied with this attack, Dr Hewson will remove all mechanisms such as affirmative action and dismember the Human Rights Commission and those bodies that protect the disadvantaged. Honourable members opposite should answer this question: why is it that Dr Hewson displays this peculiarly mysogynistic bent? This grim reaper, with his tyrannical tax plan, this typically Tory Thatcherite, has turned his axe on children. Under the GST, child care costs will increase by $130 a year in tax—an average cost of $16.50 per week per child, which represents $33 a week for a woman with two children. There goes her extra $6 a week for milk, bread, eggs and cheese. The policies of members opposite have been tried in other countries. They represent Thatcherism; they are Reaganomics. The countries that adopted those policies have not sustained any economic growth. Those countries are disabled countries in terms of their economic performance and their social stability. Honourable members opposite would be aware of the tragic incidents last week in Los Angeles. Those people were hungry; those people were locked out of the system. Those people are the disadvantaged, the ones that politicians like those opposite take no notice of, and those people are left outside the ambit of society so they have nothing to lose by attacking that society. The incidents in Los Angeles were an example of a revolt by citizens against economic rationalism. Australia does not deserve that type of Government. While members of the Labor Party have the breath to explain to the people of Australia the disastrous effects those types of policies would have on the body politic and on the very food that goes into the mouths of children in our society, Australia will not have that type of Government. We do not want that type of society. Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (4.46 p.m.): It is interesting to note that this debate has been taken up by some of the women in the Labor Party. It is even more interesting to note that a Minister has trotted out the old charade of the written speech containing the vitriolic diatribe that one hears so often in this place. There is an ongoing process of denigrating what members of the Labor Government know is a good package for Australia. They know that it is a winning program. I will refer to the only question the Minister asked that is deserving of an answer. The Minister stated, “Tell me one benefit. Why are they going to bring in this tax?” One benefit is the billions of dollars in tax to be obtained from the black economy—from the people who are paying no tax at all, who are handing over money, salting away cash, and paying no tax whatsoever. They are the people at whom the Government should be aiming. They are the people who are pulling down the battlers about whom Tom Burns likes to talk. The member for Pine Rivers mentioned poor old mum, and other Government members mentioned battlers. They do not even understand the basics. They read the script and got it wrong. The member for Pine Rivers, Mrs Woodgate, is an honest lady, but she had to stand up in this Chamber and read out claptrap and untruths. She mentioned poor old mum who had to buy a second-hand car. She said that dad received a new car while 4986 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly poor old mum generally had to buy a second-hand car, on which cruel Dr Hewson is going to impose the GST. The honourable member is wrong, wrong, wrong. As I said to the member for Springwood, I have heard that speech before. No GST is payable on second-hand goods or second-hand motor cars, unless it applies to the profit margin made by the dealer. Take, for example, a $4,000 second-hand car. I agree that poor old mum cannot afford to pay much more than that. Poor old mum buys a second-hand car and there is a $500 profit margin which goes to the dealer. The GST is payable on that $500 profit margin, provided that the dealer cannot claim any money which is regarded as input into the business. Mrs Woodgate has been taken for a ride. She has been “suckered”. A character in north Queensland named Bird wrote an article in the local paper entitled, “Fightback policy—no benefit.” I want to mention a few of the points that Mr Bird raised in that article. He stated— “Fightback proposes to eliminate Payroll Tax . . . cane farmers . . . No benefit.” No canefarmer would argue that he does not receive a benefit. The sugar mills pay payroll tax, and the garage where he has repairs carried out pays payroll tax. The local storekeeper—— Mr Hamill interjected. Mr STONEMAN: I will take that interjection. The local Ford dealer in Ayr pays $150,000 a year in payroll tax. The dealer passes that on to his customers. Mr Bird stated further— “Fuel Excise is to be dropped. Farmers already get a Diesel Fuel Rebate. No benefit.” That is another lie. The carrier that brings the fuel pays tax. The farmer pays for it through the petrol that he puts in his car. The carrier pays fuel tax. Mr Bird continued to state— “Training Guarantee Levy . . . No benefit.” That is another lie. Mrs Bird interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Whitsunday! Earlier, I asked the member for Burdekin to hear other members in silence. I now ask honourable members to hear him in silence. Mr STONEMAN: Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. It was worrying me greatly. The article states further— “Income Tax Rates.” Mr Bird stated in the article that farmers do not earn any income, so there is no benefit. Under a Labor Government, which has taken Australia’s foreign debt from $25 billion to $140 billion, canefarmers have not earned any income, and they will not until we get rid of the Labor Government. It is hoped that, if canefarmers are to survive, they will pay tax and receive a benefit under the GST package. I refer to lie No. 5. The article goes on— “Abolition of Wholesale Sales Tax. Farmers are exempt from Sales Tax on most farm imports already . . . minimal benefit.” The flow-on effect of wholesale sales tax right across the community is astronomical, particularly in respect of farming operations. The wholesale sales tax on cartage, which is one of the main costs of every farmer in this nation, is a huge impost. Farmers must pay for the cartage of their tyres, their spare parts for repairs, and so on. The article continues— “Goods and Services Tax 15 per cent. No exemption granted to farmers.” What rot! Exemptions are not what the GST is about. Farmers will receive a rebate. Later in the same article, Mr Bird tries to hide that fact. Mr Bruce Bevan of the Australian Supermarket Institute stated— Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4987

“. . . very few of our customers have realised the impact on food prices of the current wholesale sales tax . . .” He stated further— “A significant amount of hidden sales tax is incurred in the manufacture, packaging, warehousing and transportation of supermarket items.” The member for Landsborough has raised that point. Let me say that the desperation behind that lie is unbelievable. The Labor industrial relations package feathers the nest of those people who have jobs and disregards the poor baby Mrs Woodgate mentioned who has no future under Labor. The Labor Government has no plan. Instead, it is engaging in a diversionary process which involves talking about flags and republicans. It does not talk about One Nation. I challenge the women of the Labor Party to get the Women’s Electoral Lobby to campaign for One Nation. If they are genuine, they will do that. I say that they are not genuine, because they have not even looked at it. The women of the Labor Party are trying to hoodwink the community. They are making misleading statements and they are aiding and abetting the lies that have been perpetrated in statements made by people such as Mr John Bird of north Queensland. Many opportunities exist for making comparisons between this proposed GST package and that adopted by other nations. The GST is only a small component of the Fightback package. It is interesting to note that, as other OECD nations have introduced a goods and services tax or a VAT, Australia’s rating has slipped from No. 4 to No. 13 in that group. One must ask: why is Labor’s package not working? If the Fightback package is so bad, why are people arguing about it? Let me consider a couple of the benefits of the proposed GST package. I have done my own calculations. All members are welcome to look at the models and to enter their own figures. According to a survey undertaken by independent analysts who applied the entire Fightback package to real disposable income, on the basis of average weekly earnings—which are about $565 in Queensland—the benefits for all families across the spectrum are about 3.5 per cent. For the family about whom most members would probably be concerned, that is, the single- income family with children, the benefits are an average of 7.5 per cent; for a double- income family with children, the figure is 4.7 per cent; and in a single-person household, it is 3.1 per cent. The WEL group has obviously undertaken this charade in conjunction with the Labor Party. According to an article in yesterday’s Courier-Mail, the group includes meat in the household costs with GST. However, the WEL does not take into consideration that the prices of all 11 items in the meat category will rise. Of course they will, because they are presently at zero. Under the GST package, they must rise. The proponents of the One Nation package claim that under the GST, the price of everything will increase by 15 per cent. They do not take into consideration the dramatically reduced costs in freight charges for transporting live animals, reductions in payroll tax, or the savings associated with the freezer trucks that take goods to supermarkets. This is a desperate charade. The Labor Party is waking up to the fact that it can no longer apply the New Zealand model, because the rates, school fees and medical expenses in Australia will not apply. It is a charade. Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for the Matter of Special Public Importance debate has expired.

TRAFFIC AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 28 April (see p. 4581). Mr JOHNSON (Gregory) (4.56 p.m.): The Opposition agrees with the concept of this Bill. The concept was first initiated in this State in 1986, although it got off to a fairly rocky start. It has been in place in Sweden since 1966, in Ireland since 1975, and in the 4988 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

United Kingdom since 1987. When one considers the implementation of modern technology, one sees that this is a modern Bill. This concept is a huge success in the City of Bath, which has a population of 80 000 and a tourist population of approximately one million. I believe that 11 cities throughout the United Kingdom have adopted this concept. In the Asia/ Pacific region, it has been introduced in Singapore and New Zealand. The concept was first implemented in 1990 in the City of Gympie. Although it has experienced some problems in Gympie, I believe that this legislation will correct some of those anomalies, which I will address at the Committee stage. As I said, the Opposition agrees with the concept of this Bill and supports it. Mr J. N. GOSS (Aspley) (4.57 p.m.): The days of parking meters and popping in a 5c or 10c coin are fast disappearing. Mr Elder interjected. Mr J. N. GOSS: In some cities it still costs only 5c or 10c to park for short periods. I believe that that applies on the Gold Coast. In Brisbane, parking meters accept only dollar coins, obviously because some people believe that parking space in Brisbane is more valuable than it is in other places and that people here are willing to pay more for it. The introduction of tokens, cards, coupons and other alternative systems is the norm in other areas. The new technology has moved in. I am told that the alternative systems usually eliminate what I believe are ugly rows of parking meters. These new schemes must be applauded. Local authorities have the added benefit of using these schemes, which reduce maintenance costs and, in most cases, collection costs. As well, in the case of parking meters that accept dollar coins, it is an added attraction to some people if they can lever open the meters, because they usually find a few dollars in each one. Therefore, the use of tokens, and particularly cards and coupons, eliminates vandalism. Because Queensland is a tourist State, I am concerned that some tourists will have difficulty understanding the alternative parking systems. It is all very well for people who live in those cities along the coast and who know the location of Jack’s newsagency or Tom’s pharmacy where they can buy the coupons or tokens. I know myself, as a tourist in places where cards and other methods are used, that it is very difficult to learn how to park legally. I have just had to take the risk and park, because I have not known where to buy the coupons or the tokens. This must lead to many tourists being penalised. Members of the Liberal Party have always made it quite clear that we are very concerned about and are loath to endorse retrospective legislation. We believe that, in this case, when the original Bill was before the House, the intent was quite clear. Of course, a magistrate or a judge could have an interpretation different from that of members in this place. In this instance, we agree with the retrospective application of this Bill. I conclude by saying that the Liberal Party supports the Bill. Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development) (5.01 p.m.), in reply: I thank the honourable members for Gregory and Aspley for their contributions this afternoon. I am pleased that there seems to be such unanimous support for the measures contained in the Bill. I thank particularly the honourable member for Aspley for his comments on the measure of retrospectivity contained in the provisions. It is not something that this Government undertakes lightly, but, in this instance, the reasons outlined by the honourable member for Aspley and the reasons outlined by my colleague the Minister for Environment and Heritage when he introduced this Bill on my behalf justify that retrospectivity is warranted. I commend the Bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. D. J. Hamill (Ipswich—Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 6, as read, agreed to. Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4989

Clause 7— Mr JOHNSON (5.03 p.m.): The Minister, in his second-reading speech, said that the Bill contains a saving clause which ensures that any system introduced by a local authority under the present provisions of the Act continues to be in force until this Bill is passed by the House and is given royal assent. The coupon parking system in Gympie was implemented in the belief that it reflected the intention of the existing legislation. The only problem I have with this is that possibly the Gympie City Council moved rather quickly and before the Bill was through this House and assented to. I am a little concerned that there could be legal problems with that. Perhaps the Minister would elaborate on it. Mr HAMILL: The comment was made by the honourable member for Aspley and my colleague the Minister for Environment and Heritage that the measures contained within this Bill really embody the provisions that had been enacted by the House in 1989. The former National Party Minister for Transport, Mr Peter McKechnie, in his second-reading speech on 12 April 1989, in referring to the amendments that touched the specific sections regarding parking arrangements under the jurisdiction of local authorities, said— “This Bill contains two major initiatives to assist local authorities in the control and enforcement of parking. Firstly, local authorities will be able to introduce new types of parking systems which do not require coins for the payment of fees. In addition, it will allow local authorities to set their own penalties for regulated parking offences which they enforce.” . . . The amendments the Government is proposing in this Bill will now permit local authorities to introduce whichever system or systems suit their particular needs. . . . The proposed amendment to section 44B expands that by-law making power to enable a local authority to introduce any system for the payment of parking fees which it deems suitable and appropriate for parking in its area” I suggest that the former National Party Minister clearly stated the intention of the former Government. It was an intention which the then Opposition, for which I was the spokesperson on this matter, fully supported. The principle was that local authorities ought to be able to determine the best way to regulate parking within their municipalities or shires. It was a sad day when the intent of those enactments in 1989 was called into question. It may be that in a more modern-day approach to statutory interpretation, whereby the comments made by the Minister in introducing legislation in the House may be given some sort of embodiment to the legislative provision, the sort of problem confronting the Gympie City Council would not have occurred. The Gympie City Council is not at fault in this. That council has always acted in good faith. It sought to implement a system within the spirit of the amendment which the former National Party Government brought into this House in 1989. For that reason I believe that this measure of retrospectivity, limited though it may be, is amply warranted. There was no bad faith. The Gympie City Council sought to bring in a system which was directly within the ambit of the amendment that had been brought forward by the previous National Party Government. Indeed, I am led to believe that the Gympie City Council was one of the proponents of the voucher system and prevailed upon the former National Party Government to modernise the traffic legislation in this particular. What has transpired in Gympie was certainly beyond the foresight of the previous Government and it was beyond our foresight as an Opposition. We understood that the measure had been adequately addressed at the time. It is sad that it was not. The measure today is designed to fix up what may have been a faulty amendment in 1989 to give full effect to the unanimous desire of the House at that time to give greater flexibility to local authorities with respect to the regulation of parking in their areas. 4990 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Mr STEPHAN: The subject of retrospectivity has concerned me a great deal. Also of concern is the fact that there has been a great deal of controversy in the Gympie area since parking coupons were introduced and since the discovery that it was illegal for money to be collected through the sale of coupons. For that reason there is a flipside to the retrospectivity concerning those people who were also working in good faith when they found out about the illegality of the collection as far as the Act was concerned, and who then decided not to pay their fines. Mr Burns: They weren’t working in good faith; they were working in bad faith. Mr STEPHAN: Looking at it that way, they were all working in bad faith. There is always a flip side to retrospectivity. If a Bill is passed today to legalise what was not legal yesterday, it is again working in bad faith. Those people were acting within the law at certain times. By this retrospective legislation, it is being said that those people who were acting within the law as it was yesterday and who have not paid their fines, will now have pay their fines. This is the flip side—a side that is not necessarily as golden as it might be. I just seek the comments of the Minister on this particular aspect—that although he is overcoming the problem of those who were working on the assumption that it had always been illegal, he will be upsetting those who were working in the very clear knowledge that it was not illegal until this point. Mr HAMILL: I find the remarks of the member for Gympie somewhat gratuitous in all this, because I recall that when amendments to this Traffic Act were passed by this House in 1989 the member for Gympie supported them. He endorsed the comments of the former National Party Minister and member for Carnarvon, Mr McKechnie, whom I quoted this afternoon. He said that the amendments to the Traffic Act that he sought to bring about at that time would give local authorities the discretion to determine which measures—— Mr Stephan: I don’t think I spoke on the Bill at that time, thank you very much. Mr HAMILL: I dare say the honourable member voted for it. I said that he supported the Bill, and given that it was a Bill which had the unanimous support of the Assembly, he did not stand up to oppose those measures. Therefore, by his silence, he consented. Indeed, he would have done so. It went through the National Party party room, it was endorsed by the Minister, and so on. It was a National Party amendment after all, and there were 83 businesshouses in Gympie which came to support the coupon system that was introduced in good faith by the Gympie City Council. What the mealy-mouthed member for Gympie now tries to do is to crawl out from under the rock and try to score cheap political points at the expense of the Gympie City Council. I suggest that the honourable member for Gympie should hang his head in shame. What he is seeking to do is to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds on this one. I do not know what sort of nasty, vicious, mean-minded local politics the honourable member for Gympie endorses, but I suggest that what the previous council did was to seek to bring in a system of regulated parking in that city which was within the spirit and the intent of the measures that he endorsed when he was a member of the previous Parliament. The honourable member cannot have it both ways. I do not believe that it is fair or just or reasonable for the Gympie City Council, which acted in good faith—not the present council; the previous council—seeking to implement effectively the will of this Parliament, to be found out on a technicality that perhaps that Act, that we all believed was sound, may well have been ambiguous. It has not been tested in the courts, and it should not be tested in the courts. The intent of this House was very clear, but if there are people such as the member for Gympie who want to be nitpicking and seek to score political points now, then let the Assembly reaffirm its expressed intent back in 1989 when it was good enough for the member for Gympie to support it. Let him stand by his views of 1989 and support this measure today. Clause 7, as read, agreed to. Clause 8, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4991

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Hamill, by leave, read a third time. LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 29 April (see p. 4659). Mr RANDELL (Mirani) (5.14 p.m.): The Opposition has no objection to this legislation going through the House tonight. We have concerns about a few things, but overall we have no objection. We are concerned about the manner in which this legislation was introduced into this House. It was brought in last Wednesday evening. We had one week in which to look at it. In that one week there was a long weekend—three days when we could not contact local authorities—so effectively we have had about two and a half days to contact our local authority friends and find out their thoughts on this important Bill that will impact on the lives of every citizen in Queensland. This legislation was brought in without any consultation. We did not know when it was coming in, and I think we should have had that information. Some local authorities I have contacted did not even know that this Bill was before the Parliament. I say to the Minister that that is just not good enough, and the same can be said for the Nature Conservation Bill that was rushed into the House last Tuesday. Mr Elliott: At 4 o’clock. Mr RANDELL: At 4 o’clock, and honourable members were debating it last night. If Ministers think that they can shorten the time allowed for debate and rush these matters through the House, they are sadly mistaken. If they continue that practice and, in particular, provide responses of the type provided by the Minister for Environment and Heritage last night, Opposition members will debate every clause and will seek information on every clause in minute detail. Mr Burns: We gave you the opportunity to talk about it. Mr RANDELL: Mr Minister, I have to say that I do not think you will be doing that type of thing. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! I request the member for Mirani to address his remarks through the Chair. Mr RANDELL: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will do that. I say to the Minister, however, that I hope members of the Opposition do not receive that type of treatment tonight. Judging from the Minister’s past record, which is very good, I expect that he will be cooperative. Members of the Opposition respect him for that, but I simply draw to his attention that we do not appreciate unfair treatment. Having said that, let me thank the Minister for allowing his officers to brief members of the Opposition on certain parts of the Bill. That is a very good idea, which saves a great deal of the time of the House. If other Ministers would follow suit, a great deal of friction, bitterness and time could be saved. I believe that that tradition should be carried on. I ask the Leader of the House to remember that tradition and instruct his Ministers. If members of the Opposition receive that courtesy, they will respond appropriately. I was under a mistaken apprehension in relation to the Minister’s powers in Cabinet. Mr Burns: And you are right. Mr RANDELL: I thought the Minister had the numbers, but it looks to me as though he has drawn the short straw. By having done so, it looks as though I, too, will have to be in the Chamber tonight even though a very important event is taking place in the south. The Minister and I will be sitting across from each other in the Chamber, and I think that at approximately 8.15 tonight there could be a division on certain matters. Mr Burns: Especially if it gets interesting. Mr RANDELL: Seriously, before I examine the Bill in detail, I congratulate the Minister on his good sense in bringing forward this legislation. This is yet another 4992 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly example of the Labor Party pinching a winning idea from the previous National Party Government. I remind the House that this Bill reflects the thrust of a Green Paper which was circulated by the National Party Government just prior to the last State election. The Minister in charge of the Bill would know that. Of course, members of the National Party agree with most of the contents of the Bill because it is based on ideas that originated from the National Party. I wish to raise my concerns about matters related to the commission and the provisions allowing local councils to enter into joint ventures with private-enterprise groups. If necessary, I will move some amendments. I hope that the Minister will accept them because they will be aimed at making local government legislation in Queensland as good as it is possible to get it. I am surprised that it has taken the Minister and this Government so long to get on with the job of bringing this legislation before the Parliament. After all, the groundwork had been completed for a long time. Prior to my period as the Minister, Mr Hinze and Mr Gunn had put the work in train and they were assisted by very dedicated public servants. Mr Burns: I think our problem has been the EARC reviews. We had to wait for their views on matters such as accountability and some of their recommendations, so we haven’t been able to do it. Mr RANDELL: The Minister cannot get around the problem in that fashion because it was he who started the ball rolling. There was no recommendation made by Commissioner Fitzgerald in relation to local government. Mr Burns: But there was a whole lot of—— Mr RANDELL: No. I repeat that there was no recommendation made by Commissioner Fitzgerald in respect of local government. Mr Burns: There were electoral and administrative matters. Mr RANDELL: The Minister did that. I will address that matter later in my speech. With all due respect to the Minister, I will be bringing up that matter at a later stage. Members of the National Party got the ball rolling when the former Director of Local Government, Mr Harold Jacobs, was appointed to undertake a complete review of various pieces of legislation affecting local government. At a later stage, another highly respected officer of the Department of Local Government, Ken Mead, set up a working party comprising town clerks, shire clerks and some departmental officers. The Secretary of the Local Government Association, Mr Greg Hoffman—who would be known to the Minister—was also part of the group. The members of this Parliament owe a debt of gratitude to that group for the excellent work it has performed. That group did a top job under the guidelines it had been given, and this Bill is a direct result of its work. It is well known that a White Paper will be circulated soon and will contain the remainder of the reforms suggested by the working party. The Minister has suggested that it will be circulated within a month. Mr Burns: Yes, within about a month. Mr RANDELL: That is good. The changes will be welcomed by local government because local authorities have had a great deal of input into the recommendations. I compliment the Minister for allowing the procedure to take that course. However, a few problems have been caused for ratepayers. At the initial stages of the process, the brief was very simple. Members of the National Party wanted the legislation to be modernised to take into account new thinking, new financial methods and new levels of accountability. The key word is “accountability”. The overriding requirement was that councils were to be allowed to act more on their own initiative and accept more responsibility for the work they have to do. I emphasise that more responsibility has been given to local government, and I believe that the Minister has been very wise in adopting that policy. However, concern has been expressed about the lack of an overview to check on the activities of local authorities from time to time. As the Minister would know, local government is the level of government that is closest to the people. It has a very good idea of the needs that exist in the local community and is well placed to respond quickly to local requirements as they arise. Members of the National Party Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4993 thought it was best to give local authorities a level of autonomy that reflected all these factors. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government has taken so long to bring forward this legislation. I acknowledge what the Minister has said about EARC’s deliberations taking a long time. Back in 1985, Russ Hinze got Harold Jacobs working on the reforms and matters moved along very well. As I said, a Green Paper was circulated prior to the last State election, so presentation of this Bill could have been accomplished nearly two years ago. There were very few matters that remained to be resolved, so conflict cannot be the reason for the delay. Perhaps the reason for the delay has something to do with the fact that after the last election this Labor Government gutted the Department of Local Government. I have mentioned to the Minister previously that I do not believe that he realises the importance of local government in this State. I acknowledge that the Minister takes a keen interest in housing, and I do not criticise him for that. In fact, I think his interest is very commendable. However, people who work for local councils throughout this State will tell him that what has happened to the Department of Local Government and Housing is shameful. It is now just a shell of what it used to be, and that is not good. The department has been emasculated and has practically no power or responsibility left. As I said earlier, the Minister has completely underestimated the importance of local government in Queensland. His pet project is housing and, because Queenslanders need housing, I commend him for that, as I said earlier. However, Queensland also needs a real Minister who is concerned about local government. Since gaining more experience as the Minister for Local Government, I believe Mr Burns has woken up to the real importance of local government in Queensland. Many of the key responsibilities associated with control of local councils have been shifted away from what is left of the department. I refer to responsibility for matters such as building and planning that have been transferred to the director-general, Dick Persson. This is of no use to the councils because, apart from what he has learned since he has been in Queensland, that gentleman knows absolutely nothing about local government. Mrs Woodgate: Character assassination! Mr RANDELL: Oh, dear. What is more, that gentleman is happy to tell people that he does not want to know anything about local government. It is pretty obvious to me that the Department of Local Government and Housing has been cut to the bone as part of a plan to allow the Minister to wash his hands entirely of any contentious issues that arise in respect of local government matters. Mr Burns: But you don’t want politicians interfering with local government. Mr RANDELL: The Minister is doing that. Mr Burns: You want to be an economist. Mr RANDELL: The Minister has interfered in local government. Mr Burns: You’re having two bob each way. Mr RANDELL: The Minister has interfered in local government. Shortly, I will tell him how he has interfered. The way he has done it is not to his credit. I point out to honourable members that the Local Government Commissioner will look at more than boundaries. On page 50 of the Bill, proposed section 4H (1) states— “The Commissioner must examine, and report and make recommendations to the Minister on, any reviewable local government matter that is referred to the Commissioner by the Minister.” I emphasise “any reviewable local government matter”. So he is not a boundaries commissioner. Mr Burns: No, he is not. He’s not called a boundaries commissioner. Mr RANDELL: What is the Minister talking about? The Minister talked about a boundaries commissioner for a long time, but now he has gone back on that statement. The legislation lists a series of matters that are reviewable, but there is no indication that 4994 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly any matter is excluded from the review. The Minister can raise any matter for review. If anything contentious comes up, it will go to that fellow over there. Mr Burns: It finally has to come back through me. Mr RANDELL: The Minister is responsible for local government and he should bear the odium for any of those decisions made by the Government. Mr Burns: You want Russ Hinze back. You want to bring Russ back. Mr RANDELL: The Minister should not duck for cover. He wants to have a scapegoat way out there on a side road so that he can put the responsibility onto that person to review matters and to come back to the Minister with a recommendation that the Minister does not have to accept. Mr Burns: I will have to go. I will have to leave you till later. Mr RANDELL: The Minister has said that he has to go, so I will not say anything about that. The Leader of the House will sit there in his place. Mr Braddy: I am not going to throw streamers like he did. You will have to make your own speech. Mr RANDELL: The Minister has guessed it in one. I play tennis like that. I used to box like that, too, using counter punches. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! Can we return to the contents of the Bill? Mr RANDELL: The Leader of the House is provoking me. The legislation lists a series of matters that are reviewable, but there is no indication that any matter is excluded from the review. When the Minister sums up, I would like him to address that issue. I see that his officers are present in the lobby. They are very good officers and I am pleased that they have survived the scourge of the department. When I was the Minister, they did very, very good work for me, for local government and for Queensland. I compliment them highly. I would hate to think that the Government is handing power over all matters to the commissioner and his staff. What a luxury for the Minister. He could throw all the politically difficult matters to the commissioner and, when the recommendations come back, the Minister could adopt them and then blame the independent, unbiased commissioner. Tom Burns does not generally duck for cover, but he could say, “Don’t blame me, I am just following the reform process.” If that does not sound familiar from Government members, nothing does. That is more and more how the Government is doing business. Having said that, I want to make it clear that the Opposition thinks that real responsibility on most issues should shift from the Minister and the department to the local councils, which have to answer to their ratepayers every three years. The Opposition agrees with the general idea of devolving real authority in order to get things done. However, I sound a note of caution here, and the Government would do well to listen. Over the years, the department has performed a great function as a steady prop for the great bulk of councils in this State. It has been a storehouse of information and a great source of specialist advice. In my term as Minister for Local Government, departmental officers often nipped trouble in the bud. The councils could go to them at any time. They had only to ring up, and the departmental officers could solve their problems. I am not talking the big councils of Brisbane, the Gold Coast, Townsville, Cairns and so on. I am not talking about the very small councils, either. I am talking about the very large number—about 60 or 70—of medium-sized councils in Queensland that are growing pretty fast. They are unable to keep pace with the increased staff and other resources that they need. Unlike the big councils, the medium-sized councils do not have the luxury of a huge range of experts, particularly in the development policy areas. Where do they go for advice? They cannot afford to pay for it. They used to be able to call on the department for help, but that ability is gone. The department has been pulled to pieces and is a shadow of what it was. The medium-sized councils will end up having to pay big money for consultants to come in and give the help that the department used Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4995 to give for nothing. That is a real tragedy, and I ask the Minister to have another look at keeping a lot of expertise on tap in his department to help out the councils. Professional people who have practically a lifetime of expertise are still available to help local government in Queensland, but they will not be available for much longer. I say to the Minister: for God’s sake, for the wellbeing of the ratepayers and citizens of Queensland try to retain some of them. Autonomy is desirable, and the Opposition agrees with it all the way, but sometimes councils need a bit of help. I have always been a great supporter of differential rating. I have had many arguments over it. I am pleased to see the sensible change made in that area, whereby either a council or the Valuer-General can determine land categories. Honourable members would know that, previously, that role was reserved exclusively to the Valuer- General. The Valuer-General will now have no role unless asked by the council, and the Opposition agrees with that change. How many times have we seen councils ducking for cover, blaming the rate rises on the Valuer-General, but forgetting to tell their constituents that they could easily bring down the rate in the dollar to retain the previous rate. I am also pleased to see the addition of a right of appeal by a property owner to the Land Court against a decision on categories. We need to encourage councils everywhere to make use of the differential rating system. I believe that one of the reasons why it is not used a lot more is that, sometimes, shire clerks do not want to do the extra work. Differential rating gives councils a great deal of flexibility to meet special needs which arise from time to time. Just think of the sugar industry right now. In spite of all the posing by the Deputy Premier, his mates in Canberra will go ahead with the tariff cuts. I wish that the Minister was in the Chamber. I agree with him. We could put the lot of them in Canberra in a bucket, shake it up, and not get one practical man. When I say that, I do not exclude any member of any political party, any director or any of the academics and intellectuals in Canberra. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your courtesy in letting me say that. Local councils could make up some of the damage to sugar family incomes by using differential rating for a time. As I have pointed out to councils many times, it is worth noting that the Valuer-General has about 95 different land-use categories, and any one of those could be used to establish lists for application of differential rates. Many people out there need a hand right now. I am very pleased to note the amended provisions in the City of Brisbane Act, which will be of some help to pensioners. The working party has come up with provisions to allow a discount benefit for pensioners living in retirement villages who do not own the land but are still required to pay money in lieu of rates and charges. The provision takes care of an anomaly in that a pensioner living in a retirement village would not be entitled to a concession available to another pensioner living in premises to which he held title. The benefit will not simply go to the operator of a retirement village because it will not be granted without a binding undertaking—and that is good—to pass the benefit along to pensioners so that they will benefit in the long run, not the land- holder or the landlord. It is a very sensible provision that we commend and support. We congratulate the Minister on accepting the very reasonable proposition that some people should be allowed to pay rates by instalments. As there are enough hardships in society today, that is a very sensible provision. All members of this House will be aware that there are many people in the community who simply cannot manage the lump-sum payments when they fall due. This would obviously include pensioners and others on very low levels of income in this very dreadful depression that exists at present. It would also include those many thousands of decent Australians who have been thrown on the unemployment scrap heap by the Minister’s mates in Canberra. We realise, of course, that there is a real penalty for the council in administration costs, but we have to remember that local government is here to serve the people first and foremost. I keep saying that the help is there. The shire clerks and others in the council have to use it. It might cost a little bit more in administration costs, but in the long run people will be helped. If doing the right thing costs a little extra, so be it. It is good to see that Brisbane will have the opportunity to do the right thing, and we trust that the same opportunity will be given to other councils. 4996 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

I am a bit worried about the amendment to the Local Government Act allowing for the participation by councils in joint arrangements with private enterprises. I do not want to point the finger at any council or any particular councillor, but we all know that the opportunity will exist for people to make foolish commitments that ratepayers might be stuck with. I am aware that the legislation places limits on the liabilities of councils. It sets a percentage of annual own-source revenue. This will be set by regulation. One point that I would like to highlight is that this Government is fast becoming known as the Government by regulation. Why can the Government and the Minister not come clean now and tell us what that percentage will be? I serve notice on them and indicate that we will be keeping a close eye on regulations that have to come through this House and making sure that they do not get away with anything. Soon, there will be no need for the Government to use this Parliament. We will see government by regulation. After all the time that the Government and the Minister have had, they should be able to put in the legislation the set percentage that will be required. This provision sounds pretty good, and it would ensure a small exposure for small councils. However, when we get to the megacouncils such as Brisbane, the Gold Coast, Logan, Redlands and Townsville, that set percentage could be a great deal of money. Perhaps the Minister’s advisers might take those comments on board and the Minister may address this problem when he replies. I am sure that there are circumstances in which a council/private-enterprise venture could make sense. An example would be where the council owns the only land suitable for a project. I am also sure that if a project had overwhelming attraction, private enterprise would probably be prepared to go it alone and, in the case I just mentioned, buy the land from the council. I would like to know what the Minister thinks about that. I favour joint enterprises only after adequate safeguards and precautions are put in place to look after the interests of ratepayers. We cannot allow any council to even go close to bankruptcy over an unwise investment. Members of this House have only to look at what has happened in recent years with people and organisations such as Skase, Bond, Kern and Compass. All of them looked safe, but they have gone down the drain. We have to be absolutely sure in our own minds that we do not allow councils to enter into an unwise investment and risk ratepayers’ money. I also have some qualms about the effect of amendments to the rules relating to tenders and contracts. The bigger councils in particular spend many millions of dollars every year, and we have to remember where that money comes from. It comes from ratepayers, from the citizens of this State. It is hard-earned money. Again, I do not want to make any accusations, but the CJC investigations threw up some very disturbing scenarios. As I have said before, we agree with making councils responsible for their own actions, but I wonder if there could be some special accountability measures in place until we see how things go. I turn now to proposed Part 2A—Local Government Commissioner. Although we are supporting this Bill, the Opposition approaches, overall, this part with the same goodwill as it approaches other parts of the Bill. After all, it does echo the recommendations contained in the dissenting report of the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review on the review of external boundaries. I would like honourable members to remember that they are contained in the dissenting report. The House will recall that when the review of local government matters was raised by a motion moved by the Minister for Local Government on 29 March 1990, the National Party Opposition opposed it. We rejected outright the politically motivated motion. But this Government pressed on with it. Furthermore, the Opposition opposed many of the recommendations of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission—fondly known as EARC—as did the Opposition members comprising the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review. In hindsight, the Minister in particular, who appears to dislike upsetting battlers, will realise that he took the wrong tack on 29 March 1990 when he introduced his wide-ranging motion authorising EARC to investigate local authority electoral and administrative matters. As I said before, this was never recommended by Fitzgerald. Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4997

It is worth while to review the lead-up to that motion. I know that the Minister will not like this as he knows in his heart that the beliefs that the Labor Party and the Labor Opposition harboured in the years prior to the 1989 State election about the local authorities were wrong—dead wrong. The first that Queenslanders heard about a review of electoral and administrative matters relating to local authorities was on 3 January 1990, which was one month after Labor won office, not before. Before then there was not a whimper. At that time, Mr Sciacca, the Federal Labor member for Bowman, was reported as having said— “The gerrymander in Queensland’s local government boundaries was far worse than the one which governed the State.” That comment was hastily followed up by the Minister saying that EARC would review the local government boundaries. The Premier also bought into the issue at that time by saying that the local government boundaries would be investigated. As I said, there was not one word about that before the election. Labor must have had it on the agenda before the election, but there was not one word about it. Why could Labor not be honest with the electorate? Why could it not be honest with local government and say that it was going to do that? It was not game. Mr Braddy: You said you weren’t going to win. Mr RANDELL: The Leader of the House has a tiger by the tail. He is doing whatever he can to get out of this. On the twelfth parliamentary sitting day of the new Government, the motion was introduced, despite the fact that in the 1989 pre-election propaganda—and I would like the Leader of the House to listen to this—the Labor Party stated that it would not be rushing into any restructuring of local government. Mr Braddy: We weren’t rushing. Mr RANDELL: The Government took one month before it made a move. The Leader of the House might smile. He is like Mr Hawke; he has broken some promises. Mr Braddy: We weren’t rushing. Mr RANDELL: If the Leader of the House does not call one month rushing, I do not know what rushing is. It is clear to anyone in this State, and it is certainly clear to local authorities, that the restructuring of local authorities was an issue high on the Government’s agenda at the time. However, the Government was not game to make known that fact before the election. That resolution, political in its formulation, also contained a timetable for completion. What a farce! That was a political timetable which was to cause EARC much-reported heartache. One of the part-time commissioners, Marie Watson Blake, said that it was wrong to expect the commission to meet impractical deadlines. She went on to say that “time constraints motivated by political expediency should not apply” to the commission. That is real political expediency. The Government wanted the issue out of the road as quickly as possible. The Government claimed that it would not do a thing about the matter before the election. Then, when it was elected to office, the Government said, “Let us get it out of the road.” The commission was aware that it was on a politically motivated crusade. It is unfortunate that this Goss Labor Government forced the commission down that track, instead of taking a more considered approach to the matter. It is interesting to note that the Labor Party itself, after releasing its most ill- considered and intemperate submission on the local government electoral system, declined to make any further submission on matters pertaining to local government. Where was the wonderful Wayne Swan when that occurred? The Government buried itself in the TLC bunker and has not yet re-emerged on that matter. The reference proposed by the Minister was political—there is no escaping that—and the timetable was political. The Government would not have stipulated that politically oriented timetable if it had been less obsessed about getting National Party people and people perceived to be conservative out of local government. I repeat that the Government would not have stipulated an unrealistic political timetable in such circumstances. At the time the timetable was proposed, the Opposition pointed out the enormity of the task confronting EARC, and suggested that much more time was needed. EARC had an 4998 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly enormous task, and how the Government ever expected it to complete that task in that time is just beyond my comprehension. However, the Government was determined to have the review of the electoral system completed and the recommendations in place before the local government elections in March 1991. The intention of the Government was to have those recommendations in place before those elections. It must have been a bitter pill for the Labor Party’s machine men to find that they did not knock out any of those people who were perceived to be conservative. One would have thought that the Government would have amended the timetable for the second part of the review pertaining to administration, including the external boundaries of local authorities, but it pushed on. The simple reason for that was that the Goss Labor Government wanted the task out of the way before the election. The EARC report on external boundaries was due on 1 July 1991. If honourable members think that I am pushing my own barrow, they should consider the fact that the commission had to obtain at least two extensions. On one such occasion, the Chairman of EARC wrote to the Speaker stating that the report would be further delayed “basically” due to the “magnitude and complexity of the task”. When that Bill was introduced, the Opposition told the Government that the commission would need more time than what had been allowed. However, the Government was determined to rush ahead with its timetable. The Opposition realised that that timetable would fail, which it certainly has, and it will continue to fail if the Government keeps undertaking these sorts of exercises. A more liberal timetable would have permitted EARC to discover the human face of local government and talk to the ratepayers in the first instance, rather than attempt to confront them sporadically at the end of the review. That is what the Government does not do; it does not talk to the grassroots people, the little battlers to whom Mr Burns is always referring. EARC did not have the time to examine the physical structures or talk to the shire clerks, the engineers, the town-planners and the staff of the administration sections within the local authorities that it identified as being problematic or priority cases. EARC just rushed in because it did not have the time to consult fully with those authorities, and the Government did not want to give the commission that time. The best that EARC could do was undertake research and hear evidence. It is peculiar that some of that research was undertaken interstate and overseas. The Opposition believes that the time limitations imposed by the Goss Labor Government impeded EARC’s consultative processes, and that those time limitations were unfairly placed on it. If it had had more time at its disposal, EARC would have been able to adopt a different regimen for carrying out research, consultation and analysis, resulting in much less controversy and uncertainty. If the Government has ever faced controversy, it has certainly faced it in regard to this issue. EARC itself said that the review had been “very controversial” and that, in the early stages of the review, “the commission’s integrity was attacked.” Honourable members might note that EARC received almost 3 200 submissions and comments on the issue of external boundaries—the very matter that this Bill addresses. The commission received 1 520 submissions on the 16 other matters that were the subject of review, yet on this one issue—the issue of external boundaries—the commission received double that number of submissions. Does that not prove that there was public concern about the issue of external boundaries? The large number of submissions received by EARC on all other issues paled into insignificance compared with the concerns raised about the issue of external boundaries. People highlighted their concern by turning up in droves at the public hearings of the parliamentary EARC committee. This part of the Bill is an attempt to mop up the political mess that Labor has created both for itself and, unfortunately, for local authorities. The Labor Government has got a tiger by the tail. It is desperately trying to escape from the situation in which it finds itself. It is hoping that the issue will not amount to much in the coming elections. The local authorities had to suffer the trauma and the upheaval of the review stages, including the large number of submissions and hearings. If honourable members have talked to any shire clerks or shire chairmen in the last 12 months, they will be aware that these people have been snowed under with reviews and papers, and their normal work has practically ceased. Indeed, so heated was the atmosphere within the local Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 4999 authorities that the Local Government Association conducted several seminars to allow members to give vent to their feelings. I can tell the Minister that the views aired at those seminars were far from complimentary towards the Goss Labor Government. The Government could not have chosen a worse time to rip the heart out of local government, with the current burdens imposed by drought, recession and financial hardship. This part of the Bill says two things. Firstly, it says that Cabinet rejected the PEARC’s recommendations that the Goss Labor Government implement the boundary changes—in other words, the Government backed down to save its political hide. Cabinet decided that the 16 councils identified by EARC for amalgamations would have to negotiate the terms of amalgamation or develop joint arrangements which met the concerns about efficiency and effectiveness raised by EARC. The backdown was, in the words of one of the Minister’s staff, “designed to take the heat out of the amalgamation debate which had led to strong opposition and threats of an electoral backlash in some communities”. That is what the Government has done. The Government is afraid of that electoral backlash. It is of interest to note that in rejecting the PEARC report—and the committee was chaired by the high-profile Labor member for Yeronga, and what a blow in the face it must have been for him—the Labor Government, in the main, adopted the recommendations of the dissenting report. The majority report was thrown away and the Government adopted the dissenting report which was compiled by three members. It was an attempt to fix the problems that were created and to get the Government off the hook. In a nutshell, the Goss Labor Government meddled in the affairs of local government, it contributed to the mess by its stupid timetable, and it is now trying to make the most of a bad job. In other words, this legislation sets up the procedure to mop up the mess. The irony has not been missed by the Opposition in that the Government has virtually introduced in this legislation the changes the Opposition proposed in its dissenting report which helped local government get the Goss Labor Government off its back. It must be said that throughout the entire review of the local authorities, the National Party supported local authorities, and consistently maintained that it would endorse only those changes that ensured that local authorities remained independent, accountable, and allowed them to effectively service their constituency. Although the Opposition supports part of the legislation—and as I said before, I thank the Minister for his courtesy in permitting his senior departmental officers to brief Opposition members, including me—there are some aspects about which the Opposition has some concern. The Opposition has passed those concerns on to the Minister’s departmental officers, and I hope that they pass them on to the Minister. As to Division 1—it is important that the focus is not just on external boundaries. It was hoped that the division would cover a broader spectrum and take into account structural arrangements and joint arrangements. It would be unfortunate if this was the way in which the Minister gave effect to his implied threat of “cooperate or else”. That is what he said earlier this year. It must be said that if the Labor Party is returned to Government after the next State election, the threat of “cooperate or else” hangs like a sword over those local authorities that have been identified for amalgamation if they have not made some perceived progress. If the Labor Party is not returned to Government, those local authorities will not have the threat of “you do it or else we will do it for you” hanging over them. It is hoped that the focus is not just on amalgamations but also on finding out the best ways to maximise the finances of local authorities. Today, on an ABC program, Councillor Tom Pyne—for whom I have great respect—stated that amalgamations cause “just a lot of heartache and joint arrangements are the way to go.” Mr Davies: He also supported what the Government is doing. Mr RANDELL: He is certainly not supporting a Labor Government. He is one of those being heavied by the Labor Government. As I said, he is a man for whom I have great respect. In Victoria, the Labor Government has jettisoned its amalgamation program. In New South Wales, the program resulted in much unhappiness. Even in Queensland, with the relatively new Logan City Council, there have been—and there still are—problems. Many, many matters must be considered. I say with respect to the 5000 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Minister that it is hoped that this part of the Bill will not focus narrowly just on amalgamations, but also on structural arrangements. When I was speaking with officers from the Minister’s department I raised the concerns of the Opposition about proposed section 4L in Division 3. Although the Opposition appreciates the overall thrust of the clause, it is troubled that insufficient recognition is given to existing joint arrangements. Throughout the State, there are many examples of joint arrangements, such as joint aerodromes, libraries, saleyards, water and sewerage, and so on. The Opposition has also asked officers of the Minister’s department about the terms and conditions of the appointment of the commissioner. The Opposition sought to clarify if there was an option to reappoint a commissioner. It believes that the commissioner will be appointed for only five years, and there is no mention of an extension of that term. What happens to a commissioner who does a good job and is asked to stay on for another 12 months? Under this legislation, I do not believe that the commissioner can do that. I ask the Minister to clarify that point. I would like to believe that the commissioner would have a background in local government and is able to understand its complexities and the subtleties of its finances. On this point, the Opposition is putting its trust in the Minister to do the right thing. I could probably say a lot more on this matter, but at the moment I will leave it. The Minister may wish to assure me of who the commissioner will be. I could embellish this matter of the appointment, but I believe that people on the Government side of the House do not really understand what this legislation is all about. However, I believe that the Minister understands what I am saying. I will refrain from enlarging on this matter as it is very important that the person who is appointed takes his position in a most apolitical manner with goodwill from all sides. Unless a commissioner is appointed on that basis, there will be trouble. From the whispers that I have heard around the corridors, I believe that there will be trouble. I repeat that the commissioner who is appointed should take his position in a most apolitical manner with goodwill from all sides. I believe that the nominee, or the person appointed, should not be a member of any political party. Somebody could be a member of a political party and resign from that party the day before he is appointed as a commissioner. Is that the way it will be done? Mr BRADDY: The appointment will be done with integrity; you can be sure of that. Mr RANDELL: I will take the Minister’s word for that. I would like to think that there will be goodwill, because I am speaking with goodwill. I have spoken about the facts and I am quite willing to allow any speaker who follows me to rebut what I have said. As I said at the outset, the Opposition has no major objections to the legislation. It results from a process that was started by the National Party. Fortunately for the councils and ratepayers of Queensland, the Labor Party has stuck pretty closely to the themes that were set out in the Green Paper published by the Opposition. It is a shame that Labor took so long to introduce the legislation. The Opposition is worried about the trend to Government by regulation. It detracts from the importance of Parliament and, as I said, if we do not watch out, Queensland will have Government by regulation. It leaves real power in the hands of people who do not have to account to electorates. Later this year, when the National Party returns to the Treasury benches, it will fix that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! I call the honourable member for Thuringowa. Government members: Hear, hear! Mr McELLIGOTT (Thuringowa) (5.51 p.m.): At the outset, as I rise to participate in this debate, I recognise the support of my fellow backbenchers. My contribution to the debate will focus solely on that part of the legislation that establishes the office of the Local Government Commissioner. Later in my speech, I will mention some of the concerns that I have about the way in which local government operates in this State. Firstly, I will revise the memory of the member for Mirani. He went through the history of the formulation of this legislation. I remind him of the local government conference that was held in Townsville prior to the State election of 1989 at which he was present as the Minister for Local Government, and at which I was also present as the Opposition Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5001 spokesman on Local Government. I castigated the organisers of that conference for not including on the agenda some consideration of the ramifications of the Fitzgerald inquiry report. I was certain that it would apply to local government. I made the point as strongly as possible that anybody receiving or considering a report of that type which focused on public administration in this State would be foolish to suggest that, at some time, arising from that report there would not be a detailed review of the operations of local government. I must say with some criticism that the delegates at that conference adopted the view that local government was entrenched and beyond reproach, and that no Fitzgerald inquiry and certainly no Electoral and Administrative Review Commission was about to change the way in which local government operated in this State. The Minister supported the view held by those delegates. I certainly reject the allegations by the honourable member that, prior to the election, there was no suggestion that local government should be reviewed. In fact, I made the very point that local government is a very important part of administration in this State and should certainly be reviewed. On achieving Government, it was very obvious to us that EARC was the appropriate body to consider local government matters. It should have come as no surprise to the Opposition, or indeed to local government generally, that EARC was commissioned to examine external boundaries. As an example of what I am talking about, I remember making the point very strongly at that conference that the Shire of Perry contained a division with 22 voters who elected two councillors to the local shire council. I recall also another division with 21 voters who elected two councillors to the local council. At that conference, I made the point that that situation could not and would not continue upon the election of a responsible Goss Labor Government. Thus, we are discussing this legislation. Members would be aware that one of EARC’s recommendations was that the city councils of Townsville and Thuringowa should be abolished and replaced by a new local authority to be called Townsville City Council. For two reasons, I strongly supported EARC’s view. Firstly, I cannot and do not accept that a community of some 120 000 people, which is the combined population of Townsville and Thuringowa Cities, needs two full-time mayors and 21 aldermen to deliver local government services in that particular region. Secondly, in this day and age when people are legitimately concerned about jobs, we should be attracting investment dollars and providing work opportunities for the people who live in our electorates and local communities. It seemed to me that the prospects of encouraging investment into the Townsville region would certainly be handled more appropriately by a single local authority. After all, the name and reputation of Townsville was well established. With the best will in the world, I fail to see how we could possibly promote two cities trying to service one community and two cities with a reputation for differing on basic issues such as by-laws, town planning, transport, library services, and so on. For that reason, I strongly supported amalgamation. Obviously, objections were received from the community. I thought that it was quite obscene that the elected members of the Thuringowa council chose to use ratepayers’ dollars to argue against amalgamation. I completely disregarded their objections. Given their vested interest, they should be the last people who made their opinions known. At that time, I made the point—and I make it again—that local government should be subject to independent review in exactly the same way as State and Federal electorates are reviewed. Because of the shifts in population by growth or whatever, it is impossible to argue that local government external boundaries should be locked away in concrete and not be subject to appropriate review and, if necessary, amendment. I argued very strongly for amalgamation. Perhaps the only real arguments that were raised against the amalgamation—other than by those who had a vested interest in protecting their positions—was that the process was hurried, that there had been inadequate consultation and that people who lived in that particular area had not really had any input into the decision-making process. I did not entirely agree with that, but I accept that the Minister should have considered that point of view. I believe that in his decision the Minister has responded 5002 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly to all concerns by establishing the office of Local Government Commissioner, who will undertake exactly the sorts of functions that people argued should be carried out. The commissioner will talk to local government representatives, assess the needs of local communities, assess the possibilities of avoiding amalgamation through a process of cooperation, and so on. Ultimately, if he determines that changes should be made in local government boundaries, he will have the power to recommend to the Minister and the Government the way in which those changes might occur. I am very pleased that the commissioner has been given wider powers to conduct investigations of a range of institutional and local government matters—the so-called reviewable local government matters. I agree entirely with the member for Mirani, who said that despite the fact that local government should be given considerable autonomy, a number of sectors should be subject to review by the commissioner and, ultimately, by the Government. Given the recent history of the CJC’s inquiry into the members of this House and the growing demand for accountability in Government, I believe that the Minister has introduced a Bill that will certainly meet that requirement. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m. Debate, on motion of Mr Braddy, adjourned.

SUMMER TIME REPEAL BILL Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts ) (7.30 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to repeal the Summer Time Act 1990.” Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr W. K. Goss, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts ) (7.31 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” Members, even those with short-term memory loss, such as the member for Southport, will recall that on Saturday, 22 February 1992, the people of Queensland voted in a referendum on the question: “Are you in favour of daylight saving?” The result of the referendum was that the majority of the electorate voted against the question, thus sealing the fate of daylight saving in Queensland. The Legislative Assembly was informed of the final result of the referendum last week when the writ was returned and tabled in this House. Prior to the referendum I gave an undertaking that this Government would accept the outcome of the referendum and act in accordance with the will of the majority. The introduction of this Bill fulfils my commitment in this regard. This is a relatively straightforward Bill which seeks to repeal the existing daylight- saving legislation in full. The referral of an issue, such as the continuation of daylight saving, to the electorate for determination is possibly one of the best examples of the democratic process at work. In this case, failure by the Parliament to respond to the referendum result and repeal the Summer Time Act 1990 in full would be regarded as an affront to fundamental democratic principles. Accordingly, this Parliament has no option other than to pass this Bill, as a clear direction has been given to it on this matter by the electorate. I have no doubt that, while the repeal of the Summer Time Act 1990 will see an end to daylight saving in Queensland, the debate on daylight saving—and the absence of it Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5003 in Queensland—will continue. The referendum result indicated that a large proportion of the electorate believes that daylight saving does provide for a better quality of life and does contribute to the economic performance of businesses in Queensland. However, on referendum day these people were in a minority. For the people who voted “Yes” to the referendum question, it is now incumbent upon them to accept the majority result, as must this Parliament. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Borbidge, adjourned.

LEGISLATIVE STANDARDS BILL Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts ) (7.34 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act relating to the standards of legislation, the drafting of legislation and for other purposes related to legislation.” Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr W. K. Goss, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts ) (7.35 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” The origin of this Bill, the Legislative Standards Bill, along with the other two Bills that I shall introduce today, lies in the Fitzgerald report which recommended a review of the role and functions of the Parliamentary Counsel. As honourable members would know, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel drafts not only Bills for introduction into Parliament but also subordinate legislation. In the course of drafting, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel advises on the nature and appropriateness of legislative proposals. This advice, I am sure honourable members will agree, should not be tailored to political expediency or fail to point out errors in principle. To ensure this, it is vital that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel be given the necessary independence that Mr Fitzgerald recommended. The Electoral and Administrative Review Commission—EARC—undertook a review of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and, after extensive consultation, made a number of recommendations in its report in May 1991 which are directed broadly at improving the standard of drafting in this State. The Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review, in its report in July 1991, endorsed EARC’s recommendations and made others which I will come to later with the introduction of the Statutory Instruments Bill. Before I go on, I would like to thank both EARC and its parliamentary committee for their well-researched reports. The Legislative Standards Bill before the House is based on the draft Bill contained in EARC’s report and it is a first for Australia. It is an important step in establishing Parliament, in the vision of Fitzgerald, as a true forum in which the necessity and worth of proposed laws can be debated. This Bill does two things. Firstly, it establishes the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, controlled by the Parliamentary Counsel who is to be appointed by the Governor in Council under terms and conditions set by Governor in Council. The role and functions of the office are defined, including a provision relating to the drafting of private members Bills. Secondly, the Bill sets out a list of fundamental legislative principles which should be observed in drafting legislation. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel is required to advise its clients on these principles. My Government will also require the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to advise the 5004 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly parliamentary business and legislation committee of any departures from these principles and any other concerns. The Attorney-General as first law officer of the State similarly advises the parliamentary business and legislation committee, and this measure will greatly strengthen the role of the committee in ensuring the preparation of high-quality legislation. Providing a statutory basis for fundamental legislative principles is a significant step in the preservation and enhancement of individual rights and liberties. These principles, which will be encapsulated now in legislation, include— ensuring consistency with the principles of natural justice; avoiding reversing the onus of proof in criminal proceedings; providing appropriate protection against self-incrimination; providing fair compensation for compulsory acquisition of property; and avoiding adversely affecting rights and liberties or imposing retrospective obligations. These, and the other principles outlined in the Bill, are widely recognised in all democratic societies. Honourable members should note, however, that these principles are not absolute because in Westminster jurisdictions, these are governed, for example, by parliamentary convention, common law rules and presumptions, evolving doctrines associated with the field of administrative law, and international conventions and treaties on human rights. As EARC noted, there may be circumstances where public interest requires that a principle be displaced. A well-known example of this relates to the acquisition of a person’s assets which were gained through the proceeds of crime. However, the decision to displace one of these principles is a policy decision properly to be taken by the Government and ultimately by Parliament, and it is their responsibility to bear criticism for disregarding them. At this point, I would like to make mention of one further principle which this Government supports and which is trailblazing and unique in Australia. I refer to the requirement, which honourable members will notice in the Bill, that regard should be had for Aboriginal tradition and Torres Strait Islander custom when considering introduction of new legislation. This Government considers that, for too long, little notice has been taken of the traditions and customs of our indigenous peoples when legislation is drafted by members of our non-indigenous majority. I give honourable members one example which is mentioned by the parliamentary committee in its report. The Succession Act provides for the distribution of the estate of a person who dies without a will. The distribution of the estate to an adopted child depends on the definition of “adopted child” in accordance with State law. It does not deal with the less common position of a person adopted in accordance with Torres Strait Islander customs, and in such cases it is easy to see how Torres Strait Islanders who have been adopted according to their own customs would be disadvantaged. In recognising this in our legislation, this Government has made the first positive response in this country to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report on the recognition of Aboriginal customary laws. This provision will ensure that legislators will take account of concerns that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people may have insofar as they might affect their rights and interests. Parliament would, of course, retain its prerogative whether or not it accepted this principle in particular circumstances, but what would be avoided would be the unintentional disregard of tradition and custom that is currently possible. Honourable members will notice one recommendation of EARC that has not been included in either the provisions of this Bill or the other two related Bills to be introduced later. I refer here to EARC’s recommendation for the establishment of a parliamentary scrutiny of legislation committee to replace the existing Subordinate Legislation Committee. Let me assure members that this has not been overlooked. I understand that EARC’s report on the review of parliamentary committees is to be released in August/September. The Government considers that it would be sensible to consider the question of the parliamentary scrutiny of legislation committee after this report and the report of the parliamentary committee are released. However, I wish to Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5005 reassure members that the role envisaged by EARC for this committee in scrutinising legislation for breaches of fundamental legislative principles will be very effectively carried out by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, in addition, of course, to the scrutiny already undertaken by my colleague the Attorney-General. The Legislative Standards Bill—as well as the Statutory Instruments Bill and the Reprints Bill to which I will speak shortly— is the culmination of a process of extensive research and consultation by both EARC and its parliamentary committee. May I say that the effect of all these Bills combined will be to give Queensland a modern, fair and efficient legislative drafting system. A glance at some examples of legislation passed by previous Governments clearly demonstrates that these reforms are long overdue. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Borbidge, adjourned.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS BILL Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts ) (7.44 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act relating to statutory instruments and for other purposes related to legislation.” Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr W. K. Goss, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts ) (7.43 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” I turn now to the second Bill which has arisen as a result of this Government’s consideration of EARC’s recommendations. I refer to the Statutory Instruments Bill. The parliamentary committee recommended that that part of EARC’s Legislative Standards Bill dealing with subordinate legislation should be enacted as a separate Bill. The Statutory Instruments Bill takes a number of the provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act and consolidates them with the provisions relating to statutory instruments in the Legislative Standards Bill. The Statutory Instruments Bill is intended to give Queensland a satisfactory framework for defining and dealing with statutory instruments. This framework has, up until now, been lacking in this State. This Bill defines subordinate legislation and clarifies what are the statutory instruments used, be they regulation, Order in Council, by-law or ordinance. In its report, EARC was particularly concerned that not all subordinate legislation is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. Until now, most regulations have been subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance because of section 28A of the Acts Interpretation Act. As for other types of subordinate legislation, such as Orders in Council of a legislative nature, some have been required to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly, while most have not. Until now, requirements were apparently imposed, or not imposed, in an ad hoc way. This Bill ensures that all statutory instruments of a significant legislative character are open to parliamentary scrutiny. They must be tabled in the Legislative Assembly and open to disallowance by resolution of the House. The existing Committee of Subordinate Legislation will continue to examine all subordinate legislation that is tabled. Since 1 July 1991, the subordinate legislation drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has been published in the subordinate legislation series in 5006 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly pamphlet form. This is part of this Government’s initiative in making legislation more accessible to the public. I should point out that, as a result of enacting this Bill, it will no longer be necessary to print a regulation, for example, in full in the Government Gazette. Instead, what will be printed in the gazette is a notice that a regulation has been made. Provisions have been included, however, to ensure that the public is aware of where the full text of a regulation is available. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Borbidge, adjourned.

REPRINTS BILL Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts ) (7.45 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act relating to reprints of legislation and for other purposes related to legislation.” Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr W. K. Goss, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts ) (7.46 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” This is the third in the trilogy of Bills relating to my Government’s intention to improve the standard and accessibility of legislation in Queensland, and it is the Reprints Bill. This Bill was not specifically mentioned by either EARC or its parliamentary committee. In looking at the purposes of the other two Bills that have been introduced today, my Government decided that there should be a clean sweep of everything to do with the preparation of legislation, facilitating and streamlining the process and making the end result more accessible and understandable by the public. The Reprints Bill improves the availability of Queensland legislation by modernising the law relating to reprints of primary and subordinate legislation. The Bill re-enacts provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act in regard to such matters. The effect of the Bill is to allow a gradual standardisation of existing legislation into a modern, readable style without using up valuable parliamentary time to consider minor amendments of a formal nature. The sort of amendments that would otherwise be necessary include the correction of spelling mistakes, renumbering provisions according to current numbering conventions and the substitution of gender-neutral and updated language for gender- specific and archaic language. EARC recommended that resources be provided to develop and maintain a computer database of Acts and subordinate legislation. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has already commenced this task. Enactment of this Bill will help in preparing a database of legislation and producing computer-generated reprints. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Borbidge, adjourned.

SUNCORP INSURANCE AND FINANCE AMENDMENT BILL Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (7.48 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Suncorp Insurance and Finance Act 1985.” Motion agreed to. Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5007

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr De Lacy, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (7.49 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” The object of this Bill is to enable any staff member of Suncorp who has been dismissed or suspended from duty to appeal against that action to the Industrial Relations Commission. In two recent appeal proceedings under the current Act, the Queensland State Service Union questioned whether the current legislation was still appropriate. The present Suncorp Insurance and Finance Act provides for all staff appeals to be made to the Suncorp Board. This includes minor disciplinary appeals as well as those relating to dismissal or suspension. The Suncorp Board is currently required to appoint a person to hear the appeal. That person reports back to the Suncorp Board with a recommendation as to whether the appeal should be upheld or rejected. These provisions were included in the Suncorp legislation at the time of the change from the State Government Insurance Office to Suncorp. The provisions reflected the position of public servants at that time, with appeals being made to the then Public Service Board. In 1990, this Government acted to change the process in relation to public servants. Now, appeals by public servants against dismissal are heard by the Industrial Relations Commission. This is the same opportunity as that open to other employees in the private sector. This Bill will bring the appeal rights against dismissal of Suncorp employees into line with appeal rights of public servants and other employees. Parties consulted in the preparation of this Bill include the Public Sector Management Commission, the Industrial Relations Commission and Suncorp Insurance and Finance. There is strong support for the amendment. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Borbidge, adjourned.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed (see p. 5006).

Mr McELLIGOTT: Prior to interruption of the debate, I was reaffirming my support for the policy of the Minister because, as far as possible, local government should be given the autonomy to make its own decisions and to be answerable for those decisions to its constituency. I also welcome the inclusion in this Bill of the creation of the position of Local Government Commissioner. Together with the member for Mirani who preceded me in this debate, I have taken the view that local government should be subject to the supervision of an independent commissioner who has the authority and the powers to conduct reviews of matters that are reviewable, and who has to report to the Minister—and ultimately to the Government—on areas of concern. It is in that context that I wish to raise the matter of payment of fees and allowances to elected members of local authorities. I mention this matter because of my very real concern that the Local Government Act is being seriously breached across the State. I admit that my concerns are based on what has occurred within the Thuringowa City 5008 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Council and that it may well be the case that I owe other councils an apology. However, I doubt that, and the seriousness of this matter justifies investigation by the commissioner when he is appointed.

Briefly, the background is that Alderman Pat Thompson of the Thuringowa City Council recently sought payment of a meeting allowance for his attendance at a briefing conducted at Lavarack Barracks. The briefing was for local parliamentarians and councillors. Alderman Thompson’s request was initially refused, which prompted him to inquire as to just what fees were being paid to the other aldermen. Initially, the town clerk refused to provide the information, as he claimed that it would be a breach of privacy and that, in any case, some of the details on claims were, and I quote his words, “sketchy and abbreviated”. Quite rightly, that alarmed the alderman, who vigorously pursued the matter. Quite properly, he considered that the information should be freely available to himself as an elected member and also, of course, to the public. The Mayor of Thuringowa, Alderman Les Tyrell, supported the decision of the town clerk not to provide the information, arguing that the books of the council were open to the public and that Alderman Thompson could seek out the information for himself. Alderman Tyrell even went to the extent of threatening legal action against Alderman Thompson, and finally decided that it was all an ALP plot, after all. However, media and community pressure were such that detailed information was finally provided, and Alderman Thompson was so concerned by what was contained in that information that he brought it to my attention.

Honourable members will be aware that Thuringowa City comprises about 38 000 people and is divided into three divisions. Division 1 has three aldermen, Division 2 has one alderman, and Division 3 has seven aldermen. We are not talking about a major provincial city, and members can work out for themselves that the elected members are not overworked. What do those aldermen pay themselves? The mayor, Alderman Les Tyrell, receives an allowance of $40,000 per annum, plus a $12,000 allowance for what is described as car, phone expenses, etc. In addition, Alderman Tyrell receives a fee of $110 for each committee meeting which he attends. The statement of his earnings indicates that he regularly attends meetings of the following committees: Development Committee, Public Relations Committee, Works Committee, Health Committee, Traffic Committee and Finance Committee. The full council meets over two days in each month, for which Alderman Tyrell receives $240 a day.

As mayor, he is appointed to the board of Townsville Enterprise and to the board of the Townsville Entertainment Centre. However, he apparently does not consider that his attendances at those meetings are covered by his $40,000 mayoral allowance, as he claims fees for each attendance at $110 a time. He similarly claims for meeting fees associated with meetings of the Upper Ross Recreation Centre. There is still more. Alderman Tyrell has been paid for his attendance at the opening of the Townsville junior Rugby League season, an Anzac Day ceremony, the launch of the Northern Regional Health Authority, girl guides functions, meetings of Communities Against Forced Amalgamations and even for discussions that he held with EARC—all of that in addition to his $40,000 per annum mayoral allowance. In total, Alderman Tyrell has been paid $20,702 in meeting fees for the period 1 January 1991 to 31 March 1992, again in addition to the $40,000 mayoral allowance and the $12,000 allowance for general expenses.

Let us consider the experience of the deputy mayor, Alderman Roger Brabon. He is one of the three councillors who represent Division 1. He has received all of the fees paid to the deputy mayor for meetings of the full council and the council committees. He Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5009 was also paid for his attendance at the discussions with EARC and for meetings of Communities Against Forced Amalgamations. He even claimed and was paid a fee of $110 for attending the official opening of the new Rollingstone Police Station. Alderman Brabon lives some 10 kilometres from the council building and, each time he is paid an allowance, he is paid a further $25 as a travel allowance. For the period 1 January 1991 to 31 March 1992, Alderman Brabon was paid $15,842 in allowances plus $3,408.55 in travel allowances. Included in that were two occasions on which he was paid $110, plus $25 to call at the council offices to sign subdivisional plans.

So it goes on for all the aldermen. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to dissect each of them individually, but some further examples will be illustrative. The sum of $1,540 was paid to Alderman Lane for meetings at the Townsville Entertainment Centre; $1,372 to Alderman Hodson for meetings of the Upper Ross Recreation Centre; the same amount to Alderman Kelly for the same meeting; $440 to Alderman Pierotti for meetings to plan New Year’s Eve celebrations; $764 to Alderman Ringuet for meetings to plan the annual garden competition; and $880 to the same alderman for meetings of Crime Stoppers. The Local Government Act provides for payment of fees to aldermen for their attendance at meetings of the council and its committees, inspections and conferences. From my experience in local government, it is understood that aldermen are required to do more than simply attend meetings, so the meeting fee is set at a level that takes account of those demands. After all, $240 a day for meetings of the full council is not bad, nor is $110 for each committee meeting and inspections, some of which, no doubt, last less than an hour.

It was never intended that aldermen be paid for the variety of community activities in which they are expected to participate. We are talking about big money. For the record, I list total fees and allowances paid to the current mayor and aldermen for the period 1 January 1991 to 31 March 1992—

$ Tyrell 23,007.33 Brabon 19,515.15 Lane 12,550.40 McCarthy 12,583.59 Chesney 14,924.96 Fletcher 14,066.87 Gillman 10,545.10 Hodson 10,182.01 Kelly 12,604.00 Pierotti 18,016.66 Ringuet 11,445.80 Thompson 8,926.10 Total 168,367.97 The other matter which Alderman Thompson raised that is also of concern is the policy adopted by council whereby developers who seek a meeting with elected members have been required to pay the meeting fees of the aldermen concerned. I have not heard of that policy being implemented by any other council and, in my view, it places the aldermen in a very difficult situation having received a payment from a developer who is doing business with the council. I am not accusing the mayor or the aldermen of dishonesty. Payment of the allowances is approved by the town clerk and authorised by the council. However, the responsibility of elected members extends beyond ensuring that the accounting functions are carried out. The ratepayers of Thuringowa will, I am sure, be shocked by, firstly, the amount that the mayor and aldermen are paying themselves and, secondly, by 5010 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly the fact that many of the functions which ratepayers believed were being carried out in a sense of community spirit have in fact resulted in a quite generous payment to the aldermen concerned. As I said at the outset, I do not know what policy is adopted by councils across the State, but if the experience of the Thuringowa City Council can be taken as a guide, I suspect that the Local Government Act is being seriously breached. I urge the commissioner, when he is appointed, to look at this whole question of payment of fees and allowances to elected members. It is an area which I would suggest demands the greatest propriety and is the sort of matter that the commissioner will indeed be appointed to review. As far as the Mayor and aldermen of Thuringowa City are concerned, I suggest that they immediately review the payments made to date and that they make individual refunds in cases in which those payments contravene the Local Government Act. No doubt the aldermen will interpret the Act widely, but I am quite certain that some of the payments to which I have referred contravene even the broadest interpretation of the Act. I would further propose that the practice of charging developers for aldermen’s meetings cease immediately. As I said at the outset, I strongly support the Bill that is before the House. Despite the fact that many of us, myself included, would have supported the immediate amalgamation of the Townsville City Council and the Thuringowa City Council, it seems to me that the Minister has got it right in that he has determined instead to appoint an independent commissioner who will maintain a continuing role of reviewing the operation of local government in this State. He will be in a position to earn the confidence of the elected members and the communities that those elected members represent, and he will be able to provide the Minister, and ultimately the Government, with recommendations that will result in the better government of this State at a local government level. Mr COOMBER (Currumbin) (8.02 p.m.): This piece of legislation is important to local government in many ways. The City of Brisbane Act is being amended, and many provisions of that Act parallel the Local Government Act and remove duplication of legislation. The Local Government Act is being amended to provide for the creation of a Local Government Commissioner to review local government matters, and the Act is being amended also to allow local authorities to enter into enterprises on their own behalf or in joint venture with others. The legislation is complex but necessary to bring local government up to date with changing attitudes in the community. First of all, I would like to comment on the way that the Bill is written. The legislation is easy to read and understand. I congratulate the Parliamentary Counsel, Mr Leahy, on that. The formation of a Local Government Commissioner is supported by the Liberal Party. We believe that local government deserves an independent process for review of such problems as local government external boundaries and other matters. The State Electoral Commissioner is independent of the Justice Department and contracted to the Parliament to oversee electoral matters in Queensland. The same principle should apply for local government in Queensland. The Electoral and Administrative Review Commission assessment of local government boundaries in Queensland was a rough, crude assessment of local government in Queensland. The process was wrong. The process was dictatorial, overbearing and had minimal contact with local authorities and the people they serve. Changes to boundaries, amalgamation or whatever cannot be conducted by submission, facsimile or correspondence. Local government is about people, and change, although necessary, must be done by a procedure of consultation, mediation and explanation. Local government boundaries were not a matter referred to by Fitzgerald but an initiative of this Government. The threats of amalgamation made by this Government have been noted by local authorities throughout Queensland, and none more so than on the Gold Coast and most coastal authorities in Queensland. The commissioner will have his hands full settling many disputes between cities and shires caused by the EARC process. The member for Thuringowa talked extensively about the problems that have been raised between Thuringowa and Townsville, and the same situation applies between the City Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5011 of the Gold Coast and the Albert Shire. However, I believe that a lot of the dissent generated was unnecessary. The powers of the commissioner are wide and all encompassing. The commissioner has the power to recommend changes to boundaries, the power to create new local authorities, to change the voting system of local authorities and to reduce or increase the number of representatives in a local authority. The powers are wide and important to local government and, no doubt, more legislation will be introduced to outline tolerance levels for local authorities leading into the 1994 election. The independence of the commissioner is noted, with both the commissioner and the Minister being able to examine local government problems. It would have been very easy for the Minister to bury problems that arise, but the manner in which the legislation is written does not, in my opinion, allow this to happen. It is interesting to note that the commissioner is to be appointed by Governor in Council, but what this really means is that Cabinet will appoint someone sympathetic to the views of this Government even though the commissioner cannot be a member of a political party. Members of the Liberal Party would prefer to see the commissioner selected from an extensive list of elected local government representatives. Many of these people have served their council and their State for many years. We in the Liberal Party would suggest that the commissioner not come from the public service but from the grassroots of elected government. We acknowledge that the job will be a full-time position. However, local government is in chaos, not knowing where its future lies. I am surprised to see that the legislation does not provide for dismissal of the commissioner other than by resignation or other self-generated procedures. The Liberal Party believes that the occupant of the position of deputy commissioner should also be elected from serving local government officials, wherein there exists many suitable applicants with legal, finance, public sector administration or industrial relations backgrounds. One section of this amendment legislation that interests me is the changes that allow local authorities to enter into enterprises. Several local authorities are keen to enter into those areas that raise revenue to augment the rate revenue that is collected each year. Until now, this action was illegal. This legislation follows consultation between the Local Government Association, the Brisbane City Council, the Confederation of Industry, Government departments and other interested parties. Not all the parties involved in the consultation process were keen for local authorities to enter private financial arrangements or joint ventures, but I believe that insufficient safeguards have been incorporated in the legislation to protect all ratepayers from any financial consequences. I understand that regulations will be introduced at a later date that will determine the proportion of revenue allowed to be allocated for local government enterprises. What these regulations mean is that local authorities may now invest in real estate, industry, development projects, shopping centres or whatever, as long as the project is able to satisfy criteria relevant to good rule and government. This is a golden opportunity for councils to promote commerce, industry or provide sound economic development in their area. The Gold Coast City Council is one local authority that has proceeded to look at local government enterprises through its Citipac computer software programs, and no doubt other councils will use this opportunity to develop and subsidise and subdivide land for sale. The councils on the Gold Coast have in the past developed industrial estates that contributed revenue to the general funds of those councils. However, the funds applied to the enterprise must be revenue raised from the community and not from loan funds or borrowings. I suggest to the Minister that local authorities will at some stage come into conflict with the Trade Practices Act for competition with private enterprise. The Liberal Party believes that insufficient safeguards for public funds have been outlined in this Bill. The legislation really is “trust me” legislation, but nowhere in the legislation is there the provision for full disclosure of the enterprise agreement, what the joint venture is about, the need to prohibit secrecy and the need to make secrecy provisions unlawful. These are normal requirements of some commercial arrangements, but they have no place in local government enterprises. Every action has to be public: there must be a full 5012 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly disclosure of financial details, the names of directors, and full company details. Under the provisions of this Bill, a possibility exists that local authorities may contract with private enterprises to provide services previously provided by the Government. It is disgraceful that the Government has shouldered local government with the responsibility for several services which, until recently, were provided by this Government and its departments. Local government’s role in the development of responses should be to coordinate and plan—not to provide services. Local government is being asked to adopt responsibilities—including the delivery of services—which have traditionally belonged to State and Federal Governments, but no additional resources have been allocated. Any funding given is normally not recurrent, but programs are expected to be continued, with funding to be met from the local government rate base. Apart from decreasing subsidies, which were introduced to assist local government finance, councils now find themselves involved in matters such as child-minding centres, libraries, community arts, environmental services including noise abatement, nuisance inspections, land contamination, town planning, mapping, emergency services and many others. A good deal of this legislation covers changes to the City of Brisbane Act. The issues need to be debated at length, because the changes are of significance to all ratepayers of Brisbane. I raise the matter of the requirements for tenders and quotations. This Government professes that accountability has been restored to society in Queensland but, on balance, when this Government has an opportunity to illustrate that accountability is important, it fails the test. Before the House today is the endorsement of a past council procedure whereby tenders are only called for work, supply of goods or services involving expenditure of more than $100,000. The legislation only requires a series of quotations for expenditure over $50,000 and less than $100,000, and does not detail procedures for expenditure below $50,000. Where are the guidelines or principles to be followed that would ensure that proper competitive hiring and pricing is achieved and received by the ratepayer of the city? The Criminal Justice Commission has shown several instances where council staff have been involved in official misconduct. The amounts of $100,000 and $50,000 are much too high, particularly on the supply of goods or services, as the tender amount could be split into several separate amounts so that the tendering procedures do not apply. Official misconduct has previously been demonstrated, and these issues should be addressed. The guidelines are not good enough when such large amounts of money are involved. To add further insult, this Government is about to allow the council to engage professional services such as architects, engineers, doctors, etc., without the need for tenders for quotations. I realise the Act stipulates that this only applies when a scale of fees is involved, but this action reinforces the fear of cronyism and misconduct by council officials and officers. I guarantee that the Brisbane City Council will become a closed shop for all suppliers and professionals not sympathetic to the ideology of Jim Soorley, who has already failed the test of accountability. He has given work to his mates without calling for quotes or tenders. That is the very circumstance that the Liberal Party is trying to correct. In that case, Jim Soorley gave public relations consulting work to an admitted friend of his, Mr Mark Nichol, who was acting as a consultant to the PA Consulting Group. It was not bad pay—approximately $20,000 to find the corporate services manager for the Brisbane City Council. Today, Parliament is condoning that action. That is not the only time Jim Soorley has done this, because other instances have been discovered. Who knows how many more will be found. That concern is carried further with the method proposed for the calling of expressions of interest. Once the council has called for expressions of interest in a project, it will prepare a short list of people. The council is not required to explain who is on the short list, and who is then invited to tender for work. The wording of the legislation is obscure, because to proceed with that method of tendering the council has only to resolve that the action is “in the public interest.” What is public interest? It is not defined in the legislation. I do not believe that the words of the Deputy Premier, in his second-reading speech, ring true. He stated— Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5013

“Requirements for contracting by the council are designed to provide flexibility to the council at the same time as ensuring that efficiency gains arising from competition for contracts are achieved, and that there is accountability and the opportunity for public scrutiny of the council’s decisions in this area.” The Liberal Party will have more to say on this issue at the Committee stage. As I said, the most important aspect of this legislation is the change to the rating system in Brisbane. Differential rating, the striking of minimum general rates, and the ability to strike a special separate rate are now available to the Brisbane City Council. Unfortunately, those rating tools will be used politically by the Soorley Labor council. Differential rating will be used to inflict an unfair and cruel rate hike on business and selected suburbs. Rate bills will be manipulated through a combination of minimum general rate charges and differential rating. Land can be categorised by value, land use, or any criteria the council chooses. The council now has the right to categorise land, whereas the only people who previously had the authority to categorise land were officers of the Valuer-General’s Department. The differential rating legislation provides many new initiatives which the Liberal Party supports, for example, the ability to be able to pay the annual rates bill by instalments. The council may also resolve that all pensioners are able to pay their rates by instalments. Interest is proposed to be charged after 30 days if rates are not paid. The Liberal Party will be suggesting at the Committee stage that a further discount period be allowed under the Local Government Act. I agree with the provision that allows for the deferral of rates, and also with the ability to defer rates for the lifetime of a pensioner. Over the years, in my work in local government on the Gold Coast, several people have approached me seeking this rate relief. Through this legislation, that is one method by which to increase the available income of pensioners. The initiative of providing rate relief may also give some financial incentives to encourage new industries in Brisbane. I suggest that the provision of rate holidays for certain industries or businesses relocating to Brisbane is appropriate. The plight of the pensioner has been addressed in this legislation. The Liberal Party agrees with those changes that allow the council to consider rate relief for pensioners who satisfy the guidelines laid down in the legislation. It will be possible to give rate remissions to pensioners who live in retirement homes if rate remissions given to the owners of those properties are passed on to those pensioners. Pensioners who live in rented accommodation may also benefit. Under the legislation, the onus is on the landowner to make the application. I certainly hope that the landowner does so, and passes on the benefit to the pensioner. The final issue relates to the changes to the City of Brisbane Act and changes to the financial accounting and audit provisions. Most of those initiatives were requested by the previous Liberal city council administration. I am sure that comes as no surprise to this Parliament. Mrs WOODGATE (Pine Rivers) (8.20 p.m.): This legislation contains three parts. Firstly, it contains amendments to the City of Brisbane Act, secondly, it contains amendments to the Local Government Act, and, thirdly, it repeals the Local Government (Queen Street Underground Shopping Facilities) Act. Tonight, I wish to speak briefly about the amendments to the Local Government Act. The first amendments involve the creation of the office of the Local Government Commissioner. Following EARC’s investigation of local authority external boundaries, which was authorised by Parliament in March 1990, the parliamentary committee recommended that EARC’s proposal for an ongoing independent review mechanism be endorsed. At that stage, a multimember commission was proposed. A single commissioner, with the option to appoint deputy commissioners where it is appropriate, will fulfil this role and will be responsible for investigating external boundaries and a number of other reviewable local government matters. Those other matters all deal with constituting local authorities. They include the naming of local authorities and deciding the classes of local authorities, such as investigating whether a shire should become a city. That is particularly pertinent in my electorate, which at the moment is going through the death throes of shedding its identity as a shire name in order to become a city. 5014 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

The Governor in Council sets the number of members of each council, which is within the range of 7 to 11 members for cities and towns, and 5 to 13 members for shires. The commissioner will consider whether local authorities should have electoral divisions, where those divisional boundaries should be and what type of voting system should be used in a local authority. At present, the choice is preferential, or first past the post, with Hare-Clarke likely to be added as a result of EARC’s review of the local authority electoral system. Where divisions are used, the commissioner must decide how many members should be returned from each division. Changes to those areas can be controversial, and have been so in the past. An independent investigation before any changes occur to those areas will reassure the public that those changes are not being made arbitrarily, or for political advantage. I think that is important. The parliamentary committee endorsed EARC’s proposal that there should be a predictable work program for the commissioner. Consequently, the legislation provides that any investigation must be triggered by a referral from the Minister to the commissioner. If the commissioner believes that an investigation should be carried out on a particular reviewable matter, he or she can formally request that a matter be referred for investigation. The Minister must table the request and reply in the Legislative Assembly to ensure that these fundamental local government matters are dealt with in an independent way. There is no obligation on the commissioner to recommend amalgamations or external boundary changes when an external boundary matter is referred. If there are more efficient and effective ways to achieve the same ends, the commissioner will be free to recommend them. Regulations will set out the criteria for reviewing external boundaries and other matters. The parliamentary committee recommended an extensive set of criteria for a review of external boundaries. These can be incorporated in the regulations. This Bill also requires that if the commissioner intends to recommend amalgamation or major boundary changes, there will be an obligation to address all the detailed financial, legal and industrial relations aspects of the change. This will ensure that recommended amalgamations and boundary changes are capable of being implemented effectively. The commissioner will be able to conduct formal inquiries where the circumstances justify them. He will have to notify the public and the local authorities affected when a decision is made to use these formal powers. Hearings will have to be in public when formal inquiry powers are in use. It is unlikely that these powers will be used very often, in the same way as EARC was able to investigate without using its formal inquiry powers. However, in particularly contentious cases these powers could be necessary in order to ensure that all relevant information is obtained to enable the commissioner to make an accurate assessment and to ensure that affected parties relate to the commissioner in a way that recognises the commissioner’s independence. The commissioner’s involvement in a matter will cease when a report is given to the Minister. This report will be the basis on which the Minister will make a recommendation to the Governor in Council. At a practical level, the Electoral Commission of Queensland will provide the administrative auspice for the commissioner, supplying the administrative support necessary for proper investigations to occur. The commissioner’s staff will become employees of the Electoral Commission but will work at the direction of the Local Government Commissioner. I believe that, in the first two years of operation, the commissioner will have a very busy schedule. Firstly, the negotiations of the 16 local authorities involved in the seven amalgamations recommended by the parliamentary committee will need to be assessed. The local authorities will be able to submit proposals that involve amalgamation, joint arrangements or boundary adjustment. It will be up to the commissioner to evaluate these proposals and recommend a course of action. If these amalgamations are to occur, I believe that it would be desirable to hold elections for new councils as soon as possible after a decision is taken so that stable elected local government can resume. The new councils should have at least a three-year term to enable new arrangements to be put in place. This could be achieved by conducting elections by the middle of next year, with the subsequent election to be the triennial election in March 1997. Any joint arrangements recommended in lieu of amalgamations may need to be monitored initially Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5015 to ensure that they are working effectively. The Minister will be able to refer this evaluation task to the commissioner to ensure that, if further issues do arise, recommendations can be made to the Minister. The minor boundary adjustments recommended by the parliamentary committee will also be referred to the commissioner for final examination before action is taken to implement them. These can then be dealt with as the commissioner reports to the Minister. The other priority cases recommended by the parliamentary committee will also be referred to the commissioner for investigation, including Cairns/Mulgrave, Gold Coast/Albert and Ipswich/Moreton. Finally, the commissioner will have the task of investigating any divisional boundary changes that may require adjustment before the 1994 local authority triennial elections. Legislation will be introduced later this year to implement the recommendation of the parliamentary committee that divisional tolerances in local authorities do not exceed 10 per cent in the case of local authorities with more than 10 000 electors and 20 per cent in the case of local authorities with fewer than 10 000 electors. The second set of amendments refers to rating. The Bill includes amendments to the Local Government Act to enable local authorities to take advantage of changes to rating powers incorporated in the City of Brisbane Act. The legislation introduced in 1990 to extend the powers of local authorities has been further clarified to put beyond doubt the power of a local authority to make a separate rate or charge levied on all rateable land in its area. Separate rates or charges can be used to fund the provision of particular facilities or services, usually in cases where a particular group of landowners need access to a facility or services. The legislation currently requires that there be a special benefit for land on which a separate rate or charge is levied. The legislation ensures that a separate rate or charge can be levied on all rateable land by requiring such land to have a benefit from or to have access to the facilities or services. This ensures that local authorities should have no legal problems with making a separate rate or charge for a function such as environmental protection or area promotion. The legislation gives an enormous degree of flexibility to local authorities to enable the funding of particular facilities or services sought by a group of landowners in an area, or for services that are of benefit to the whole area. The legislation also enables local authorities to categorise land for differential general rating. At the moment, a local authority using differential rating selects the categories, and the valuation authority in the Lands Department—previously the Valuer-General—has the job of placing each parcel of rateable land in a category. The legislation gives a local authority the choice of either doing the categorisation itself or passing the task over to the valuation authority. I really do think that that is a good idea. The benefit of the local authority doing it itself is that it can use categories based on information that it has but which is not held by the valuation authority. This means that local authorities will have greater flexibility to introduce equitable differential general rating. All the objection and appeal rights of landowners who are unhappy with the categorisation of their land will still apply, irrespective of whether the local authority or the valuation authority categorises the land. Another change to differential rating is that local authorities will be able to categorise lots created under the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980. At present, a local authority can only rate the whole parcel of land on which building unit lots or group title lots are located. The amount of rates that each lot owner pays is based on the lot entitlement of each lot owner in the body corporate. This can limit a local authority’s ability to achieve equity in rating if, for example, some lots in a local building units plan are owner occupied and others are rented out as holiday units. This legislation will enable a local authority to put lots into different categories so that, in the example that I have cited, owner/occupiers would pay a different rate in the dollar from that paid by owners of holiday units in the same building units plan. The aim of this change is to give local authorities greater flexibility to achieve equity in rating. Another amendment enables local authorities to make temporary use of reserve funds for any function of local government. Local authorities make use of reserve funds to meet future liabilities for particular items of infrastructure. These funds can be held in reserve for long periods and are unable to be used for any other purpose until they are 5016 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly needed for the function for which they were set aside. The Redcliffe City Council approached the Minister to see whether the Act could be amended to enable these funds to be used temporarily for other purposes on condition that they would be paid back into the fund so that they would still be available when they were needed for the particular purpose for which they had been set aside. The Local Government Association also advised that it supported the proposal. This is a practical amendment which will mean that a local authority will have greater flexibility to use the funds at its disposal. I shall speak briefly about enterprise powers. In 1986, the Local Government Ministers conference received a report from a task force it had established to look at the role of local government in economic development. In recent years, it has been recognised that local government can play a vital role in enhancing local and regional economic development through the strategic provision of infrastructure; streamlining regulatory process; expanding its facilitation role through economic analysis and area promotion; and, in some cases, direct involvement in enterprise activities. The task force report resulted in a major emphasis being placed on funding for local government, through the Commonwealth’s local government development program, to build up the expertise of local government in enhancing economic development. As a result of the national review, each State then looked at its own legislation dealing with the role of local government in economic development. In Queensland, the report of the committee set up to look at the issue was released by the Minister in January 1990 for public comment. As a result of this process, approval was given to introduce legislation to extend the enterprise powers of local government. The legislation is built on the premise that involvement in enterprise activities should not put at risk the ability of a local authority to carry out its normal functions. Consequently, there are number of limits placed on involvement in enterprise activities to reduce the risks of involvement— investment in enterprises will be limited to a fixed proportion of own-source revenue, with the definition of own-source revenue and the proportion to be fixed by regulations; the value of property invested in enterprises will be included in the limit; amounts to be invested will be able to be accrued from year to year up to a maximum number of years set by regulations; borrowings will not be permitted to finance investment in enterprises; local authorities will not be able to act as a guarantor for an enterprise; and a proper mechanism must be used for involvement in enterprise activities, such as a limited company, a limited partnership or an agreement where the local authority’s liability is limited. In addition, local authorities will not be able to take equity in companies listed on a stock exchange. Local authorities will be able to engage in enterprise activities either alone or on a joint venture basis with the private sector, another local authority or the Crown. A proper assessment by an independent expert must be undertaken before a local authority commits funds to an enterprise. This ensures that hasty decisions will be avoided. Adequate public scrutiny will be available through a register of enterprise which must be set up and which must be provided to the Director of Local Government and to the Auditor-General. This legislation represents an attempt to balance greater autonomy with realistic constraints which will ensure that care is exercised in embarking on these activities. Local authorities already have powers under section 30 of the Local Government Act to engage in a range of enterprise activities. These activities will not be affected by the new provisions unless a local authority chooses to engage in those activities by means of a joint venture with the private sector. This ensures that constraints are not imposed on local authorities for things which they have been able to undertake for many years. When Cabinet first considered these proposals in November 1990, an example of how the enterprise powers would work in practice was prepared. Own-source revenue was defined as general rates, ex gratia receipts, building fees, parking fees, dog Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5017 registration fees, other fees, licences and fines, charges other than water, sewerage and garbage charges, interest received and transfers from trading activities. Based on 1988- 89 local government finance statistics and using a limit of 5 per cent of own-source revenue, this would have meant that my local authority—the Pine Rivers Shire Council—could have set aside up to $750,000 for these types of activities. That is not pin money. This legislation does not imply that the State Government endorses involvement in enterprise activities. It is rather a recognition that, within reasonable limits, local authorities should have flexibility to make decisions on the development of their areas. I am more than pleased to support the Bill. Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (8.35 p.m.): The Minister’s second-reading speech was very comprehensive, and that is to be commended. At the beginning of his speech he said— “The Bill contains a number of major local government reforms affecting all local authorities, with others of special significance to the Brisbane City Council.” The Minister did not try to claim that this is a small Bill. It contains many provisions. Perhaps I will have left this Parliament, and it is possible that the Minister will also have gone, before it is known whether all of these provisions are good or bad. At least the Minister is making an attempt to overcome some of the problems. I am not going to let him off the hook by saying that somebody else suggested that an amalgamation of councils take place. That was his initiative. This has driven a lot of us mad, or very close to it. I imagine that it has not been a really happy situation for the Minister, either. The referral to EARC did cause some of the problems. In his second-reading speech, the Minister also said that councils can allow rates to be paid in instalments. I have no quarrel with that but it shows that people are getting into a bigger financial mess all the time. Mr Beattie: That’s not necessary these days. Mr BOOTH: The honourable member should wait until I read the next part of the Minister’s speech. He said— “In addition, the council will have extra powers to make special arrangements for people with a limited capacity to pay, for example, the deferment of the payment of rates to a future date agreed to by the council and the ratepayers. This could even be for the lifetime of the owner of the land if that person is a pensioner. Such arrangements could be of particular benefit to elderly people through increasing their current disposal income.” I suppose it could benefit elderly people, but it proves to the honourable member for Brisbane Central how far the Labor Party has pulled this nation down when we have people who can no longer pay their rates. He does not have the intelligence to understand that. I am sure the Minister has the intelligence to appreciate the mess people are getting into. I am going to say this: I do not think many pensioners will avail themselves of that arrangement unless they have completely run out of food, because most of them have a certain amount of pride. Mrs Bird: But they are doing it now. Mr BOOTH: That option has always been available, and suitable arrangements were able to be made. The rates will be deferred until the person passes on—if I go to the TAB too often I might find myself the subject of such an arrangement—and then they will have to be taken out of the estate. Interest of at least 15 per cent will be charged. In will come the loan sharks, and there is nothing in this legislation to prevent that. Honourable members know darned well what those people will charge. That is what will happen to these poor people who are unable to pay their rates. I know the Minister is motivated by the fact that this is happening and he feels that he has to do something about it. However, it is not a good reflection on our economy or our standard of living. It shows the dreadful position in which pensioners find themselves today. The member for Mount Isa knows it—— Mr McGrady interjected. 5018 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Clark): Order! Mr BOOTH: The Minister is not saying a word because he knows darned well that what I am saying is true. Mr McGrady interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Warwick to continue. Mr BOOTH: It is all right, Madam Deputy Speaker; I enjoy the interjections from the other side of the Chamber. The member for Brisbane Central has not said a word since I mortally wounded him. The honourable member is on his way out. However, I cannot spend all my time on that issue, because there are other issues in this Bill that need to be addressed. Mr Szczerbanik: What about Allora and all those other councils down there? Mr BOOTH: I like all of those councils, and I will talk about them in a minute. A Local Government Commissioner will be responsible for the ongoing review of local authority external boundaries and other local government matters that are the subject of review. In regard to the boundaries—I suppose the Minister got himself in a jam and he had to get out of it. However, the provision for anything to be subjected to review removes much of the autonomy of local government. The Minister will find that that is what will happen. Earlier in my remarks I said that we will not know whether a lot of the provisions of this Bill are good or bad until long after I am gone, and perhaps long after the Minister has gone. The commissioner will have a term of five years, and he will be a dictator. He will have to be responsible to the Minister—I accept that—but the Minister will not be able to knock back much of the jargon that he puts forward. The Minister could not keep knocking it back all the time or he would have to take over. As recommended by the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review in its recent report on local authority external boundaries, the purpose of the legislation is to establish an independent—— Mr Burns: You want me to be responsible, and he doesn’t want me to be responsible. Mr BOOTH: I am sorry, I did not hear what the Minister said. I am pleased that the commissioner still has to report to the Minister, because that will ensure that some of the findings he makes will have some relevance. I am not just thinking about the present situation or the present Government. It could well be that a lot of different situations could arise in the future under different Governments and different Ministers. Mr Randell: It allows the Minister to get out of making the hard decisions. Mr BOOTH: It does do that, but he will still have to okay them. The member for Albert asked which council I favoured. I am not favouring any of them. I believe that all of the councils were performing quite well. It may well be that if one could get the councillors into the frame of mind in which they would be prepared to negotiate, some of the problems that those councils are experiencing might be able to be ironed out, or at least some sound thinking could be brought to bear on the matter. It is difficult to make decisions about some of the shire councils in my electorate. If too much is taken away from those shires, they will become too small. The EARC recommendations left those shires in a nasty situation which upset a lot of people. There has been so much in- fighting and—I was going to say “abuse”, but that is probably not the right word—— Mr Springborg: It is abuse. Mr BOOTH: My good young friend says that it is abuse. If it is abuse, there has been plenty of it. There has been plenty of in-fighting that we could have done without. I think even the Minister would acknowledge that. Mr Beattie: Come on! The Nats started it. Mr BOOTH: What a lot of rubbish! On a previous occasion in this place I told honourable members what I thought of Mr Sherman, and now people are saying that he has done a good job. The fact is that he has left us in a dreadful mess, and the Minister has the job ahead of him trying to sort it out. There is no doubt about that. However, I Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5019 will say that that was probably the best decision that he could come up with. The Bill contains a provision to allow councils to enter into contracts and to take on substantial workloads. That worries me a little because I do not think that all councillors will be good businessmen, and I do not think that anybody can go into the earthmoving business or similar businesses without taking into account the risk factor. I am sure that even the one-eyed member for Brisbane Central would agree that in the earthmoving business the risk of bankruptcy is extremely high. Mr Beattie: I move earth every day. Mr BOOTH: The risk is extremely high, and a lot of people go to the wall. I am concerned that the councils are allowed to take on large contracts. I agree that they should be allowed to take on smaller contracts. I cite the example of the construction of a road leading to a new house. Quite often the shire council can build that road more cheaply and do a better job than the private contractor, and everybody is happy. I am not completely opposed to this provision, but I am a little worried about it. Another matter that causes me concern is the provision for councils to enter into joint arrangements. People will find themselves in situations that they did not intend to get into. I do not think that all shire clerks have been trained as business people. They are trained to work to a budget each month. Mr Burns: When we rewrite the Local Government Act we will allow people not to have to be clerks. They will be able to become business managers, because it is big business now for councils. Mr BOOTH: In that respect, I agree with the Minister. Up until now, clerks and other people have had to undergo local government examinations which might not necessarily make them businessmen. They have been trained to a certain degree to work within a budget, but that does not mean that they are astute businessmen. I agree with the Minister that that will be beneficial. The Bill also imposes some constraints which may be sufficient to overcome any problems. Nevertheless, I am concerned that local government personnel may not be able to manage the business side of local government affairs as well as they think they can. In recent times, a great number of changes have occurred in local government electorates. I am not blaming all the changes on the current Minister, because some of them had been introduced before he was appointed. Mr Beattie: Hear, hear! A bit of honesty! Mr BOOTH: Yes, a bit of honesty. Some of the changes had already been made, but one that I have never been fond of—although the Opposition spokesman, the member for Mirani, is in favour of it—is differential rating. At an earlier stage when I was a member of a council, differential rating did not exist. Councils seem to be afraid to introduce differential rating. Mrs Woodgate interjected. Mr BOOTH: I recognise that it is very difficult. I agree with the member for Pine Rivers who preceded me in this debate. She said that if we are going to have amalgamations, let us be quick and lively about them and have elections immediately. I agree with that because I do not think it is a good idea to have elections hanging over the heads of local government personnel and causing trouble. I believe that differential rating can work well in some areas—for example, when a council decides that it will implement differential rating for all sugarcane farmers or differential rating for orchardists—but it is not an easy system. Having said that, let me acknowledge that the Stanthorpe Shire Council, which is located near my electorate, has used that system and does not appear to be afraid of it. I have not heard of reports indicating that the council is experiencing great problems with it, so perhaps the system can work well on a more widespread basis. In the Opposition spokesman’s opening remarks, he stated that the Opposition will not be opposing the Bill. Although I am not suggesting we should, I believe that there will be times when the Minister wishes that he had never brought some of these provisions before the Parliament. I would go so far as to say that the Minister’s term of 5020 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly office will be long enough to enable him to regret that, but I could be wrong. It will probably take three or four years before we can tell whether the business activities provisions have operated efficiently. I also believe that it is a good idea to hold elections as soon as practicable after the boundaries have been changed to avoid in- fighting. I hope I live long enough to see the Bill come to fruition, but I think I am in the same position as the man who once said, “I hope I am wrong, but I think I am right”, in relation to allowing councils to trade. I was heartened by the Minister’s suggestion that instead of having shire clerks or town clerks, local councils should have business managers because that trend seems to have worked well in hospitals. There does not seem to be the same extent of overspending or serious financial difficulty in hospitals these days as there was previously. From that point of view, business managers rather than shire clerks or town clerks might be a good idea. Mr Randell: It is only a change in the name. Mr BOOTH: Not if the qualifications are changed, too, because that position would be different from the one that obtains now. However, it must be said that if the Minister changes the qualifications, he will drop a few votes because a few of the town clerks and shire clerks and their friends will not like it. Mr Burns: You know, it’s hard to get council clerks to go to half the country councils. They only want to stay where the big money is—on the coast. We’ve got to stop that. We’ve got to provide incentives for other people to go out to those bush towns. Mr BOOTH: I know that, and I am aware that there are some difficulties in getting people to go out to those areas. It would be quite easy to change the qualifications of clerks and call them managers. Even if the current clerks were retained for a time, a new breed of clerks would be introduced. This is the part of the Bill that worries me the most. Earlier, I stirred up some trouble when I said that pensioners should not be put into a position where they cannot pay their rates. I stand by what I have said because I do not think it is a good idea to defer payment of rates until the property owner passes away. Mrs Bird: But they are doing it now. Mr BOOTH: That might be the case, but does the honourable member think that is a good thing? Is she suggesting that that is a good idea? Mrs Bird: It has been like that since Jim Randell was the Minister. Mr BOOTH: It has been that way ever since the Federal Labor Government was voted in. Members of the Labor Party have wrecked a lot of people because they do not know what they are doing. The honourable member should visit country areas to see the mess that some of the people are in. Even farmers may have to defer payment of their rates. Members of the Labor Party say, “This is a good idea.” Probably the main reason that the Minister has had to do it is that so many people are in financial difficulty. I would be willing to bet that he did not enjoy doing it, and I doubt that he would ever claim that he did. The Minister has always said that he supports the battler, and I am beginning to believe him. Mr Szczerbanik: He will be there for you, too. Mr BOOTH: I hope he will be. I hope that I will live for a few more years and that he will do some good for me, too. Even so, if the Minister had a choice, I believe that he would not be adopting this course. I turn now to make some general comments on local government because I believe it is the most important tier of government. Local authorities can take quick action and, provided that the demands are not too great, they are very efficient. For example, if a bridge is washed away, a councillor will usually try to work out a way around the difficulties. At the very least, he will try to get people across the stream or help them to avoid being stranded on their property. I am in favour of local government, but I am a little bit worried about amalgamations. For example, under the one vote, one value principle, people who happen to live outside a township might find that they cannot get a representative on a council. Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5021

Mr Beattie: What does that mean? They have got to have a representative. Mr BOOTH: Yes, but the value of the representation might be questionable. Since the honourable member for Brisbane Central has challenged me on this point, I will analyse the proposition. Say, for example, a township with a population of 15 000 is amalgamated with an adjacent shire with a population of 2 000. Mr FitzGerald: One with a large area and a lot of roads. Mr BOOTH: Yes. The chances of those 2 000 people getting a representative on the council, apart from the operation of a ward system, are just about nil. It might be possible sometimes, but he or she would have to be an outstanding individual to be elected. That is not in the best interests of anyone. I turn to the issue of one vote, one value. I have been giving some kudos to the Minister. He used to be a one vote, one value man. He reckoned that the haystacks voted. He had all sorts of funny ideas like that. However, I will not go into the State seats. We will forget about that. I am not sure that the internal boundaries system has worked as well as we thought it would. Many shires altered their internal boundaries. Using the wagon-wheel system, they ran the boundaries into a V in the town, if there was a town, and came up with three or four divisions, each with a similar population. In those smaller towns, it has not worked too badly. However, in the larger towns, I find it difficult to believe that anybody in the country will be able to win a council election. Mr McGrady: That’s not true, Des. They do. Mr BOOTH: A brilliant guy might win it, but we are not talking only about brilliant guys; we are talking about the ordinary, run-of-the-mill people who contest council seats. By and large, they have done quite well. Fairly good people have been elected to the councils. However, it will be disheartening for some people if they cannot get a representative who will put their point of view. With amalgamations and boundary changes, it will probably be five years before we see whether anybody in those distant areas can get a representative on the council. In conclusion, it has been a very difficult Bill. I commend the Minister for having the courage to face up to it. I worried about a couple of provisions in the Bill. If the commissioner does not understand what he is doing and happens to be a failure, it will be very difficult to get rid of him within five years. In those five years, he will do a hell of a lot of damage, particularly if he reviews everything that goes on. If he sticks his nose into all the business in the council, the autonomy of the council will suffer. I sound a note of warning there. Time expired. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (8.55 p.m.): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise tonight to support the Bill. As I have said in the House on many occasions, the Minister has certainly developed an impressive track record of reform. This Bill is an illustration of that record. Before I go on to the particular provisions, I want to deal with a couple of matters raised by the member for Warwick. I notice that he is leaving the Chamber. He made some adverse comments on local authorities getting involved in enterprises. Of course, he totally ignored that those are discretionary involvements; they are not compulsory for local authorities. Councils do not have to get involved if they do not want to do so. The provisions of the Bill simply say— “A local authority may engage in or assist an enterprise in relation to any matter that, in its opinion, is directed to benefiting, and can reasonably be expected to benefit, its area or any part of its area.” There are very clear limitations on that power. It is an important power and an important initiative. It is one of those things that are important in acknowledging the key role that local authorities play. We get a lot of lip-service about how important local authorities are and what they should be doing. However, when we come to the practicalities of it, we find that the Opposition opposes very practical provisions which would give local authorities some additional power to do some of the things that they should do. Mr FitzGerald: Who said we were opposing? 5022 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Mr BEATTIE: The honourable member is not even in his correct seat. If he wants to interject, he should go to his correct seat and I will be happy to take his interjection. Mr FitzGerald: Who said we were opposing? We raised concerns. Mr BEATTIE: The formal Opposition spokesman may not have done so, but other Opposition speakers did. If they want to come in here and oppose the Bill, I will make my point in response. Mr FitzGerald: They raised concerns. Mr BEATTIE: Oh, raised concerns! If the honourable member wanted to nitpick, he would end up with a fine hair, and he has less on his head. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! I suggest that the member for Brisbane Central return to the Bill. Mr BEATTIE: Let me return to the point. I will refer to a couple of key provisions in the Bill and what they mean for local authorities. The devolution of that power is a significant initiative. As I said, it is disappointing to have that criticism, because this is one of the important initiatives of the Bill. Let me also deal with one other matter that I think is important. I never thought that I would hear members of the Opposition advocating in this House, as we just heard, that sheep should vote. That is exactly what we heard from the honourable member for Warwick. The reality is that the amalgamations of local authorities are very difficult. We all know that. We know the sensitivities of the matter, but we must also be sensible enough to accept in the debate that some people in the political process—in particular, the National Party—have sought to use the sensible examination of local authority boundaries for political purposes. That is it, short and simple. That is why the question of amalgamation has been so difficult. I want to put on public record tonight my personal admiration for the work done by the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review and the chairman of that committee, my colleague Matt Foley, and the members of his committee. They had a very difficult job to do. As the honourable member for Yeronga would know, at one stage I made a half-smart remark about how difficult the CJC Committee was in comparison with the EARC Committee, and I was forced to withdraw and eat my words because I realised that, when it came blow for blow, the committees were both as difficult as each other. I pay tribute to Mr Foley and the committee for the work that they have had to do. Let me come back to the point. Local authority amalgamations illustrate the difficulties that can arise, but we should not lose sight of the fact that, when we are talking about fair representation, we are talking about people as much as is humanly possible having a vote that is basically equal. When we come to voting—and this is the point that the honourable member for Warwick missed—— Mr FitzGerald: Where is that in here? Mr BEATTIE: I am dealing with what the honourable member for Warwick said, and if the member for Lockyer had been in the House, he would be aware of it. The honourable member for Warwick ignored the fact that we are talking about getting quality and improving the calibre of the candidates who stand. If a candidate is good, he or she will win. One does not have to gerrymander local boundaries simply to achieve the result. His argument about the local authorities boundaries was absolute nonsense. I now turn to one of the key parts of the legislation. It deals with the repeal of the Local Government (Queen Street Underground Shopping Facilities) Act 1990. I want to deal with that because, as honourable members would know, it relates particularly to a development in my electorate of Brisbane Central. It was going to be in Queen Street. In 1990, when the Bill was initially brought to the House by the Honourable the Minister, I was one of the people who spoke in that debate and supported the Bill. Since the enactment of that legislation, a number of difficulties have occurred. I do not believe that some of them could have been foreseen at that time. The development in the Queen Street area has run into quite a number of problems, including such things as cables underneath Queen Street itself. I understand that Telecom and the electricity authority involved were concerned about the location of the cables, and that made the Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5023 development difficult. In addition, the traders nearby were concerned about a loss of trade while the development was being undertaken. That would have meant cutting off a number of access roads while the development was undertaken, and that would have seriously affected those businesses in the heart of Queen Street. So, there were questions about possible damage to cables, possible loss of trade while the construction was going on, and possible loss of trade afterwards. It is appreciated that, at present, plenty of shopping space is available, although there had been some concern about the impact that this development would have had on the heart of the city. In addition to that, of course, we must remember that in this area there were a number of banks, and underneath banks are vaults. I think at one stage some people were a bit concerned that there may have been a revival of the old “Bank on Burns” campaign, which existed a few years ago, and that the Minister may have had direct access to his own vaults. It would have been Tommy Burns in the banking business. Mrs Woodgate: Tommy Burns and the Beagle Boys. Mr BEATTIE: Maybe that would have been right. We all could have retired. One can understand that, when a major development such as this is undertaken in the heart of the city, these sorts of technical, complicated problems have to be faced and dealt with. No doubt, all these concerns about damage have brought us to the stage at which that legislation, which was passed some two years ago, is being repealed. At that time, I had discussions with the company when it approached us about the development. I think it is disappointing that it cannot go ahead. I made it very clear at the time when I supported the initial legislation that I supported the development. But any rational examination of the circumstances—— Mr Coomber: It would have been good for the city. Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection. Indeed, It would have been good for the city. I share the sentiments of the honourable member for Currumbin, because it would have been good for the city. However, the difficulties that have arisen cannot be ignored. It is disappointing that that development has been unable to go ahead. Nevertheless, under those circumstances, I do support those provisions of the Bill and reluctantly have to accept that that project will not become a reality. I turn now to two other key parts of the Bill. The major clauses at the outset related to the various provisions that will apply in relation to tendering for contracts with local authorities. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would recall, in July 1991, the CJC produced a report titled Complaints Against Local Government Authorities in Queensland—Six Case Studies. That report dealt with the sorts of problems that local authorities face when dealing with tenders for contracts. The allegations set out in Case Study B on page 15 illustrate the difficulties in this area and support the need for the provisions which are being introduced in this Bill. In that case study, the council is not named, nor is the chairman. It makes reference in general terms. Under the heading “Allegations” the report reads— “The substantive allegation addressed in this case study is that the Shire Chairman and two other Councillors had used their official positions over a number of years to obtain from the Council grass slashing work for their private contracting businesses.” In other words, there was a clear conflict of interest. Under those circumstances, guidelines need to be determined very clearly. In Case Study C, the report states— “The allegations in relation to the tender for maintenance of the refuse tips were that:— (i) the contract ultimately awarded to the successful tenderer was predicated on an entirely different premise to that indicated in the tender as advertised. The unsuccessful tenderers should therefore have been given the opportunity to re-tender. (ii) the unsuccessful tenderers would have been able to discharge their responsibilities under the contract for a lower price than the successful tenderer.” 5024 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

I do not want to go into any more detail in relation to those six case studies by the CJC other than to highlight that that report of July 1991 identified a number of shortcomings in the operations of local authorities. It is therefore with a great deal of pleasure that I support these very practical provisions in the Bill, because in a number of circumstances they provide that there be requirements to call tenders and seek quotes. For example, the council is “to seek quotations for contracts between $50,000 and $100,000”. The Bill “requires the Council, in seeking quotes, to ensure that it receives a reasonable number of competitive quotes” and “specifies that tenders are to be invited by notice published in a newspaper 7 days before the contract is entered into”. This legislation makes the tendering process open to the public. There is nothing under the counter. Nothing is hidden. It is there for all the world to see. The various processes that people have to go through are clearly set out in the legislation. The legislation “specifies that the requirements to call tenders and seek quotes do not apply, if the Council resolves, with reasons given, that: competitive or reliable tenderers or quoters are not available; specifications cannot be written because of the nature of the contract”—and that may be a very technical thing in certain circumstances. I do not imagine that that would be widespread, but in some technical circumstances it may well be that that applies. The other circumstances are where “it is in the public interest, not to invite tenders or seek quotes”. The provisions go on. There are requirements in certain circumstances for advertisements to be placed in a city newspaper. I think those provisions go a long way to satisfying the sorts of concerns that were expressed in the CJC document that was tabled as a report in this House in July 1991. I believe those provisions would be supported by the commission, and I think that the Minister should be congratulated on dealing with such problems. This Bill satisfies the public expectation and it establishes a standard of behaviour—a code of behaviour—which protects the public interest. We have to remember that, if tenders are being accepted under the table, in the long run the ratepayers are the ones who lose, because they are not getting the best value for their dollar. The situation means not only is a rort occurring or a criminal act is being perpetrated; it means that ratepayers are not getting the best value for their dollar. The ratepayers are being ripped off, and in the long run they pay more rates. There are very good reasons for having these procedures set out as clearly as they are. The final comment I make is in relation to the rates issue. The Minister for Housing and Local Government and his parliamentary committee visited Adelaide last year. During that trip, some time was spent discussing with the appropriate Government department the rating procedures that are followed in Adelaide. Subsequently, at a committee level there was a discussion about the rating processes. The issues discussed included differential rating, the basis on which rates are calculated and so on. There is one matter about which I have had grave concerns for some time, and that is the rating process and how it is determined. Those concerns are shared by the Minister and the other members of the committee. One of the reasons I am very supportive of the provisions in this Bill is that my electorate has within it a number of older suburbs, and a disproportionate number of the constituents are elderly people. I am speaking of suburbs such as Spring Hill, Red Hill, Kelvin Grove, Herston, Wilston, Windsor, New Farm, Bowen Hills and Teneriffe. The difficulty that senior citizens face is that housing prices are skyrocketing with movements in inflation and with the renewal program and the urbanisation that is going on in the inner-city suburbs. What that means in tangible terms is that the value of the land in those areas increases, and with that, so do the rates. A number of senior citizens have lived in these areas for 40, 50 or 60 years—some of them were even born in the houses—have worked very hard during their lives, have made a significant contribution to this State and this country, and have now retired. They find themselves in a position where, due to rates suddenly going through the roof, because they are on a pension, they simply cannot pay such rates. I pointed out in this House in 1990 that under the former Liberal administration in City Hall, some of the rates in Spring Hill increased by $1,000 a year. That was because the council did not at that stage adopt an imaginative process for rating, and if I recall correctly, the council did Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5025 not even at that stage have the power to develop a process for differential rating. What that meant in net terms was that people in some of those suburbs simply could not afford to pay their rates. That is a fairly serious attack by a society on the senior members of its community. One of the provisions in this legislation provides specifically for capping. I think that is a term the Honourable the Minister uses; it is not in the legislation. However, it is a very useful term to in fact describe what I am referring to. This subject is dealt with in section 80 of the Bill. Capping enables the council to decide that the amount of rates levied in a year will not be more than that levied for the previous year increased by a specified percentage. Jim Soorley, the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, is at the moment writing to people to ask, “Is this your permanent residence?” These provisions will mean that, because the valuation will be consistent, while those senior citizens reside in those premises they will not be threatened with massive increases in rates and will not find themselves forced out the door. When they move or when they sell—fair enough; there should be a reassessment of how the rates are determined. However, while these senior citizens are living in their own premises, these provisions mean that they are not going to be savaged by vicious rate increases. I applaud the Brisbane City Council for what it is doing, and I applaud the Lord Mayor, Jim Soorley. I congratulate the Minister for Housing and Local Government for providing the mechanism via that provision to enable that process to occur. There were some powers along similar lines already in existence, but this provision clarifies the position beyond doubt to enable the Brisbane City Council to do exactly what it is doing, and the senior citizens who live in my area will be absolutely delighted that this Government has worked in a cooperative sense with the Brisbane City Council to ensure that those initiatives in the rating area have come to fruition. They will save my constituents a great deal of hardship. In relation to the rating provisions set out in the legislation, the differential ratings, etc.—I believe that honourable members need to be realistic enough to realise that councils have to be given the flexibility to determine their own rating policy. The situation must be avoided that applied in days gone by, when local authorities tried to use State Governments—and any State Government, not just this one—as a free kick against increasing rates. What the Government is doing by this legislation—and indeed previous Bills—is giving local authorities the power to make up their own minds about how they are going to determine their rates. In the final analysis, it will be at their triennial elections that those local authorities that will be accountable to the people. That is the way it should be. The Minister for Housing and Local Government and this Government have consistently taken the view that the autonomy of local authorities is important and that they should stand or fall on their own decisions. I think that principle is reflected in this legislation, and I believe that is a principle that all honourable members should support. There should not be the duck shoving exercise from local authorities that has gone on from time to time, when they have sought to blame various State Governments for their own activities. This legislation continues the reform initiatives of the Deputy Premier. As I have said many times before, he has a proud record of reform in this area. The areas of local government and housing needed overhaul. It was an enormous task, but this Minister has tackled it head on. He has been backed by a very good department, and I thought that the smart alec question this morning in relation to the head of his department was offensive. Dick Persson is one of the most competent public servants with whom I have had dealings. I place on the public record that I believe he is an excellent choice and that he has done a good job for Queensland. Because they work long hours to deliver a good service to this State, we must desist from knocking them. Mr SPRINGBORG (Carnarvon) (9.16 p.m.): Tonight, in speaking to the Local Government Amendment Bill, I wish to address a number of issues, particularly the issue of the amalgamation of local authorities. It affects my electorate and the electorate for which I have been endorsed by the National Party. I wish to address also the issue of the alderman for the Goondiwindi Town Council who has been forced to resign from his seat on that council. I believe that the Deputy Premier should consider the comments 5026 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly that I will make tonight. I do not know what the Deputy Premier has against me, but during 1990 he unleashed a motion in this House that stated— “ (b) that part of the Local Authority Administration as relates to the factors affecting the determination of the areas of Local Authorities and, in particular, whether the existing boundaries of the areas of Local Authorities are the most appropriate having regard to fair and equitable representation for all electors and the proper, economically viable and efficient discharge of the responsibilities of each Local Authority and, if not, what changes (including amalgamation) are necessary or desirable in order to achieve such fair and equitable representation for all electors and the proper, economically viable and efficient discharge of the responsibilities of each Local Authority;” I know that is a mouthful, but it has certainly caused me many problems in the electorate in which I am seeking election. It also causes a great deal of concern for the honourable member for Warwick, Mr Des Booth, whose electorate currently consists of a number of councils. I am talking about the four local authorities which at the moment are feuding and which are currently going through a great period of concern and uncertainty about their direction. The Deputy Premier is probably the greatest political Houdini this State has ever seen. He can be pushed into a little political box and chained up with the legislation that he has introduced, yet he seems to be able to wheedle his way out and come through with flying colours. I certainly do not intend to let the Deputy Premier get off so lightly. It is most appropriate that the first of the State of Origin games is played tonight, because here we see a man who has back-pedalled, sidestepped, passed the ball, and even thrown in the odd shepherd or two, yet has managed to get away from a particular situation. I did not think he could. Mr Ardill: You should be watching TV. Mr SPRINGBORG: I have other duties to perform for the people in my electorate. I am expressing the aspirations and sentiments of the people in my electorate. I have a great deal of concern about the possible amalgamation, or boundary changes, involving the Warwick City Council, Glengallan Shire Council, Allora Shire Council and the disappearance of the Rosenthal Shire. From the outset, I have maintained that, after the report has been handed down by the EARC committee, the Minister would come and say to the people in those shires, “Look, it is not that bad. We are prepared to sit down and talk this out with you. We are prepared to help you come to some sort of cooperative arrangement.” In fact, the Deputy Premier has made cooperative arrangements very, very difficult. There has been so much distrust and hatred created as a result of the motion that was passed in this House in early 1990. It has made it absolutely impossible in the foreseeable future for those councils to get together. I know that it is a matter of their survival. They may sit down and try to sort things out, but I do not know whether they will. For example, in that area, local authorities have put forward submissions that stated, “Look, we will take the gravel pit, we will take this piece here, and we will take that dam there, but we do not really want the rest of it.” One can imagine how that makes people feel. I am talking about human sentiments and feelings. I travel around that area because much of it falls within my electorate. I appeal to the Deputy Premier’s compassionate streak—and I am sure he has one after listening to what he has been saying for the last few days. The Deputy Premier should speak to the people in the Rosenthal Shire. Unlike the honourable member for Brisbane Central who tonight cast slurs on the Parliament, I have not pre-empted anything. It is not the fault of the National Party. I have said nothing in the media about this matter and I have not tried to stir anything up. It is best to stay away from those issues. There is no doubt about that. One way or the other, one is in a no-win situation. Recently, I was at the opening of a small swimming pool at Leyburn, which was constructed by the Rosenthal Shire Council. That council does a great job. Rosenthal is a small shire. Contrary to what people may think, it is an economically viable shire. If one spoke to the people in the shire, they would say that they believe that the shire council Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5027 provides them with a very good service. I can also understand the sentiments and the concerns of the Warwick City Council in relation to urban overspill, but I do believe that for a long time problems have existed which have made cooperative arrangements very, very difficult. It is not only a problem with the Rosenthal Shire; faults and misunderstandings have occurred on all sides. Mr Burns: You just can’t leave it like that. Mr SPRINGBORG: But what I am saying—— Mr Burns: With all those faults and all those problems, someone has to try and address them. Mr SPRINGBORG: I will take that interjection. By and large, what the Deputy Premier is saying is correct. By putting this process in train in March 1990, it has put up more barriers and made things harder. I think that if the Deputy Premier visited the area in the first place and gave a direction, or said something to those particular shires, such as, “We want to see some action in regard to cooperative arrangements”—— Mr Burns: That’s what the commission will do. Mr SPRINGBORG: I understand what the Deputy Premier is saying, but the point is that this is the way things should have been happening at the outset. If this was the objective after spending many millions of dollars and after, no doubt, much heartache for the member for Yeronga, Mr Foley, and much heartache for many other members on the EARC committee, why was that not done in the first place? It would have been more simple— Mr Burns: Because if I had known that, you would have said, “That’s the Labor Party doing it.” You need someone independent doing it. There is no other way. You only have to watch the way they react when they are asked to talk about it. Mr SPRINGBORG: I understand what the Deputy Premier is saying. I believe that he would have received far less condemnation from the Opposition side of the House and from the ratepayers of the Warwick, Rosenthal, Glengallan and Allora Shires if he had taken that approach from the outset, because the wounds could have been healed by now. The Government is going to charge ahead with amalgamations. Although the plans may be on the back burner, if the Labor Party is fortunate enough to maintain its majority in this House after the next State election, goodness knows what will happen. There is no doubt that this issue will then be back on the agenda. People are upset and concerned about this issue. The Minister must understand that the rifts in the community between people and councils will last a generation. Mr Beattie: We accept that. Mr SPRINGBORG: The member says that he accepts that. But what will happen in the future? Mrs Bird: You said it yourself. Mr SPRINGBORG: The member might talk about courage and other matters. I am not saying that former National Party Governments did not have the courage to undertake amalgamations. However, there are other approaches to this issue. It is widely recognised that local government is the government closest to the people. People are going to be upset, because this involves their fundamental service delivery, be it roads, garbage or parks. People are concerned about what will happen to the shires and local authorities that are left if these amalgamations go ahead. Do we then amalgamate three shires into one large rural shire and, subsequently, a city council? We must embrace these issues. Mr Barber: You believe in inertia, don’t you? Mr SPRINGBORG: No, I do not believe in inertia; nor do I believe in the jackboot style of government. You have recognised that that is perhaps not the best of political moves, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you are trying to back out—— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! I remind the member for Carnarvon that he must speak through the Chair. 5028 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Mr SPRINGBORG: I will speak through the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, but surely you would allow me to glance sideways occasionally. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Brisbane Central that members must not refer to other members by their Christian names or surnames. Members must refer to other members by their seat. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Brisbane Central! Mr SPRINGBORG: It is a wonderful seat with a wonderful name and a great representative. Unfortunately, after 122 years of existence, that seat will disappear. However, it will be replaced by an even better seat and representation will be provided by a vibrantly rejuvenated member such as me. After making those points, I cannot let the Minister go unscathed. I remember saying to some of the people involved in the local authority feud, “Wait and see Mr Burns, because he is the greatest political chameleon that has ever walked in Queensland. He will come through as a knight in shining armour on his white horse and say, ‘We are here to help you.’ ” It is a pity that he was not able to help those people two years ago. I turn now to the issue of Alderman Ian Ross from the Goondiwindi Town Council. In the past couple of months, Alderman Ross experienced some heartache with regard to the changing of his address. Because he moved to the Waggamba Shire, he has had to resign from the Goondiwindi Town Council. I understand that the Local Government Act in Queensland lays down particular laws and requirements in regard to the conduct of councils, councillors and aldermen. We must be very careful to ensure that we can guarantee that the best people are elected by local authorities to represent their areas in the best interests of those areas. Alderman Ian Ross is the proprietor of a supermarket in Goondiwindi. As I said, because he has moved house, he is no longer eligible to sit on the Goondiwindi Town Council. An article that appeared in the Goondiwindi Argus on 25 March stated— “The Local Government Act states that councillors on local authorities must reside within that authority’s boundaries.” I can understand those particular sentiments, even though I believe that, in some circumstances, they are restrictive. Perhaps there is a need for more discretion on the part of the Minister so that he may be able to help out in a situation such as this. I realise that, in exercising his discretion, the Minister might run into problems with allegations of, “Here is your political mate. Put him back in.” However, I believe that this case is genuine. According to that article, Alderman Ross stated— “But it isn’t as though I’ve moved twenty miles out of town . . . today. I am renting a house in Brennans Road just a few hundred metres outside the town boundary.” Alderman Ross went on to say— “My business interests remain in the main street of Goondiwindi. My children go to school in the town. My community interests haven’t changed and only last week when I was in the process of moving, I asked that my mail be redirected to my business. . . . It appears I am not. But the only thing that has changed is my address. I still spend all my working time inside the town boundaries.” Another alderman on the Goondiwindi Town Council, Alderman Bruce McCollum, does a good deal of constructive work for the township of Goondiwindi. As the director of the Goondiwindi promotions group, he does a good deal of work in liaising with this Government through the Honourable Geoff Smith, the Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development, in attracting business to the town and working for the betterment of the town. He knows what is going on. The article stated further— Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5029

“However, Ald Bruce McCollum said commonsense dictated that Ald Ross was still just as well qualified to serve now as when he was elected. ‘I would like to explore the avenues. Perhaps the Minister has discretionary powers to enable him to stay.’ ” As I said before, the Minister does not have those discretionary powers. That is not his fault; it is the fault of the legislation. However, when the Minister redrafts the Local Government Act, I implore him to consider including such a provision. Mrs Bird: We have to draw the line somewhere. Mr SPRINGBORG: I know that the line has to be drawn somewhere. However, it is quite acceptable for a member of Parliament to live outside his electorate, and many members of Parliament get away with it. Many members live outside their electorates, whether it be one block, one mile or 10 miles outside it, but they still represent their electorates quite competently. Personally, I would not like to live outside my electorate. However, this is a particular case. I know Alderman Ross, but I do not know his politics. He is not a member of the National Party. I do not know whether he is even a member of a political party. I do not think that he is involved in anything political, but he is a genuine person. Mr Burns: Once they have been elected, letting them serve their term out is probably the way to look at it. It’s the Act. It’s not our Act. It was written by the previous Government. You have to be very careful about giving Ministers discretion because, as you say, allegations are made that we look after our mates. Mr SPRINGBORG: I accept what the Deputy Premier says. I gave him credit for that earlier. I said it was not his Act and this discrepancy is not his fault. The sentiments in the Act that are trying to cut out this sort of thing are laudable, but this person is widely involved in the community. He was a very active alderman during the year he served on the council. He employs between 15 and 20 full-time and part-time staff in Goondiwindi. Mr Burns: The bloke who has got the food store? Mr SPRINGBORG: He is. I appeal to the Minister to look at this. I would like him to consider whether the problem can be overcome and whether a person in that position in the future could be allowed to serve out his term. Mr Burns: They can’t now. Mr SPRINGBORG: I know that, and I have said that to this man. It seems that, as far as the Minister is concerned, nothing can be done. That is stated in the Act, and the person has a certain period in which he has to resign. But I would like the Minister to use this as a case in point to try to avoid some of these situations occurring in the future where the person concerned is genuine. That is what I am talking about. Mr Ardill: How far afield would you allow them to go? Mr SPRINGBORG: This is what I mean by “discretion”. We could not allow them to go 1 000 or 100 miles off the road. Mr Ardill interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: We are well aware of a case of a member of Parliament representing a far-north Queensland electorate and living in Sydney. He was voted out because the constituents wanted to be represented by somebody who lived closer to the electorate, and so they elected someone who lived in Brisbane. This former alderman has suffered through no fault of his own. He was ignorant of the Act. Many councillors and aldermen would be ignorant of that provision. His case is genuine. The Goondiwindi council is the smallest local authority in Queensland. It is surrounded by the Waggamba Shire, and this is a great example of close cooperative arrangements between a town council and a shire council. I understand this person’s problem and his gripe. I can also understand what we have to consider when this legislation is redrafted. In conclusion, I wish to give the Minister a bit of a slap on the face in regard to amalgamations. I recognise that he has a difficult job to do. I implore him to have a look 5030 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly at this particular situation,as no doubt he and his officers will when the Act is being redrafted. Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (9.33 p.m.): Times change and we change with them. That is a proverb that has come to us from ancient Roman times. However, in modern times in Queensland it may be said that times change but we do not change with them for, over the past century, we have seen great changes in the nature of the local areas which constitute the local authorities of Queensland. While there have been great changes in the nature of local areas, in many cases the local authorities corresponding to those areas have not changed. There is a sense of deja vu in this debate. Back in 1927, a royal commission was appointed to review the external boundaries of local authorities. It travelled thousands of miles throughout the State and reported in 1928, recommending a number of amalgamations. Before the House tonight we have a Bill to establish a new commissioner. It is appropriate to pause and note that the Fitzgerald commission spawned the two principal commissions—the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission and the Criminal Justice Commission. It is relevant to note, in particular, the commissions which have thus far sprung from the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission. So far, the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission has recommended, and steps have been taken to implement: the establishment of an independent electoral commission; the establishment of an independent information commissioner; the strengthening of the independence of the Auditor-General; the establishment, through the Legislative Standards Bill introduced into the House earlier this evening, of a statutory Office of the Parliamentary Counsel; the establishment in this Parliament of a Select Committee on Members’ Interests; and a recommendation has been made for the establishment of a scrutiny of legislation committee. To that array of institutions is added the recommendation for a Local Government Commissioner. That recommendation finds its expression in the Bill before the House. The Electoral and Administrative Review Commission foreshadowed that recommendation on 10 September 1990, when it presented its report to this Parliament on the local authority electoral system. On 25 June 1991, the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review unanimously endorsed in principle the idea of an independent body. At paragraph 3.10.4, the committee observed— “The committee agrees in principle with the establishment of an independent boundaries body but will await detailed proposals from EARC as to the form, powers and duties of this body before dealing further with the issue.” Subsequent to that, of course, the review of external boundaries of local authorities was conducted by the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission and presented to this Parliament in its report of 21 November 1991. That report was then itself the subject of extensive review by the all-party Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review which presented its report to this Parliament on 19 March. At this point, I wish to pay tribute to the work of all members of that parliamentary committee from the Labor, Liberal and National Parties. Each member of the committee contributed many hours and travelled thousands of kilometres throughout the State to communities, many of which were isolated, and by means of transport which was at times uncomfortable and inconvenient. I want to pay tribute to the Labor members of that committee for having endured throughout the repeated jibes of some misinformed people that they were there merely to do the Government’s bidding. Mr FitzGerald: Do the Government’s bidding? We sure were. Mr FOLEY: That was never the case. Mr FitzGerald: To do the Government’s bidding? Mr FOLEY: Does the honourable member persist with that allegation? Mr FitzGerald: You just said the Labor members were there to do the Government’s bidding. Mr FOLEY: No, the honourable member misunderstood. Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5031

Mr FitzGerald: All right. Mr FOLEY: I accept that the honourable member misheard. Mr Stoneman: You’re right, Mr Foley. You are going well. Mr FOLEY: No, not so. I am merely taking this opportunity to pay tribute to my Labor colleagues on the committee for having to endure that allegation made by some misinformed people. I am certainly not suggesting for a moment that it was made by any members of this—— Mr Stoneman: I publicly supported—— Mr FOLEY: I accept the interjection from the honourable member for Burdekin. I hasten to add that these remarks are not directed at him or his colleagues on the committee. Mr Stoneman: I understand that. Mr FOLEY: I simply note that it is part of the healthy process of parliamentary life that Governments do not always adopt lock, stock and barrel the recommendations of parliamentary committees. I point out that if ever it was suggested that the Labor members of the committee were there merely to carry out some preordained agenda, the course of events which has been taken indicates plainly that that is not so and that this is an area in which the recommendations of the parliamentary committee have found expression in the form of the legislation before us, but by no means does the legislation reflect the entirety of the committee’s recommendations. I pay tribute to my Labor colleagues for their endurance and forbearance in the face of that allegation, which has now been plainly exploded. I also pay tribute to the work of all of the members of that committee because there have been, I think, some important achievements out of that process, the most important of which is to turn away from the abyss into which Victoria has fallen, namely, the requirement that there should be a referendum at the local level before any amalgamation takes place. That policy adopted in Victoria is a recipe for the frustration of any reform process. Times change, and we change with them, so goes the proverb; but, unfortunately, in Queensland there has been inertia so that the local authorities have not changed when the local area and its problems have changed. This legislation puts in place a Local Government Commissioner in the hope that the establishment of that institution may provide an ongoing reform process. It is in a sense an odd move by any Government because it greatly lessens the exercise of ministerial discretion. The new section 4 J requires that a raft of measures would have to go through the office of the Local Government Commissioner before action could be taken on them by the Minister and the Government. That requirement is in stark contrast, for example, to the executive action taken swiftly by the former Minister for Local Government, Mr Russ Hinze, in establishing Logan Shire, which subsequently became Logan City. Some observers of the local government area would argue that that action was vital and much needed, that it was necessary to cut the Gordian knot in order to achieve a structure to deal with that booming population area. But the scheme put forward by EARC and adopted in large measure by all of the parties on the parliamentary committee was for the establishment of some form of local government boundaries commissioner. That commissioner would have a broad jurisdiction under the new section 4H inserted into the Act. It picks up the great range of reviewable local government matters that are set out in the new section 4F. These, of course, are not merely boundary matters; they also include electoral matters. The provisions in section 4J are to the effect that a report and recommendation from the commissioner is to be obtained before any action is taken for the purpose of implementing changes in relation to a reviewable local government matter. The commissioner is thus a choke point in the process of reform. I suggest to the Deputy Premier that this provision needs to be given careful consideration in future years because it may be that the mandatory requirement for all such matters to go through the Local Government Commissioner may give way in due course to a more liberal scheme. By way of analogy, I refer to the strict rule which the House laid down in the Criminal 5032 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Justice Act 1989 which required the Criminal Justice Commission to investigate every matter. Now that a period of three years has elapsed, the House has been able to express a greater degree of trust and confidence in the work of the commission and permit it to exercise a discretion either to investigate or to decline to investigate when matters are frivolous or vexatious. By analogy, I flag the mandatory requirement for all such matters to go through the office of the Local Government Commissioner and question whether the provision should be kept in its mandatory form indefinitely. I turn now to some matters of substantive reform that cry out for further attention. Firstly, I refer to the need identified in the parliamentary committee’s report on reform with respect to Aboriginal and Islander communities on Cape York. It is plain that a need exists for consultation and sharing in the way that decisions are made with respect to development projects in that region. The Farndale development on the outskirts of the Lockhart River settlement is a classic example of the way in which one should not go about the process of town planning and regional planning. Similarly, I hope that the Local Government Commissioner will look with all dispatch at the issues relating to potential amalgamation that have been identified with respect, particularly, to coastal cities. This is a matter on which reasonable minds may disagree. However, the view expressed by me and others in the majority parliamentary committee report points to some very serious anomalies that occur in Queensland’s great towns and cities along the coast. Queensland really cannot afford the luxury of arbitrary and outdated dividing lines. “Times change and we change with them” is a proverb that we ignore at our peril. For too long, lines on the map have achieved a rigidity well in excess of their common sense. It is important to have a Local Government Commissioner who can give ongoing attention to the need for reform in those areas. In some cases, the tasks undertaken by that Local Government Commissioner entail a degree of formality. Proposed section 4O imposes upon the commissioner a duty to observe natural justice, which can be an onerous duty. For my own part, I question whether local authorities stand in the same shoes with respect to natural justice as did private property owners at the time when that concept was developed in the common law. After all, local authorities do not own the tracts of land, nor do they own the people. They are there to serve the people, not to own them, and the interest that is at issue is the public interest in properly representing and properly serving the people, rather than a private interest in ownership of a patch of territory. It would be tragic if the Local Government Commissioner was allowed to become paralysed in the way that the Victorian Local Government Commissioner has become paralysed because of what many people regard as an unfortunate legalism that has descended into that area. The Queensland Constitution Act makes special provision for local government. Section 54 states— “There must be and continue to be a system of local government in Queensland under which duly elected local government bodies are constituted, each being charged with the good rule and government of that part of Queensland from time to time subject to that system of local government and committed to the jurisdiction of that local government body.” Section 30 of the Local Government Act gives a local authority full power to make by- laws in a very wide range of areas “for promoting and maintaining the peace, comfort, culture, education, health, morals, welfare, safety, convenience”, etc., of the area and its inhabitants. Local government is already the subject of many reviews, namely, the Local Government Act review, the systems review project, the South-east Queensland 2001 project, the framing of budgets, the review by the Public Sector Management Commission of the Department of Housing and Local Government, the legislation review committee of the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, as well as the collateral reforms dealing with freedom of information and judicial review. This Bill aims to put in place, through the Local Government Commissioner, a system whereby change can occur and be processed on a regular basis without a Government having to depend on royal commissions or commissions of inquiry that are set up decades apart. I am sure that all honourable members will wish the Local Government Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5033

Commissioner well in his or her work because the reform of local government is vital, if we are to develop a truly civilised Queensland. Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (9.52 p.m.): I have much pleasure in rising to speak in the debate. The Bill is the culmination of a great deal of work by members from all sides of the House. I refer more to the Local Government Act than to the City of Brisbane Act and the various other amendments. I preface my remarks by making a couple of general points. I pay tribute to the comments of the Chairman of the PEARC, Mr Foley, and make public—— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Burdekin refers to the honourable member for Yeronga as “the honourable member for Yeronga”. Mr STONEMAN: I take your point, Mr Deputy Speaker. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any help from the backbench of the Government. Mr STONEMAN: My thoughts were straying. I was about to acknowledge that the member for Yeronga is under some stress in making a contribution to the debate. I acknowledge the loss of his mother in the past few days, and I pay tribute to him for maintaining an interest in the debate and for contributing so fairly tonight. I was not about to enter into any point-scoring. In respect of the Minister—it is not my intention to launch into a tirade against the Government, which some Government members might expect. The reasons for that will become clear in due course. Occasions arise when one does that; one of those occasions was this afternoon, and I felt that I had justification. Tonight, we are seeing a bit of common sense. When one sees common sense, one should acknowledge it, and that is what I am about to do. I will make some passing references to the processes, because they need to be part of the record of the debate and should be put into some sort of perspective. I say with some humility that I have been involved in those processes. It has been important for a number of us to have been involved in bringing about the commonsense position that is being debated tonight. It is a little unfortunate that the Fitzgerald report was initially used by the Government in its approach to the local government problem. I do not think that any member on this side of the House—or, indeed, on the other side of the House—has disagreed with the general proposal that some sort of oversight and review of the operation of local government in Queensland is necessary. I have not heard any member of this House suggest otherwise, nor have I heard very many members who play an active and representative role in local government suggest otherwise. It has been a widely acknowledged process. If I may drop a tiny bucket—the sad part is that, in their early days in office, the Goss Government and, in this case, the Minister were perhaps a little enthusiastic in using the Fitzgerald report as the catalyst for the review of local government. The rationale that developed was wrong. The mechanisms were wrong in the sense that the internal changes were the greatest mistake. I do not know whether everyone in local government acknowledges that, but I believe it to be the case. I said that initially, and I continue to say it. The boundaries issue brought forth a great degree of emotion. The saddest part of the debate was that the internal boundaries review put the cart before the horse. That was followed by the boundaries review and the subsequent recommendations by EARC and PEARC in both the majority report and the minority report. That was a fairly healthy process. It was a major learning curve for us all. I do not think that anyone in his heart would disagree that the EARC recommendations were anything other than somewhat ad hoc. The EARC commissioners were given a very difficult job. To their credit, they undertook that job and carried it through to the best of their ability. However, in reality, they were not prepared in the initial sense. I do not think that they had the time, and they expressed that on a number of occasions. I will not put the Minister on the spot by 5034 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly suggesting that he should acknowledge that point, but I believe that has turned out to be the case. A review involving 134 local authorities and a number of Aboriginal and Islander communities such as those that exist in Queensland is an incredible task. We all know the agonies and the problems that were inherent in the review of the electoral boundaries structures in Queensland. That process had been fairly well teased out. It took place in an environment in which the general community and members of all political parties were prepared and ready to undertake that sort of review. With the local authorities review, that was not the case, which was somewhat sad. I acknowledge that, with the legislation, the Government has tacitly acknowledged that position. I say to the member for Barron River that I will definitely be magnanimous in victory. I say on behalf of those who acknowledged the earlier sense of reality that we are pleased that the legislation has come to pass tonight. I pay tribute to the Department of Local Government. I guess that I have less to do with the personalities in that department now than would be the case were I a part of Government. That is probably natural enough. However, I must say that Maurie Tucker and his team have undoubtedly played a major part in maintaining the processes of local government, and those processes are really directed towards the extension of services to the community. Maurie Tucker and his team have followed on from Ken Mead and Harold Jacobs, who have been two heads of the department during my time in this House. I pay sincere tribute to them. I think the great strength of local government is that it generally takes an apolitical approach to the processes of service delivery. Outside the major urban areas, this is generally accepted as being the reality. I know that we perhaps wish that there were not quite the degree of politics in the larger areas as there is at present, but that is inevitable. I do not think anyone can turn that clock back. I do not think we should even try. There has been a great deal of common sense across the political spectrum in the argument that has been part and parcel of the two major review processes undertaken by EARC. I would not like anyone to think that I was suggesting that all the work done by EARC was wrong. I think a great deal of wonderful work was done—a great deal of work that may not otherwise have been done. I indicate to the Minister and to the chairman of the parliamentary committee that I think the work that we undertook was a learning curve for all of us, regardless of where we sat. Mr Burns: And the local government industry as a whole. Mr STONEMAN: I am sure that the Minister is right. I think many people have woken up to the fact—and I have heard the Minister say this—that they need to scrutinise their activities and need to be more aware of the mood of the community. However, I do not think the community was really ready, in the local government sense, for the magnitude of some of the changes that were suggested. As I said, I will not go into that area. The great strength has been that many people from right across the spectrum of politics, particularly the arena of local government, have banded together and maintained a line that I think has borne the fruit of this quite sensible piece of legislation that we are debating tonight. I pay tribute to the fact that the Minister has recognised the need to have a local government commissioner, rather than a local government commissioner with a name tag that might create some signals. It is quite appropriate that that commissioner be able to look at all of the facets of local government, including boundaries, internal divisions—the whole lot. It has always concerned me that the recommendation was made by EARC, which referred to a boundaries commissioner. As the member for Yeronga, Mr Foley, said, we as a committee embraced that early in our time as a necessary part of the process. We all talked about a local government boundaries commissioner. However, it became increasingly apparent that maybe the word “boundaries” within that expression was sending the wrong signal. That was part and parcel of the mission that we as a committee undertook to New Zealand. A little later, I will draw upon some of the comments of the Chairman of the New Zealand Local Government Commission, Sir Brian Ellwood, who not only is a man who had much to Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5035 contribute to New Zealand—and I understand he has made a contribution in the United Kingdom—but who could well be a man who would contribute enormously in the review process in Queensland. They are the sorts of things that we were able to undertake in review terms and follow through. I will digress a little and refer to the comments that were made by the member for Yeronga, who preceded me in this debate. He referred to the problem of living outside an area. The Minister might be interested in this. As part of the celebration of 100 years of local government in the Burdekin area, the Burdekin Shire, which was previously the Ayr Shire—a part of my electorate—asked me to do an overview and a report to the community on the parliamentary representative processes during that time. I think there is a powerful message in what I found out. Back in the 1800s, when that area was included in the electorate of Kennedy, it stretched from down near Mackay right up to near Cooktown. The people of Mackay felt left out of it because at the time they never saw their member. This sort of thing happens in local, State and Federal government. The people became frustrated. When the automatic candidate came forward for the State electorate of Kennedy, as it was in those days, the people of Mackay were so toey about the fact that they had never seen their representative that they picked a name out of the hat. They picked some guy from England, put him up and worked for him. He was elected. That person never campaigned. As far as I know, he never set foot in the electorate. In due course, he was drummed out of this House—out of this very Chamber—because after a year he had not come to collect his money or to be sworn in. We all need to understand that, particularly at the local government level, there is a greater focus on the need to maintain a representative base. That is the sort of thing that we as members must be aware of, and we should always recognise that that is the grassroots of local government and the very basis of local government. Earlier, I said to the Minister by way of interjection, or a nod and a wink, that I believe that Governments are elected to govern. I might disagree with the Minister’s Government and the things that it does. However, at the end of the day it is the elected Government, and its Ministers should be given discretionary powers so that when certain circumstances arise a Minister is able to say, “I have decided. This is what we are going to do.” I believe that is an important component of the system of Government in this State and it is an important component of the security and the ongoing work that is undertaken by local government, whether it be in this State or in any other State. I will fight tooth and nail for the Minister of the day to maintain a discretionary power in those instances that are necessary, where he needs to step in and say, “I have decided what is going to happen, and this is going to be the case.” If the Minister makes the wrong decision, whoever he or she may be, his or her head is on the block, as is that of the Government represented by that Minister. The community ultimately will make the decision. That is a very important and fundamental tenet of the Westminster system. I would like to contribute to the debate in respect of some of the comments made by Sir Brian Ellwood. Those comments have been tabled in this House, but I believe that they should become part of the record of this debate, because the wisdom of that man was one of the contributing factors to this legislation becoming a reality. Sir Brian Ellwood said, when giving an overview of the review process in New Zealand, that that process was put in place by the Lange Labor Government. He stated— “The Government imposed no parameters on the commission other than a charter to reform and strengthen local government.” As I see it, that is really what this legislation is saying. The commissioner stressed that the process succeeded in New Zealand only because— “(a) there was trust in so far as the commission was recognised as having an understanding of local government.” That is why it is going to be so important that the person appointed as the Commissioner for Local Government has the absolute trust of all of the people in local government. It is absolutely vital that that person not be seen as a lackey or a servant of anyone. Sir Brian Ellwood went on to state— 5036 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

“(b) it firstly sought from local government its aims and objectives—in both the collective and individual senses.” That was an important point. He further stated— “(c) there was a positive cut-off date stated within the Act.” I do not know whether that will particularly apply in this instance, because I would suggest that this Government is starting from a somewhat different point. I do not believe local government in Queensland is the mish-mash that exists in local government in New Zealand. He further stated— “(d) there was a recognition across political boundaries that ‘something had to be done’ given the range of the 800 plus ‘local authorities’ ” I believe there is a recognition across political boundaries in this State that there is a need to review and, in some instances, restructure and reorganise local authorities. As an individual, I have submitted that there should be some changes in my local area, but I voted against that process in the EARC sense because I believed that the Government was again starting from the wrong point. Sir Brian further stated— “(e) the Commission studied each district in detail and had detailed discussions with the players at every level to such an extent that he (The Chairman) ‘knew as much or more than the involved local government personnel about the infrastructure problems of the unit under review’ ” That is another important point. I reiterate that there needs to be a person of the highest credibility appointed as the Local Government Commissioner. Sir Brian further stated— “(f) there was a process that totally precluded the involvement of the central government.” That is an important point as well. The Government should stand aside and let the commissioner get on with the job. However, at the end of the day, the Minister has the final say and must give his approval. Sir Brian continued— “(g) there was a political commitment from the central government to commence and have completed, total review and reform as determined by the Commission within the life of the Parliament.” That does not necessarily apply here, although I believe this Government has been caught up in that process to a certain extent. He further stated— “(h) there was a recognition that it is an impossible task for a Parliamentarian to sit down and determine structures.” It needs to be recognised that all honourable members have their own separate agendas. That is an important part of the process. If this process is undertaken correctly; if the Local Government Commissioner appointed by the Government of the day—and in this instance it will be by the Minister for Housing and Local Government, Mr Burns—is credible and has the confidence of local government in the broad sense, this process will succeed. That is all that this side of the House has ever asked, that there be a partnership in the review process between those most involved—that is, the elected representatives of local government, the people they serve and the Government of the day—and that that be set in place in the legislation. That is an important part of this total process, and I hope the Minister will continue to acknowledge its importance. I am sure that he will. This is above the political process. We could all score points on this deal, but that is not what we are about in this instance. We are talking about a tier of government—not about some movement within the structures of government—for which this House has a great responsibility, and for which it has been given a fundamental duty to act. It has to observe the wishes of the general community. I commend the initiative that the Minister has undertaken; I support the processes that he has put in place; and I commend him for introducing the Bill. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (10.13 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to speak to the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill. At the outset, I acknowledge the great work done by EARC initially, but most particularly by the parliamentary committee, and Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5037 especially the chairman of that committee. I know that the member for Yeronga devoted a great deal of time, energy and effort to the deliberations that took place. This House also owes a debt of gratitude to the Minister for Housing and Local Government for bringing into the House this practical piece of legislation, which clearly shows that the Minister was true to his word. He said initially that he would allow EARC to go out there and do its job, and that he would allow the parliamentary committee to go ahead and do its job and, at the end of the day, that he would do something about the results of the work of both groups. It has been a long time since the local government boundaries in Queensland have been comprehensively reviewed. Such a review was definitely overdue. The Electoral and Administrative Review Commission has recommended that eight local authorities be abolished, cutting the number of the State’s councils back to about 126; and that some substantial boundary changes be made, primarily where once wholly rural shires now form dormitory suburbs for neighbouring cities. There are two chief problems that relate to local government in the 1990s. The first problem is the essential ingredient of community of interest. That must be included in every calculation that is made as to the future of local government. The second problem is that there is a question of efficient management, which largely relates to economies of scale. Some people would say that big is best. I do not necessarily subscribe to that view. Earlier tonight, the honourable member for Thuringowa outlined the relationship between Townsville and Thuringowa. Thuringowa’s mayor, Alderman Tyrell, estimated the cost of the amalgamation of Thuringowa and Townsville City at $12m to $15m. That calculation was based on major administrative changes and reduced Grants Commission payments to a new supercouncil controlling 122 000 people. I believe that the situation in respect of Thuringowa and Townsville is one that lends itself to amalgamation. I support the views of the member for Thuringowa. The latest statistics indicate that the population of the area from which I come, which is the Mulgrave area, has a population of approximately 57 000 people. Cairns City has a population of approximately 50 000 people. The total population of those two areas is approximately 107 000 people. No doubt, in the years to come, that population will almost double. I would say that it will double by the turn of the century. The majority of those people would be living in Mulgrave Shire. Recently, an article in the Sunday Mail attributed certain statements to the Mayor of Cairns. It was interesting to note that the correspondent wrote the article as though he was describing a prize fight. The article stated— “In the blue corner, the new Mayor of Cairns, Kevin Byrne, 43, ex-Regular Army, former infantry platoon commander in Vietnam. Some say he’s gung ho, tends to shoot from the hip. He has a habit, during conversation, of saying he’ll stick to his guns.” On the other hand, the article continued on and described the Chairman of the Mulgrave Shire Council, Tom Pyne, as a “veteran”. It stated— “He’s been a councillor for 31 years, including nine as deputy chairman and 13 as chairman. Saying that Tom Pyne knows the ropes is an understatement. He is big and bluff, with a hearty laugh, which is much in evidence when he tells you with quiet emphasis how Mulgrave has outstripped Cairns in population.” If one gathers from my remarks that I may be a little parochial about Mulgrave Shire, one is probably right. Councillor Pyne was nominated by the local authorities to head CAFA, which is the Councils Against Forced Amalgamation. It is interesting to note that when that organisation was formed, a certain amount of derision was pointed in its direction. It was considered to be one of those hick organisations that perhaps was out of touch with reality. The facts of the matter speak for themselves. There is a ground swell of support in regional and rural Queensland regarding the amalgamation issue. No doubt, it is an emotional issue, but people in the community have real fears. I think that the good thing that the CAFA organisation did was to make sure that the debate stayed on the table. The whole process was not handed over in some form or another to bureaucrats. 5038 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

As I said before, there are 134 shires in Queensland. Quite understandably, some of them operate on a very low rate base. I suggest that some of them are nearing insolvency. We must all admit that there is some unnecessary duplication between small local shires. Of course, any change to the structure of the shire must create efficiency. Also, local authorities tend to be closest to the people. There seems to be a greater affinity between a local shire council and its constituency than there is between any other elected form of government and its people. Amalgamation is all right if it can meet the criteria of being cost efficient and can eventually result in the provision of improved services. If amalgamation does not achieve those things, it is probably not on. I now turn to some of the comments that have been made recently by the Mayor of Cairns, Kevin Byrne. He claims to be an Independent, but he has had a checkered career in politics. He twice stood for the National Party as the hopeful member for the Federal seat of Leichhardt, and was defeated on both occasions. He then bobbed up at the Cairns City Council election as an Independent. In his short term in office, I have been quite surprised by Kevin Byrne. He has taken on a very confrontationist and divisive role—something that that part of the world did not need. One of the claims that have been made in respect of the issue that exists between Cairns and Mulgrave is that Cairns City is the major area supporting Mulgrave Shire residents. I ask the question: who is supporting whom? Many of the businesses in Cairns City are owned by residents of Mulgrave Shire. Therefore, they contribute to the financial wellbeing of that city. Suggestions have been made by the mayor in the Cairns Post that Cairns City provides such benefits as Barlow Park, the Civic Centre, the Botanical Gardens and a library, and thus spends $2.2m for the good of the region, and not just for the citizens of Cairns. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that Mulgrave would spend only approximately $500,000 on providing such things as the stinger-resistant enclosures, and the beaches and parks that are scattered through the region. Taking those places individually, how many Mulgrave Shire residents utilise Barlow Park? If a major event occurred there—and I have attended quite a few of them—very few people are allowed to enter that park free of charge. The Cairns Civic Centre is another important cultural feature in the far-north Queensland region. Admittedly, it is patronised by many Mulgrave residents as well as Cairns City residents, but, again, how often, when one attends that centre, does one receive something for free? As a matter of fact, if shire organisations use that centre for any purpose, they are always charged the going rate of rental. If people attend shows at that centre, they pay for tickets. The money that is paid by Mulgrave Shire residents to the civic centre not only helps the economic viability of the shires but also helps to pay for the running costs of the civic centre. Without the support and the involvement of Mulgrave Shire residents, I dare say that the viability of the civic centre would not be what it is today. The botanical gardens are a credit to the City of Cairns and attract many thousands of people each year, including people from the Mulgrave Shire. But Mulgrave Shire has scores of parks that attract many people from Cairns City, particularly those in places such as Brinsmead. The Glenoma Park and the Goomboora Park are two parks which come to mind. They are constantly booked for special functions by organisations from Cairns City. So really, it is a tit-for-tat situation. The mayor has also mentioned the benefits of the Cairns City library. Cairns City has only one library, plus a small branch at a shopping centre called Festival Fair, which opened recently with very little fanfare. The shire has six libraries placed strategically in populated areas throughout the shire. Reciprocal arrangements have been adopted whereby residents of Cairns may use Mulgrave libraries. For example, the people of Earlville can use the Woree library. On the other hand, shire residents can use the Cairns City library. These reciprocal arrangements involve an annual payment. A person from Mulgrave who wants to use the city library pays $40 annually for the convenience of using Cairns City’s crowded library. Although that may be more convenient to some people, Mulgrave libraries are open free to shire residents from 6 p.m. daily. They are open longer on Wednesdays, and on Saturday mornings they provide convenient access to people who are at work during the day. That annual fee of $40 was set by the city, not by Mulgrave. Mulgrave Shire Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5039 also provides free access to its libraries for children from other local authority areas who attend schools in the shire. The shire also provides four stinger-resistant enclosures on the Marlin Coast and another at Bramston Beach. As I mentioned earlier, whereas the city’s attractions involve people paying for their use, the residents of Cairns—or anywhere else for that matter—are perfectly free to use Mulgrave Shire’s beaches and stinger-resistant enclosures at no charge whatsoever. Cairns City Council is not forced to contribute one cent to those enclosures. Sometimes I wonder who is being generous. Is it the Mulgrave Shire or the Cairns City Council? I turn now to roads in that area. That Mulgrave Shire residents use Cairns City roads has been criticised by Alderman Byrne. That is apparently a cause of concern also for some people in that city. Do we assume that Cairns City people do not use roads in any other shires throughout the State? Of course, they do! While roads are provided by all local authorities, primarily for the use of their people, roads are free to anyone to use. The Mulgrave Shire has put no ban on people using roads to the beaches, nor should there be any suggestion that Cairns City is somehow being generous by providing roads that are also used by Mulgrave Shire residents. Cairns City has also stated that many employees of that city actually live in Mulgrave Shire. I understand that the mayor was surprised to learn that 300 of his employees live within the Mulgrave Shire. Although I cannot vouch for that figure, I am intrigued that this would be regarded as a reason for Cairns City amalgamating with or absorbing portions of Mulgrave Shire. On the other side of the coin, Mulgrave Shire has employees who live in Cairns City. No move has been made by the Mulgrave Shire to suggest that it should absorb Cairns, although that might not be a bad idea. Mulgrave Shire’s office is located in Cairns City overlooking the Esplanade. That is sometimes used as a reason why something is out of place with a shire surrounding a city but the shire having its office in the city itself. It is true that this situation exists in Cairns. However, the Mulgrave Shire’s office is located in Cairns because the shire is the direct descendent of the first form of local government in far-north Queensland. The Shire of Mulgrave was born in 1879 when the Divisional Boards Act was passed. The board had its first meeting in 1880. In that same year, the site of the present shire office was granted to the board. Five years later, with the development of the district, Cairns was proclaimed a municipal borough, and a new divisional board was created to look after the rest of the area. The divisional board retained the site on the Esplanade. In 1902, when the new Local Authorities Act was proclaimed, the divisional board became the Cairns Shire Council. Upon the formation of surrounding shires, the area under the jurisdiction of the council lessened. In 1911, the old wooden structure on the Esplanade site was replaced by the structure that is still in use today. In 1940, the name of the shire was changed to the Mulgrave Shire. Members can see that there is a direct line from the first form of local government in that area of far-north Queensland through to today’s Mulgrave Shire Council. It is strengthened by the fact that the council still retains the original site of local government in the locality. It could perhaps be said that Cairns City itself was only an offshoot of the original Mulgrave Shire Council. Some things have already been done on a cooperative basis. As is sometimes pointed out, that is often a good reason to amalgamate the shires. It may be assumed that the Regional Art Gallery, which was recently opened by the Treasurer, Mr De Lacy, was funded solely by the city because that facility is located in the City of Cairns. It is not; although the shire could perhaps have made a lot more noise about that. The Mulgrave Shire contributed quite heavily towards the establishment of that cultural facility even though it is not located within its boundaries, realising full well that the residents of far-north Queensland would be utilising it. The James Cook University campus at Cairns is located at Smithfield in the northern part of the Mulgrave Shire. There is no doubt that students from Cairns City use the James Cook University’s campus for their further studies. I have a particular view about that which I will not expand upon tonight. Although it is my personal view 5040 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly that the university is situated on the wrong side of Cairns, I do not want to get into a debate about this with my colleague the member for Barron River at the moment. I mention these matters because they are not acknowledged readily. People are always keen to criticise councils for their actions. One has only to read the Letters to the Editor section of the Cairns Post to realise that. One does not often hear about the good things that councils do. I might add that this also applies to State and Federal Governments. I do not wish to knock the Cairns City Council. I believe that the city and the shire can do great things together on a basis of regional cooperation at virtually no cost to the ratepayer and to the ratepayer’s great benefit. Amalgamation or even boundary changes would perhaps involve some expense. In the initial stages, it might be a nightmare to sort out—but not an impossibility. Considerable cooperation exists between the Mulgrave Shire and other councils, particularly the Cairns City Council. They have a joint water supply authority, and they share sewerage treatment facilities. They are currently involved in a regional waste disposal program. They also host various joint occasions and notable activities, such as Australia Day and Queensland Day, as well as jointly holding civic receptions for important visitors to the area. They are also cooperating on matters such as the Regional Art Gallery, which I mentioned earlier. To my mind, this is a solid foundation of regional cooperation on which to build without costing ratepayers a fortune and without losing the personal touch which, in my view, councillors of the Mulgrave Shire Council have with their constituents. Those are just a few of the thoughts I have about amalgamation or boundary adjustment. There are many others, of course, which I am sure the Mulgrave Shire Council will be making clear to the State Government’s boundaries commissioner when he is appointed. I am quite confident that now, because of the expert stewardship of the Mulgrave Shire Council, the weight of the argument will fall quite clearly in favour of regional cooperation rather than amalgamation of Mulgrave and Cairns. I must congratulate the Minister for setting up the regional planning conference which facilitated many of these activities, and I am sure that the region as a whole will benefit from it. At this stage, the amalgamation of Cairns City and Mulgrave Shire is premature. That is not to say that, at some time down the track, it may not come about. If the boundaries commissioner decides that that is the way things should go, and the weight of evidence points in that direction, I suggest to my good friend Tom Pyne that he has nothing to fear. There is no doubt in my mind that, if an open ballot were taken among the residents of Mulgrave Shire and Cairns City, the winner would be Tom Pyne. If amalgamation is ever placed firmly on the agenda, I look forward to being able to address him as the Mayor of the Greater Cairns City/Mulgrave Shire or whatever other term is used. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (10.31 p.m.): I rise to speak briefly on a couple of matters of importance to local government. The proposals in the Bill are welcome. A tremendous amount of work has gone into the production of the Bill. I do not support all of the amendments, but it is good to see them coming forward to take care of a number of anomalies that needed to be rectified. I understand that a complete review of the Local Government Act is taking place. As far back as 1986, I was promised a White Paper, and it is still coming. I am looking forward to hearing from the Minister, in his reply, when the White Paper will be arriving. I am quite sure that all local authorities are waiting anxiously for it. We can be very proud of local government in Queensland, the functions it performs and the role it plays. I compliment the Local Government Department and its director, Mr Tucker. It has done a wonderful job for many years under the present and previous directors. It was a much slimmer department in the old days, but it has grown and is now the Department of Local Government and Housing. In addition, we are fortunate to have a very professional Local Government Association with an executive, a director and staff. The work that they do takes quite a load off the Minister, the department and the taxpayers. Many questions that arise are dealt with by the association and not necessarily the department. It is tremendous that local government has an organisation of its own with the expertise to address many issues and problems. Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5041

I want to deal briefly with the vegetation protection orders introduced by the Labor Brisbane City Council in November last year. These orders are seen by many to be the way of the future. Those people believe that, because of these orders, there is less reason to be concerned about the destruction of vegetation in the city. I would like the Minister to take a couple of matters on board. People are not quite as pleased if these orders are placed on their property as they are when the orders are placed on somebody else’s property. This is so basically for two reasons: there is no right of appeal and there is no compensation. I know that a lot of the anger and heat would be taken out of this issue if there were some right of appeal and some provision for compensation. I appeal to the Minister to look closely at this matter because more local authorities will be looking at vegetation protection orders. Some have those orders already. I am not sure whether any of them have appeal provisions, but the Brisbane City Council certainly does not. These orders concern my constituents and the constituents of other electorates in the western part of the city. Many people believe they are an attack on their private property rights. Some others go further and say that they are an attack on their civil liberties and democratic rights in this so-called free society. I think they have some justification for thinking that because clearly there is no right of appeal and no provision for compensation. The ordinances are very far reaching. The classification could relate to all vegetation—trees, shrubs, ground cover, grass, herbs, and vines, whether dead or alive. The material does not even have to be alive to be covered by these ordinances. In some cases, they cover almost the whole of a property and veto grazing, clearing of fence lines, farming and mowing of grass without council approval, which can be denied with no right of appeal and no provision for compensation. The properties in the western suburbs are very hard hit by these ordinances. There have been protest meetings at Brookfield. I am sure that the Minister has been invited, but I do not think he has been to any. I can understand that, because there has been a great deal of heat in the discussions. These people have every reason to be angry not only with the council but also, I think with some justification, with the Government and the Parliament for not ensuring that there is some right of appeal and some protection. Some of the areas in Kenmore, Brookfield and Chapel Hill have been used for grazing, timber cutting, and the growing of pineapples, pawpaws and bananas. There have even been improved pastures on some of the areas, but they are still subject to these vegetation protection orders. These orders are cropping up in Fig Tree Pocket and Indooroopilly. No-one is saying for a moment that there are not many of these areas in which there should be some protection. There are magnificent trees on public property which perhaps should be protected from the local authorities, and even more so from the vandals in society who at times take the opportunity to destroy these magnificent trees. Recently, Brisbane has become a city of green, a sea of green. Enormous changes have taken place. From any of the high hills around Paddington, for example, 15 years ago red roofs of houses were visible street after street. Now there is largely trees or greenery street after street, and it is very difficult to see any of those red roofs which were so obvious previously. As Lord Mayor between 1985 and 1991, Sallyanne Atkinson did a great deal to further the growth of vegetation in the city, encourage pride in Brisbane, and encourage the community to have this changed attitude in regard to the city’s greenery. Most properties and streets in Brisbane now have trees of varying size, shape and description. People are very proud of them and view very seriously any acts of vandalism. The present situation is very different from that 15 years ago when there was a greater urgency and need for some sort of vegetation protection ordinance. I suggest to the Minister that if we are to have these types of ordinances which could relate to some other areas of council activity or responsibility, there is a need for a right of appeal or a right of compensation. There has to be an umpire to whom people can appeal. Further in regard to these vegetation protection ordinances—there is a property in the Upper Kedron area where a permit would be required to keep a pony or a house cow, to remove felled timber, to remove a dead tree or a limb or even to lop a tree. As I have 5042 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly indicated, these permits may not be forthcoming. If the owner wants to build a small earth dam or mow the grass, a permit is required, and that permit may not be forthcoming. One can see the ambit of claims in relation to that property. Moving on to the amalgamation of local authorities and the new Local Government Commissioner—I think they were the subject of recommendations in a minority report of the EARC Parliamentary Committee. The person who is appointed to the position of Local Government Commissioner is certainly going to have a lot of hot potatoes on his or her hands, and I think that commissioner will become a scapegoat very quickly. The issues covered include such things as external boundaries and changing the system of voting for the local authority of an area. I recollect that under the recommendations of the EARC Parliamentary Committee, that was to be left to the discretion of the local authority, but I see that the Minister has managed to put it into this legislation, undoubtedly for some ulterior reason. I am not sure why that has been done. That is one issue I would have thought should have been left with the local authority to decide. I do not think that is the sort of issue that should be decided by a Local Government Commissioner who is going to look at issues more or less beyond the ability of a local authority to be able to decide and handle. For a long time, I have expressed great concern about the amalgamations, particularly the external boundaries. I think it is unfortunate that the Government has created so much anger and concern about them. Some two and a half years ago when that legislation was introduced, I indicated the possible outcome, and that certainly has eventuated. Local authorities are fighting vigorously against a number of major amalgamations that have been proposed by EARC. My belief is and always has been that, in these sorts of situations, if people want amalgamations, they should be able to appeal to the Minister of the day, the Government of the day, to allow that to happen. I have not seen too many people knocking at the door of Parliament or parading out in George Street or Alice Street petitioning the Minister for an amalgamation of local authorities. Currently, the contrary is occurring, and I can understand that. Although both the Minister and I might think that a particular local authority is small, the people in that area may consider it to be a very efficient operation and be very proud of it. Often the ratepayers believe that the rates they are paying are a lot less than those paid in the neighbouring local authority. The Minister is now trying to amalgamate them, and the ratepayers in one local authority could end up worse off. Super councils are not always going to solve problems. As I said, big is not necessarily beautiful or better, and it will not resolve local authorities issues. I am sure that the Local Government Commissioner will be very busy. There are a couple of other matters to which I would like to refer. A large number of pipes are located beneath the road where the Queen Street Mall is proposed to be extended. The Liberal Party supported the original legislation. In years to come, I am sure that extension will proceed, even though three of the finest heritage buildings in the city border that section of Queen Street. I am sure that a great deal of care will be needed. I have always been concerned about the effect that it would have on the heritage buildings. The cables can be replaced or shifted, albeit at some cost, whereas the buildings ought not be affected. For whatever reason, progress on the development has been halted. As the city develops, at some time in the future when there is a need to cater for expansion of the business sector in the Eagle Street/Creek Street area, the proposal will be reconsidered. The Bill also provides for accrual accounting, and I congratulate the Minister on that achievement. There will also be a number of changes in rates, which have already been mentioned by other speakers. I notice that the Bill provides also for the introduction of a utility charge in respect of cleansing services. As part of the provision of cleansing services, the charge will apply to the removal of refuse or recyclable material. I presume that this Bill is to pave the way for the introduction of a charge which would not be possible under the existing legislation. I do not mean to convey the impression that I am against this move, because some people see benefit in being able to place recyclable material in separate bins. Years ago, I argued that the problem with industrial waste bins in the city area was that there was no provision for material to be Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5043 recycled. People tend to throw all their refuse into one large bin and then all the rubbish is dumped into one landfill area, which is one disadvantage with those types of bins. I wish to highlight the concern that has been expressed in relation to contracts. I notice that amendments in relation to contracts have been foreshadowed. The Bill also contains a provision covering professional services which I would have thought is very similar to the provisions contained in Brisbane City Council ordinances. Mr Burns: It has been sent by the council. Mr BEANLAND: I thought it would have been. Of course, this is the very type of matter that has led to Brisbane’s current Lord Mayor being investigated by the Criminal Justice Commission. Although it has been sent by the council, I do not believe that will resolve any of the issues. Mr Burns: It was the previous council, too, I think. Mr BEANLAND: Irrespective of which council it is, I do not believe that that will solve the issues that have been raised in recent times. I am sure I am correct in stating that the actions of the current Lord Mayor in relation to professional services have been referred to the Criminal Justice Commission, and, as I said, I do not believe this Bill will resolve any of those issues. In conclusion, I note that the present Lord Mayor and council have now decided not to proceed with a number of amendments to the town plan. If those amendments had been effected, much of the heritage value of the city—inherent, particularly, in the Queenslander homes that are a major tourist attraction—and much of the character of the city would have been lost. After a great deal of pressure was put on the council by the community, I am pleased that the council has seen the light and has done a backflip. I believe it is in the long-term interests of the City of Brisbane to retain the character and amenity of the metropolitan area. To have proceeded otherwise would have brought about changes that resulted in a doubling of the traffic flow in many Residential A streets. In turn, that would have caused drainage problems, parking problems and a diminution in services. Despite claims of a purportedly cheaper development of residential areas by the use of existing infrastructure in inner-city areas, the population of those areas continues to decline. Suburbs such as Bowen Hills, Fortitude Valley, South Brisbane and Woolloongabba are suffering a decline in population whereas some of the suburbs in my electorate—for example, St Lucia, Toowong and Indooroopilly where there are high-rise residential developments—have experienced increases in population. The council and the Department of Local Government and Housing should concentrate on rejuvenation and refurbishment of inner-city areas to encourage people to move back to the city. Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (10.49 p.m.): In joining in this debate, I acknowledge that the hour of 11 o’clock is fast approaching and that the House sat until 2 o’clock this morning. At the outset, however, let me state that it would be remiss of me not to participate in this debate because I have had the pleasure of serving on the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review which looked into and reported on the local authorities’ external boundaries review. The relevant report was presented to this House by the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission on 21 November 1991. As a member of the parliamentary committee, it was a pleasure for me to be able to learn more about local government in Queensland, Australia and New Zealand. I say that in the light of the fact that when the Government decided that EARC would examine the external boundaries of local authorities, the House was divided on the issue. I believe that by asking EARC to conduct the investigation and setting a timetable for it to do so, the Government made a disastrous mistake. Honourable members now know that EARC was unable to accomplish the mission given to it by the Labor majority of this Parliament, without the support of the Liberal Party or the National Party. I am not saying that the National Party or the Liberal Party would be opposed to change or a review, but I believe that there was a political agenda underlying the Government’s decision. On a previous occasion during the First Session of this Parliament, I can remember the member for Bundaberg speaking at length on the malapportionment of a couple of 5044 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly rural shires. There was no doubt that he was very upset about the matter and that he thought that the sooner it was changed, the better. Part of his argument included reference to a shire chairman in one of the malapportioned shires who was using his position to have a stretch of bitumen road go past his property. Little did the honourable member realise at that time that the shire chairman had been elected by the entire shire, not by a very small group or by the councillors who constituted the “malapportioned” shire, as the honourable member called it. I cannot think of a more democratic way for a chairman to be elected to a council than by the shire as a whole. The philosophy expressed by the honourable member would have given rise to pressure being placed on the Government to push for the reform of local government. I prefer to describe it as a review of local government, because I believe that a review was necessary. By serving on the committee, I was able to travel from Torres Shire and Bamaga in far-north Queensland to the Gold Coast City and Albert Shire Council areas and as far west as Bungil and Roma in central-western Queensland. The committee met many councillors and other people involved in local government. We attended a couple of local authority conferences and listened to the people who represented the councils at the conferences and also to other members and executive officers of councils. They are a great group of people who have a lot of camaraderie between them. There is a lot of competition between the councils to provide the best service to their constituents. It was very exhilarating to meet a group of people who are so dedicated to serving their local communities. We travelled to New Zealand, where a major review of the functions and the boundaries of local authorities had been undertaken. The functions were looked at first of all. New Zealand had a very difficult job to do, but it was done correctly. I do not believe that EARC did the job correctly in Queensland. In New Zealand, the Government selected a person to become a commissioner to review the local authority boundaries and functions and to negotiate with the hundreds of councils. In New Zealand, many statutory bodies have roles to play in servicing community needs. The complete overhaul of the system in New Zealand was achieved with remarkably few problems and remarkably little difference of opinion between neighbouring councils. Some continued to resist the change, but it was negotiated because it was proven to people that it was a better system. Therefore, they accepted it. I contrast that with the system in Queensland. The House passed a resolution to authorise EARC to investigate local authorities. EARC was to examine the appropriateness of existing local authority boundaries and to consider the costs and benefits of local authority amalgamations. On 29 March 1990, the Legislative Assembly passed the following resolution— “That this Legislative Assembly . . . authorises the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission to undertake investigations . . . into— (a) the whole of the Local Authority electoral system of Queensland and, in particular, whether such Local Authority electoral system provides for fair and equitable representation for all electors of Queensland and, if not, what Local Authority electoral system should be introduced to achieve such representation;” The second part of the resolution referred to external boundaries. EARC reported to the parliamentary committee and to the Parliament that it was unable to deliver what was required of it. On page 81 of the first report on local authorities to this House by EARC, at paragraph 4.200 it stated— “Whilst the Commission has identified benefits, however, it has not attempted to make any calculations of savings which might result from rationalisation. To have done so the Commission would have had to conduct a detailed study of each LA examined which would have been expensive, time consuming and disruptive of the LAs concerned.” In other words, EARC failed in one of the major missions it was given, and it failed to tell the Minister and this House soon enough that it was unable to perform the function that was requested of it. That was a fundamental mistake. Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5045

When EARC investigated local authorities, it looked at community of interest. It is very difficult to convince people that they do not have the right to determine their own community of interest. If it can be proved that local authorities will gain economic advantages by being amalgamated or by changing their external boundaries, they will listen to argument and accept the Government’s decisions. However, EARC made recommendations that a number of those local authorities be amalgamated and that an ongoing boundaries commission be set up to consider the remaining matters that EARC could not investigate, such as the other external boundaries right across the State. The majority of the parliamentary committee virtually agreed with those major points. The minority report of the two National Party members and the Liberal Party member of the committee stated that the problem had not been addressed correctly. It stated that there were other major problems that were far bigger than EARC was able to handle and that in the first place EARC was an unsuitable body. The minority felt strongly that the parliamentary committee was not the correct body to determine the correct external boundaries of local authorities. We believed that EARC made a mess of it. Mr Campbell: They didn’t even try. Mr FITZGERALD: As the member for Bundaberg says, it did not even try. Nor did the parliamentary committee, although I must say that we did make some sort of an attempt. We travelled around, held public hearings and listened to the various groups. We received 2 115 submissions, the majority of which were opposed to amalgamations. However, the committee correctly did not use only the weight of numbers; it considered the weight of the arguments and made determinations. The majority—the Labor Party members—came up with one answer. The conservative party members came up with another answer. I do not believe that we divided along party lines. We formed those opinions ourselves after looking at the problems. I do not believe that it is the right or the role of a parliamentary committee to go to a local authority area such as Mackay or Pioneer and say, “That is where the boundaries shall be. This road should be in one shire and that road should be in another shire.” We do not have the necessary expertise. The task is a lot more time consuming than flying out in a plane, talking to a few people and then making those sorts of decisions. I do not believe that we did it correctly around Bundaberg, either. The member for Bundaberg might disagree. However, we did not have the expertise to do the job. We could look at the broad principles, but the details were far beyond us. EARC, of course, should have recognised in the first place that it did not have the expertise to do the job. Therefore, the minority report of the parliamentary committee said that all those problems should be handled by a commissioner. I am pleased to see that the Minister has accepted that major thrust of the minority report. Obviously, it has to be a commissioner. I have very strong feelings that the commissioner should be answerable to the Minister. The commissioner’s determinations should be made public. The discussions should be made public. There should be public meetings and public hearings. All of these matters have been covered in the legislation. I think that is the correct stance to take in relation to local government external boundaries. One of the consequences of this legislation will be that local authorities will have to compare the benefits that they are providing to their constituents with the benefits that are being provided by adjoining local authorities. They know that the commissioner will probably look at the role that they are playing. I do not believe that local authorities always have to provide the maximum number of services. If a local authority’s constituents want it to have a low rate base and sound economic policies, and they want it to provide good roads and services, I do not believe that it should go heavily into debt by building Taj Mahals that are not required in such areas. Most country people require only a reasonable hall in which to hold a gathering. One sees some great country halls that have been supported by local authorities. Local authorities do not necessarily need the most magnificent offices and buildings that ratepayers either can or cannot afford to provide. In today’s Courier-Mail there appears an advertisement placed by the Brisbane City Council. It is headed “Have you ticked the box for lower rates?” It then states— 5046 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

“Brisbane City Council is giving a general rate concession to ratepayers living in their own homes. A leaflet was sent with your last rate notice explaining the conditions of the concession. Simply fill out the card enclosed and post it in the envelope provided. It must be received during May for the new general rate concession to apply from 1 July, 1992. If you’ve misplaced the response card, phone the council for a replacement . . .” I have some concerns with this attitude. I believe that the Minister will need to keep a close watch on it. In Queensland, voters at local authority elections must be resident in the local authority area in which they are voting. They therefore can vote only in that one area. The Minister may not be aware, but I am sure he will be advised that in other States of Australia a person can generally vote wherever he owns land. Mr Burns: The property vote was thrown out years ago. Mr FITZGERALD: I fully accept the point that the property vote was thrown out. I am certainly not advocating that it be reintroduced. However, in other States, a property owner may vote in each local authority area in which he or she is paying rates. This type of attitude would not be countenanced by local authorities. It is possible for people who live outside Brisbane but who provide good rental accommodation in Brisbane to get a return on their money. The Minister often talks about the need to have private enterprise as well as public enterprise to provide rental accommodation in Brisbane. This could discriminate quite strongly against people who own property in Brisbane and rent it out at a cheaper rate. They will put the rates up. I am concerned that this means that it is a sop to those people who have the right to vote and a discrimination against those people who do not have the right to vote. In Tasmania, which has a peculiar voting system, overseas companies are allowed to vote by proxy provided that a person is resident in a shire or a city. I do not accept that at all. They are the various problems that have arisen. EARC has failed in looking at the minor boundary adjustments. EARC has recommended that in the Esk Shire, which is in my electorate, Division 4 be hived off or passed over to the Kilcoy Shire. The parliamentary committee did not go to that area. It received submissions and virtually said, “Yes, go ahead and do it.” I believe that those boundary changes, although they are very minor to us on a Statewide basis, are very, very important to the people who are affected by them. Obviously, Kilcoy has lower rates now, but anyone can see that by the time it provides all the services that are required by the constituents, within a very short time the rating level between Kilcoy and Esk will be equalised. I believe that the people involved should have some say in whether there will be an amalgamation or whether Division 4 should go across to Kilcoy. Some minor adjustments have been made to the Preston area near Toowoomba. That area is part of the Gatton Shire. The recommendation was that part of that shire go to Cambooya. I have supported that, because I believe it is a commonsense move. However, I still believe that the parliamentary committee was not able to really get on the ground there. I relied on my local knowledge because I represent the area. That is one of the issues that I believe the boundary commissioner should look at. The Chairman of the Parliamentary Electoral and Administrative Review Committee, the member for Yeronga, commenced his speech by saying that times have changed and that we change with them. That was a quote that he obtained from somewhere. He then said, “But in Queensland we do not change.” I do not believe that there should be change for change’s sake. The commonsense approach is that change has to be economically viable and there must be some advantages in amalgamations. We believe that people have the right to decide their own community of interest. I would like to pay tribute to all of those people who work in local authorities in Queensland. It has been a very upsetting time for many of them, not only those who were elected but also those who work in offices, those who have been working on the Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5047 roads and those who have had jobs with local authorities. They have been very concerned about their local authority being on the list that had to be looked at. We notice that Mulgrave and Cairns will probably be the next on the list. If the example given by EARC is followed, the ramifications will flow through to all of the other local authority areas. I believe that this Minister is now in a position to say, “Look, we made a mistake.” He will now appoint the commissioner. That will get him past the next election. The Labor Party set up the EARC process. Now that it wants to get away from the odium of it all—and it has decided that that cannot be done before the election—it will appoint a commissioner. I believe the Minister should have the right to take the matter to the Governor in Council. However, I believe that he is just foxing for time. He will make himself a very popular person with the local authorities because on many occasions he has totally rejected what EARC has done. The Minister has rejected what the majority report recommended on a number of occasions. He is trying to present himself as the glory boy, the Minister who has been listening to local authorities. The Minister dismissed all the advice he got from them. He has put in place the commissioner. The Minister believes that the commissioner is going to get him past the next election. If the Minister survives—and I do not believe he will—he then can go and be subjected to the pressures that his backbenchers will exert on him. The Opposition will tell the people of Queensland that that program is designed to minimise the damage that has been done by the monster that the Minister created, the investigation into the external boundaries of local authorities. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory) (11.08 p.m.): I do not intend to take 20 minutes—— A Government member interjected. Mr Veivers: We are the workers’ party. Mr JOHNSON: We are the workers’ party, as the honourable member for Southport says. This Bill has laid on the table for only a week, if that. It is of paramount importance that the members of all local authorities—not just those in the metropolitan area of Brisbane and those along the coast, which have a daily mail service—be allowed to adequately review proposed legislation. For honourable members who represent electorates like Gregory, where the mail services are not as good as they are in Brisbane or on the coast—— Mr Dollin interjected. Mr JOHNSON: It is not a laughing matter; it is a serious matter. The people who live in these remote western shires are just as important as the people who live in the metropolitan shires around Brisbane and the provincial shires. Before the mail can be delivered to Bedourie, it has to reach Port Augusta or Mount Isa. It is absolutely impossible, within the short time available, for the clerk or the councillors of a shire such as Diamantina to receive copies of legislation and adequately peruse it. Mr Veivers: And then get back to you. Mr JOHNSON: That is exactly right. The Shires of Diamantina, Barcoo, Winton, Quilpie and Boulia cover very important areas of Queensland—— Mr McGrady: Longreach. Mr JOHNSON: And Longreach, as the honourable member for Mount Isa mentions. I represent 13 shires, and one is just as important as another. I wish to emphasise that the five remote shires—and they are remote shires—that I represent are just as important as any of the shires in this State. Mr Davies: Have you been to them all? Mr JOHNSON: Yes, on numerous occasions. I turn now to shire amalgamations. I am very pleased that, to date, in the western region of this State, there have been no amalgamations. It is of paramount importance that there are no amalgamations of small shires such as Ilfracombe and Isisford, Aramac and Jericho. The main reason for this is that some of these towns are the heartbeat of the local social activity, and if amalgamations were to take place in those regions, it would sound the death knell of those respective towns. These social centres have been there since time immemorial. It 5048 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly is of paramount importance that those towns continue to serve their respective communities, as they have since day one. I thank the members of the EARC commission for the work that they did and for the decision that they made regarding the smaller shires in my electorate. Mr Veivers interjected. Mr JOHNSON: I realise, as the honourable member for Southport says, that it has taken the members of the parliamentary committee some time to come up with a few reports on this issue. I believe that it is going to be left until after the next election, but that is my hypothesis. I believe it is most important for honourable members to recognise that the local authorities in these areas—as in all parts of Queensland—are a most important facet of government. People can make personal representations to their local councillor or their local chairman on any issue that is of concern to them. It is of paramount importance that these shires be given the autonomy that they deserve. I want to pay tribute to the councillors and the chairmen of these shires. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to four chairmen who have served four of these shires during my term as the member for Gregory. I mention first my home town of Quilpie, where Councillor Bob Sommerfield was the shire chairman for many years. Bob is a man of great integrity and great direction, and he is a very compassionate and understanding man. He stood down only a year or so ago. At that time, Boy Speedy took over as shire chairman. Unfortunately, Boy suffered defeat at the last local authority elections. Councillor John Murray is currently the Chairman of the Quilpie Shire Council. I pay tribute to Councillors Bob Sommerfield and Boy Speedy. Councillor Sommerfield was the Chairman of the Quilpie Shire Council when I served on that council 20 years ago. Boy Speedy was also a councillor on that shire—— Mrs McCauley: Don’t forget the shire clerk. Mr JOHNSON: As the honourable member for Callide has just reminded me, her brother-in-law, Peter Dawson, is the clerk out at Quilpie. He is a very able clerk, and he is doing a very good job. I believe that Bob Sommerfield is a man who is owed a great deal of respect. He was probably the first man to give me guidance into politics. A Government member: He didn’t do a good job. Mr JOHNSON: He did a very good job. On many occasions, he pulled me up and said, “Listen, son, you are going wrong here. Have a think about this.” I respect Bob and I respect Boy. They were both great men, and I wish them both well in their retirement. For many years, Lyle Morton was the Chairman of the Diamantina Shire. Lyle retired prior the last election. I also wish Lyle the best in his retirement. As to the Boulia Shire Council—for the time being, I trust that the member for Mount Isa will look after that great Shire of Boulia. I do not know whether he will be the member for Mount Isa after the next election. The people at Boulia are great. For many years, Earle Ogilvie served as a councillor on that shire. He has done a great job, and I wish him well in his new venture at Dalby. Last but not least, I mention one grand gentleman of the west, a fellow named Sir James Walker. No doubt, many people in this House know him. For many, many years, Sir James was Chairman of the Longreach Shire Council. He was also a councillor. He is a living legend in the west. In a few minutes’ time, on 7 May, I believe Sir James Walker will reach the grand old age of 80. I wish him well on that occasion, and I wish him well in his retirement. As I say, Sir James Walker is a living legend and the central west—not just the Longreach Shire, but the entire central west—has much to thank him for many things. He served on electricity boards, he did a great deal of work with the Department of Primary Industries in attracting different ventures to the central west, namely, the arid zone research centre in Longreach and the School of Distance Education. Mrs EDMOND: I rise to a point of order. With all due respect, we have said goodbye to half the shire. Do we have to say goodbye to the other half before we can go to bed? Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5049

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Gregory should get back to the Bill. Mr JOHNSON: I will. I want to refer to those people. Mr McGrady interjected. Mr JOHNSON: He has done a great job as a councillor on the Longreach Shire Council and I pay tribute to him as well. Many of those people worked for nothing. Many of them are not academics, but they had the interests of the region and its people at heart, and they cared about the specific issues that they addressed. However, if it will please the member for Mount Coot-tha, because I want to refer to some specific aspects of the legislation, I will move on. If she knew those people about whom I am talking, she would not have taken the point of order. They are fantastic people. I hope that one day the honourable member will have the opportunity of meeting them. One aspect of this Bill that concerns me is that councils are given extra powers to make special arrangements with people who have a limited capacity to pay. I realise that some local authorities already have this capacity, but I am greatly concerned that this aspect of the legislation could create the situation in which people who are in a difficult financial situation will continue to take advantage of the local authority and not try to pay their rates on time. That concerns me. The situation will occur in which the fair dinkum people who try to do the right thing will be the ones who will be carrying the dishonest minority. That is a realistic concern. Another aspect of the legislation about which I am pleased is the adoption of the accrual method of accounting. That means that there will be major reforms in the method of depreciation of all council assets, and that local authorities will give the public the full picture of their financial affairs. It is absolutely paramount that the public know about the basic workings and the financial circumstances of the local authorities. The other point that I wish to refer to in closing—if that makes everybody happy—is the appointment of the commissioner. The Bill states that the commissioner cannot have any political affiliations. That concerns me, because if somebody who was a member of the Liberal Party, the National Party, or the Labor Party resigns, a week later he or she would be eligible for appointment to the position of commissioner. The Minister cannot in all sincerity tell me that somebody who has just resigned from a political party would in a matter of days adopt a neutral stance on local authority issues. If the party to which the commissioner was affiliated was in power, it would be very hard for the commissioner not to adopt some type of political view. I find it a little bit amusing to see that provision in this legislation. However, the legislation contains many good provisions. Dr WATSON (Moggill—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (11.21 p.m.): I rise in this debate to follow up a couple of comments made by the member for Toowong about vegetation protection orders. I have spoken briefly with the Minister about them. Because every year he comes to the local show, I know that he has a very good feeling for the area of Brookfield and Upper Brookfield. I am sure that he appreciates and understands some of the concerns of the people of that area. I shall cite a few examples of what I am talking about to give the Minister a good idea about people’s concerns. Perhaps he can discuss these matters with those of my constituents who will be at the show. The first case involves a widow who has lived on a 50-acre property for about 25 years. Approximately 15 acres of that property consists of an established house site, ornamental gardens and an orchard of avocados, lychees, pecan nuts and custard apples, some of which have been grown commercially. Because the 50 acres have recently been farmed, they are classed as regrowth eucalypt forest. The problem is that an interim vegetation protection order has been placed over 99 per cent of that property. The lady has lodged an objection against that order because she feels that she is no longer physically able to maintain the property and wishes to sell it. When the final VPO was issued, an all-vegetation protection order was placed on 60 per cent of the property, and a further 10 per cent of the property was covered by a particular class of order for trees and shrubs. The problem is that the VPO does not take into account the established commercial use of the property. Therefore, it affects the potential resale 5050 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly value of that property. The second example is similar to the first in that it involves a 73- year-old widow who resides on a 40-acre property. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am finding it difficult to hear what the member is saying. Members will refrain from having private conversations in the Chamber. Dr WATSON: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try to speak louder. As I said, the second example involves a 73-year-old widow. Until about seven years ago, on the property, she and her family logged timber for commercial milling and the production of sleepers for landscaping. The property is now fully grazed by goats and cattle and has an electric perimeter fence. Banana and pawpaw plantations exist within the property’s boundaries. The VPO placed on that property covers approximately 80 per cent of the area and does not take into account the long-term use of that land. Because of the widow’s age, and because the VPO has been put on such an extensive area, it makes it difficult for her to obtain the full value of her property in her retirement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! This does not seem to have much relevance to the Bill. If the member has some technical details, he should discuss them at the Committee stage. He is straying from the subject matter of the Bill. Dr WATSON: With all due respect, this Bill affects the City of Brisbane Act, to which these examples relate. If you will bear with me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have only one more example to cite, which should take no more than two minutes. The third example involves a lady and a gentleman who have owned a 44-acre property for eight years. They have a small paddock of about one acre that has been cleared and fenced for horses. They purchased that property with the thought of developing a commercial exotic fruit orchard. Through the Australian Rare Fruits Society they have established an experimental orchard and installed a dam for irrigation purposes. Those people objected to the VPO on their property because it covered all but one-quarter of an acre of their 44-acre property. When they objected, very little additional land was given to them. The problem is that the council completely ignored their intention to establish an exotic fruit orchard. One of the problems with city council by-laws is that the council has failed to take account of existing and potential use of land and has gone about it in a way that is less than—I should not say “democratic”, but it certainly has not adopted a businesslike way of issuing VPOs. On behalf of my constituents, later I will formally request the Minister to utilise his good offices and those of his department to talk to the council with a view to adopting a different approach to enforcing and making decisions on VPOs. Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government) (11.28 p.m.), in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill. As members are aware, the Bill contains amendments to the City of Brisbane Act and the Local Government Act and repeals the Local Government (Queen Street Underground Shopping Facilities) Act. Mr Randell, a former Minister, spoke about the need for the commissioner to be able to examine other matters such as structural arrangements. Because of his experience as a Minister, Mr Randell would realise that one should take notice of members’ comments during debate on these Bills. All members who have had the opportunity to be Ministers have learnt to listen to their advisers and know how to look quickly through a Bill and pick up its main points. I agree with what the member said and foreshadow moving at the Committee stage an amendment that I have discussed with the Local Government Association. Although I believe that the member does not agree completely with me, the point is that this Bill relates to a Local Government Commissioner. I want to be able to say to the commissioner, “Look, I think you should have a look, for example, at the Redland Shire Council, which wants to become a city. Many people are objecting to that and there are lots of fights and arguments about it.” This is all part of the process of the operations of councils. We are going into regional planning. We are also trying to convince local government bodies that they should work together economically and sensibly so that each area does not have a separate garbage collection service, water supply and sewerage service. If they are trying to set up mickey mouse arrangements and are trying Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5051 to con the commissioner or the Government, we ought to be able to say to him, “Go in and have a look at that.” If we concentrated on boundaries, we would be amending the Act from time to time. Mr FitzGerald: The functioning of local government is just as important as boundaries. Mr BURNS: That is right. The functions are more important in many ways. The whole EARC process was about trying to find a way of giving people a better chance. The amendments about rates are trying to make things cheaper for people. If we keep wasting our money on a proliferation of services and competing with one another over services, sooner or later someone has to pay, and that is the ratepayer. We are amending the Act so that ratepayers can defer the payment of rates, and if they are pensioners they can have them taken out of their estate when they die. Provision is being made for all sorts of arrangements for councils to collect rates weekly, monthly, quarterly or whenever so as to make it easier for people to pay the bill. At the other end, we are making it mandatory for councils to be more economic and efficient. The former Minister spoke of the need to consider joint cooperative arrangements when looking at a proposal to change an external boundary. This will occur. He also spoke about the department and said that the Local Government side had been run down. One of the later speakers, the honourable member for Toowong, thanked my officers in the department that he thought had grown very big. Those two honourable members should get together, because one said we are too thin and the other said we are fat. Maurie Tucker is a very good Director of Local Government. He is the general manager of that section of the department. He is a very thorough operator. The Local Government Department has turned out some very good directors and has developed very good staff. Mr Randell interjected. Mr BURNS: We split off “planning”, and “planning environment” is now a major section of the Local Government Department. Maurie’s department has probably done more work in the last two years than was done for local authorities in 10 years. A lot of work has been done about autonomy, and all of the EARC work has put pressure on the staff. They have had to face up to that task. By hiving off the planning section and other sections, it might appear to be thin on the ground and it might be thought that the numbers are thin but, in essence, all of the people who are needed to do the job are there, and they have done a good job. Local government is high on the Goss Government’s agenda. I place on record that Jim Pernell and others have said to us at a number of Local Government Conferences that we have achieved a lot in a couple of years and have given local authorities more autonomy than they ever had before. That has happened because of the intent of the Labor Government to do something about it and because of the work of my departmental people. The next member to speak was the honourable member for Thuringowa. He was a former Minister in our Government and was our shadow Minister for Local Government when we were in Opposition. He wrote our policy on local government. He should get the credit for a lot of the work that we have done, because he wrote the policy on autonomy of councils and deserves a pat on the back for it. The Liberal member for Currumbin supported the provisions of the Bill that deal with the establishment of the office of Local Government Commissioner. He has some concerns about the enterprise powers and suggested that there were not sufficient protections and safeguards for ratepayers. A number of points should be emphasised. Local authorities are already engaged in some enterprise activities, and experience to date suggests that these powers are being exercised responsibly. The honourable member’s own council is doing this on the coast. I was surprised to learn that he intends to move an amendment to do away with all of the clauses on enterprise powers, because one of the success stories with enterprise powers is the sale of computer software at the Gold Coast. Local authorities are engaged in this and they are successful. The legislation represents an attempt to balance greater flexibility for councils with appropriate accountability mechanisms. The point should be made that the legislation 5052 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly will limit the amount a local authority can commit to enterprises. In my view, it will probably be 5 per cent of own-source revenue. The principle is that the local authority involved in enterprise activities should not put at risk its capacity to carry out its normal functions. In other words, it has to do it by way of a company of limited liability. All enterprise activities will be subject to audit under the ultimate direction of the Auditor- General. Any enterprise activity engaged in by a local authority would have to be conducted on the basis of fair competition in accordance with the requirements of the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act 1974. The honourable member for Currumbin also made a number of comments regarding the tendering provisions. He was concerned about the procedures to be applied when the council does not seek tenders and how accountability is to be ensured. In this regard the points should be made that the council must publicly resolve to proceed without tendering—in other words, everyone should know because there would be press people there at all times—publicly state the reasons for doing so, and list all of its resolutions in its annual report. Annual reporting will be more important in the future as councils will be required to provide a lot more information in their annual reports because of accrual accounting, etc. The proposals in the Bill have been considered by the CJC and a number of matters raised by the commission have been incorporated in the Bill by the Parliamentary Counsel. Mr Coomber: You sent it to the CJC? Mr BURNS: Yes, we sent it to the CJC. In fact, the CJC made one recommendation that the council should have to make decisions every 12 months rather than one decision that it would not call tenders any more. I cannot remember the other recommendations. The honourable member expressed some concern that when a council engages professional services, it does not have to call tenders. The Bill will allow such services to be engaged without calling tenders only if there is a professionally recognised scale of fees applying for the services. It is understood that public relations consultants do not have such a scale of fees binding on their members. On this basis, in the future, if a council wished to engage PR consultants at an expenditure of over $50,000, quotes or tenders would be required. Solicitors do have a scale of fees and are restricted in advertising their business. Councils around the State presently employ solicitors without going through a tender or quotation process. This process will permit the Brisbane City Council to continue to do that. The honourable member generally supported the provisions dealing with rating, for example, payment of rates by instalments and greater assistance to pensioners. One of the good clauses provides that people in retirement homes will get some benefit if councils wish to pass them on. The honourable member for Pine Rivers was the next speaker. She is secretary of my parliamentary committee. I always say “Thank you” to Margaret Woodgate for the work she does. At many of my committee meetings she is the only one who turns up, so not only is she the secretary of the committee, but she and I make a quorum on some occasions when some of the others decide—— Dr Watson interjected. Mr BURNS: That says that maybe I am not the most exciting Minister around. Margaret Woodgate spoke initially about the Local Government Commissioner. She appreciates the need for independent investigation that looks at all the issues, and the fact that a public report is made to the Minister. I think that is the most important thing about it: the commissioner must report to me. In essence, I am placing some restrictions on myself in relation to that. It is all to be done above board and in an open and public way. She then spoke about rating amendments in the Local Government Act which provide so much increased flexibility to local authorities. As a former councillor on the Pine Rivers Shire Council, she has had a large input into the flexibility of ratings and has been trying to give councils the autonomy and freedom to move to help people with some of their rating problems. That is really what the Government is all about—more autonomy and flexibility to local authorities. It is also balanced by appropriate accountability mechanisms. In the same vein, the amendments will free up reserve funds, Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5053 and the new enterprise powers follow the same pathways. I thank her for her strong and reasoned support for the Bill. The next speaker was Des Booth, the member for Warwick. He spoke in support of the amendments that provide for the payment of rates by instalments. He expressed a few concerns about rate deferral powers, but he missed the main point. It is up to a ratepayer to apply for a rate deferral, and it is up to the council to accept. It is not automatic, and it is not compulsory. He said that the fact that people had to pay off their rates was an indication of the present state of the economy. As rate remission powers have existed in the Local Government Act since 1936, we are not really adding very much in that regard. Some changes are being made in relation to the provisions applying to the Brisbane City Council. The honourable member said that the commissioner will be a dictator. I do not believe that the commissioner will be a dictator because he only makes recommendations to me. I have to put them to the Governor in Council, and they have to be implemented by Maurie Tucker in the department. The commissioner’s job is to make the recommendations. The commissioner’s report will be made public, and so will the decisions of the Governor in Council. More importantly, Mr Booth said he did not oppose the Bill. Peter Beattie, the member for Brisbane Central, is also a member of my committee. He recognised that enterprise powers are discretionary and that it is up to each council to choose whether it wishes to enter into an enterprise activity. He spoke highly about the job that EARC and PEARC have done, and as Chairman of the CJC Parliamentary Committee he would realise the amount of work that Matt Foley and the members of his committee have done. He agreed that they paved the way for the reforms that are being debated here tonight. Mr Beattie then moved on to refer to the Queen Street Down Under proposal which ran into problems that could not be overcome. I agree with the member for Toowong that the proposal will return when economic conditions improve and when we learn to address some of the problems. Somebody referred to the Beagle Boys or everybody down in Queen Street with their jackhammers right beside the vaults of the banks. I can understand why 26 banks and others put in objections to the closure of the road, but I think one of these days we will start to look at the better use of some of these streets. That part of Queen Street is really not used a lot by traffic any more. If we did not have a shopping centre underneath Queen Street, I think an extension of the mall along the top would be good value. I agree with the honourable member that it is disappointing that we have lost that particular proposal at this time. We tried our best to help. Finally, I would say to him that I appreciate his informed comments on the rating provisions of the Bill and his consistent approach to local government. Lawrence Springborg, the member for Carnarvon, referred to EARC and PEARC and the problems in the Warwick, Glengallan, Rosenthal and Allora councils. It is true that there are some problems up there, but he believes it is going to be harder in the long term. He spoke at length about Alderman Ian Ross, who lost his position on the Goondiwindi Town Council. He is a very popular councillor who works very hard in the town and who runs the Foodland store there. He shifted a few streets out, which happens to be in Waggamba Shire nearby, and he had to lose his seat on the council. It was suggested that the Minister should have some discretion. The exercising of discretion becomes a difficult matter. If a councillor is two streets out, does one say, “Yes, he should be able to stay”; but if he is 200 yards out, 2 miles out, or 200 miles out, where does one draw the line? If one draws it at 50 miles and he is 50 miles and one foot out, they will say, “Oh, look, he is only a foot out.” Mr Littleproud: Under the Elections Act, a member of Parliament can enrol as an elector. Mr BURNS: If a person has won his seat, he should be able to see that term out if he shifts. The big problem is: how far do you allow him to shift before he is no longer a local government person? It is all about “local”, is it not? If he shifts 100 miles away, he is not local any more. Anyway, we will have a look at it. I have asked my department to see whether we can consider it as part of the review. 5054 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Matt Foley, the member for Burdekin and the member for Lockyer all of whom spoke during the debate, are members of the committee which has done all of that PEARC work. I have to give them credit for a job well done. They spent a lot of time and effort on committee work and were subjected to a lot of anger out in the community as they went around talking to people. Matt is a tower of strength as far as the EARC recommendations are concerned. He has always been prepared to assist and give me advice on these matters. Because of his experience, we will be looking for his help when we appoint the commissioner and start to draw up a job description for the commissioner. I thank him also for that work. Mark Stoneman and the member for Lockyer made contributions to the debate. I thank them for the work that they have done. Clem Campbell did not speak tonight, but everybody has given him the blame. He wants to claim the credit, and he is entitled to the credit if there is credit for the whole EARC process. He was one who pushed hard, has always demanded that the local authorities should be more accountable, and in his own area believes that there should have been amalgamations and changes. Mr Hamill interjected. Mr BURNS: Yes, that is right. Do you want a bit of thanks, too? Mr Hamill: No. Mr Wells interjected. Mr BURNS: Warren Pitt was one of the members—— Mr Hamill interjected. Mr BURNS: Behave! There are two left. Let me finish. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Burns, I am going to protect you very soon. Mr BURNS: There is going to be a bit of trouble here in a minute if honourable members are not careful. Both Denver Beanland, the member for Toowong, and the member for Moggill spoke about vegetation protection orders, and they are not covered here. These matters are the subject of concerns that are being expressed in the community. I will take up in writing with the council the matters that have been mentioned by honourable members during the debate. The last speaker in the debate was the member for Gregory, Vaughan Johnson. I think that it must be accepted that a whole range of people work in local authority areas and that, in many rural towns, the shire chairmen who have given 30 years’ service have never earned much money. They are always out of pocket, so it is nice to hear someone giving them credit for the work they have done. The point I make about rural councils is that in my view they never faced any problems arising from EARC. As all honourable members would know, I have always been of the opinion that the only job-providers in those remote areas are the local authorities. If they were removed from towns such as Isisford and Ilfracombe, the communities would disappear. For that reason, I do not believe that the EARC process posed any threat to them. Quite truthfully, if there was a proposal to amalgamate Birdsville, Betoota and Bedourie with some other shire, the local authority area would be larger than the State of Victoria but would still not be economically viable. These days, it is difficult enough attracting candidates to stand for election. We are not in the position of encountering trouble caused by internal boundaries but, rather, are experiencing difficulty in attracting candidates. I thank all honourable members for their support for and assistance in consideration of the Bill. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. T. J. Burns (Lytton—Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5055

Mr COOMBER (11.47 p.m.): I had foreshadowed moving amendments to proposed sections 43 and 44, but I understood the Minister to say that the tendering processes had been passed to the CJC which had given them a clean bill of health. I can illustrate what I was trying to achieve by citing an example. Recently, the Brisbane City Council let a tender for approximately 30 low floor buses. After the tenders were received, the council elected not to proceed but to purchase instead normal chassis buses at a considerable saving. Modifications to the tendering process in circumstances leading to financial benefit would have been best recommended to the council by a particular department. Of course, the public stores board comprises, basically, the executive of the council, namely, the town clerk and the managers of six council departments. When short-listing after tendering or modifying tenders, I would have thought it best in both cases to have a recommendation being made by the board to the council. However, if the Minister has in fact passed this matter to the CJC, I am happy to accept that state of affairs and withdraw the amendments that have been circulated in my name. Mr BURNS: I do not believe that there is any matter raised by the honourable member for me to answer. I am advised by Maurie Tucker that we did that, and my notes show that the matter went to the CJC. Apparently, the CJC’s recommendation went to the Parliamentary Counsel and the matter has been tidied up in that way. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clauses 7 to 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Mr BURNS (11.50 p.m.): I move the following amendments— “At page 48, line 25, omit— ‘reviewable’ ”; “At page 50, line 4, after ‘matter’ insert— ‘, or any other matter relating to local government,’ ”; “At page 50, line 20, omit— ‘reviewable’ ”; “At page 52, line 4, omit— ‘a matter’ and insert— ‘a reviewable local government matter’.” Mr RANDELL: This matter concerns me because it shows that the Minister is not facing up to his responsibilities by shunting too many of them over to the commissioner. I mentioned to the Minister outside the Parliament that the situation was bad enough before the amendments were moved, but it now seems to me that the effect of these amendments is that the Minister will be able to shunt any controversial or unpleasant matter over to the commissioner. The Minister is abnegating his responsibilities, so it is appropriate to examine the duties that will be given to whoever is appointed as the Local Government Commissioner. Proposed section 4L on page 51 states in part— “. . . the Commissioner must examine, and report and make recommendations to the Minister on— (a) the apportionment of assets and liabilities between the local authorities concerned; and (b) the application of existing by-laws; and (c) the preservation of— (i) valuations of rateable land affected by the change; and (ii) rates and charges levied in relation to rateable land affected by the change; and 5056 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

(iii) any existing debentures issued by the local authorities; and (iv) the application of any existing town planning scheme; and (d) the rationalisation of staff of the local authorities because of the change.” By virtue of these amendments, the Minister is adding “or any other matter relating to local government”, so he may as well let the commissioner do the whole lot. I believe that the Minister should not be giving away some of these responsibilities. The Minister is hiving off responsibilities in relation to specified purposes, and it is my firm belief that he is in great danger of creating a monster which, in years to come, he will live to regret. It is my intention to oppose these amendments because, if the Minister continues in this vein, he might just as well hand over all his local government duties to the commissioner. Mr BURNS: The Local Government Association wrote to me about that matter and suggested that the best solution would be for me to be able to raise matters under, say, a joint board arrangement. For example, I had a problem with the councils in Mulgrave and Cairns, which had never been able to agree about where the garbage dump would be sited. In response to a similar problem, I, as the Minister, had to direct Pine Rivers to take Redcliffe’s garbage. It is only since the EARC report was handed down that the Gold Coast City Council and the Albert Shire Council have come a bit closer together in relation to the joint water arrangements. Many of the items that are referred to the commission relate to boundaries. The Government has told all the local authorities that, if they do not work together and under a joint arrangement, amalgamations will happen. The commissioner does not have the right, after assessing a joint arrangement, to tell the local authorities that it is not the proper joint arrangement but that, if they could improve it, he would be prepared to accept it. The local authority can tell the commissioner that he does not have the right to do anything about joint arrangements, but that he can make decisions only on boundaries. As the Minister, I must be able to direct the commissioner. If I do that, it will be published. It will not be a secret. The requirements are that it be laid on the table of the House. Everybody will know. I want to be able to give the commissioner the right to finish his job properly. One can look for a few points to make but, sooner or later, one must include the words “any other local government matter”; otherwise, I will have two and a half pages and still have to come back to the Parliament with an amendment. That is the only way that I can see of covering it. I have asked my officers and they agree with me. Mr RANDELL: I had difficulty with the clause as it was, but to state “any other matter relating to local government” makes the legislation too open-ended. I intend to oppose the clause. Amendments agreed to. Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5057

Question—That clause 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 49 NOES, 27 Ardill Livingstone Beanland Barber Mackenroth Borbidge Beattie McElligott Connor Bird McGrady Coomber Braddy Milliner Dunworth Bredhauer Nunn Elliott Briskey Palaszczuk FitzGerald Burns Pearce Goss J. N. Campbell Robson Harper Casey Schwarten Horan Clark Smith Johnson Comben Smyth Lester D’Arcy Spence Lingard Davies Sullivan J. H. Littleproud De Lacy Sullivan T. B. McCauley Dollin Szczerbanik Randell Eaton Vaughan Rowell Edmond Warburton Santoro Elder Welford Sheldon Fenlon Wells Slack Flynn Woodgate Springborg Foley Stephan Gibbs Stoneman Hamill Tellers: Veivers Tellers: Hayward Prest Watson Neal Hollis Pitt Quinn Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 11 to 13, as read, agreed to. Clause 14— Mr COOMBER (12.02 a.m.): Our churches are concerned at the impact that the repealing of section 24 of the Local Government Act will have. I address this matter with the Minister by perhaps reading to him a letter which I received today. Mr Burns: I’ve got it. Mr COOMBER: I understand that the Minister has a copy of this letter, too. Under Part 3—Rates and Charges, the Brisbane City Council has an ability to exempt land used for public, religious, charitable or educational purposes. Under another part of the legislation, the Minister, too, has power to exempt land by regulation. Mr Burns: That’s my saving grace. Mr COOMBER: I have been contacted by people representing most churches in Brisbane. Some inequities seem to be brought into play by the Brisbane City Council in that in some cases churches have been exempted but the houses of ministers have not, and in other cases, the houses of other ministers have been exempted. It seems that the city ordinance is being interpreted differently by different council officers. With the repeal of section 24 (1) (ii), what undertaking can the Minister give to the churches of Brisbane that they will retain some of the exempt status that they had, because section 24 (1) (ii) covered quite a wide range of exemptions? Mr BURNS: The churches wrote to me in relation to this matter, too. As part of the policy of allowing councils to make their own determinations in this way, there is power in the Bill for the Brisbane City Council, by resolution of the council, to exempt land from rating—that is, land used for public, religious, charitable or educational purposes that is exempt from rating under a resolution of the council. Currently, the council grants exemptions by ordinances. This legislation really does not change that power, but councils will now have to make exemptions by resolution instead of by ordinance. It will have to be done in that public way. That is the first thing. 5058 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

The second thing is that under proposed section 47 (1) (c), I keep a reserve power. That means that if a council comes to me and says that it has granted an exemption for rating for a number of years and it has now decided that it will no longer grant an exemption, I can make a determination on the matter. I will not go down the track of uniform legislation. I had a go at that with swimming pools. I will not go down that track again. I have decided that it is up to the councils to do their own thing, and I have left myself with a reserve power. If churches come to me and complain, I can intervene by exempting a particular property, a group of properties, or a church, as the case may be. I will be answering the letter to which the honourable member referred. I did not receive it until today. There is provision in the legislation for us to be able to handle any of the problems that the churches perceive. Mr COOMBER: I thank the Minister. I think that puts into print how he feels. I suggest to him that the churches throughout Brisbane are fairly sceptical and suspicious of the Government because, as a result of a Land Tax Amendment Bill which passed through this Chamber in 1990, some churches are now being subjected to land tax. That tax is being collected retrospectively, going back to 1989. Proposed section 61 makes provision for a retrospective collection of rates. I think the worry to the churches is that councils could levy rates retrospectively, as well as land tax. Hopefully, that will not be the case. Mr Burns: There is no provision for retrospectivity. Mr COOMBER: Proposed section 61 in clause 6 provides for retrospectivity. Mr Burns interjected. Mr COOMBER: I think that is the concern. Mr Burns: We will have to wait and see. I have got a reserve provision there. If a problem occurs, I will have to address it. Mr COOMBER: I suppose if churches or charities are suffering grave financial stress as a result of this Bill, the Minister will find out about it. I would certainly hate to have on my tail the Anglican Church, the Baptist Union of Queensland, the Catholic Church of Queensland, the Christian Outreach Centre, the Churches of Christ in Queensland, the Lutheran Church of Australia, the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, the Society of St Vincent de Paul and the Uniting Church in Australia. Mr BURNS: I am sure the honourable member is not suggesting for one moment that I should take over the role of declaring what rates should apply to particular properties in each council area. I believe that is what the honourable member is suggesting. That decision has to be left up to the council. I have allowed myself a reserve power. If the Government feels that the councils are treating a church or a group of churches badly, I can do something about it. I think it would be crazy for a Minister to say, “I am going to legislate here in this Parliament for certain churches throughout the State to be exempt from paying rates.” I am not prepared to do that. Clause 14, as read, agreed to. Clauses 15 and 16, as read, agreed to. Clause 17— Mr COOMBER (12.09 a.m.): As it is past midnight, to save the time of the Committee, I would like to address both of the amendments that I propose to move. In regard to local government engaging in enterprises activities—the Gold Coast City Council is certainly leading the field with its computer software package. I say from the outset that information is not forthcoming from Citypak and Lisco—which is the company formed to run Citypak—to the public and to some of the aldermen on the Gold Coast City Council. In fact, Alderman Dawn Crichlow has actually asked 99 questions of the town clerk as to the financial state of Citypak. There have been estimates that Citypak is in fact in debt to the tune of $3m to $6m. That information is not being made available to the elected aldermen of the Gold Coast City Council. I find that quite disturbing. Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5059

When this Parliament is formulating legislation regarding local authority enterprise activities, it should include a provision that is designed to ensure that all transactions are above board; that all information, including any transaction or financial agreement, is made available; that the structure of the company—and, in the case of a joint venture, the names of the directors—is made available; and that the enterprise will actually function. The legislation should provide for a penalty to be imposed on a local authority which chooses not to divulge and make available that information. I agree that the Gold Coast City Council is leading the field with its Citypak program. It is a good program. The program is being sold interstate, and several sales are in the offing to places as far away as Melbourne. However, I do believe that the legislation has to safeguard public money. Public moneys are going to be put at risk and are going to be made available for investment purposes. In some cases, local authorities will be investing in real estate such as supermarkets, shopping centres, subdivisions and industrial estates, and/or using computer programming or similar information technology. However, I believe that some safeguards should be put in place to ensure that all information is made available so that the ratepayers of the local authority know where, how and when their money is being spent. Mr RANDELL: As I understand it, the two amendments are being dealt with at the same time. I just wonder whether the member for Currumbin could read out the proposed—— An Opposition member: It’s normal that it be moved. Mr RANDELL: At page 74, line 27, the honourable member is proposing to insert a subsection (5). I wonder whether the member would read out that amendment, because I think it has been changed since I received a copy. Mr COOMBER: The proposed amendment to clause 17 has been changed. I move the following amendment— “At the end of proposed section 52H, insert— ‘(5) If a local authority knowingly contravenes this section, each member of the local authority commits an offence. Maximum penalty for subsection (5)—100 penalty units’. ” Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): Order! In order to clarify things, what is the member moving? Mr COOMBER: Just proposed subsection (5). Mr BURNS: I think I have the first sheet of amendments, but I do not have the altered sheet. Proposed subsection (5) relates to the register of enterprises. Firstly, enterprise powers were initially provided in 1986. They have been around for a long while. They resulted from a decision at a conference of Local Government Ministers at that time. Proposed section 52H (1) states— “A local authority that exercises power under section 52C must maintain a register in which are recorded— (a) a reference to each enterprise engaged in, or assisted by, the local authority; and (b) the identity of the entity (if any) with which the local authority has engaged in, or assisted, an enterprise as a joint venture; and (c) particulars of the purpose to be attained by the engagement or assistance of the local authority; and (d) the value of property from time to time committed by the local authority to each enterprise engaged in, or assisted by, the local authority; and (e) in relation to each enterprise, the identity of the persons of relevant competence with whom the local authority has consulted under section 52E (2).” 5060 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Local authorities must publish that register. It must be available for scrutiny by the public. I believe that that covers most of the points raised by the honourable member. The honourable member raised another point about a fine being imposed on every individual councillor. I refer to his proposed amendment, which stated that if he or she contravenes this section, each member of the local authority commits an offence. I am not prepared to accept such an amendment, but I will ask officers in my department to consider it and talk to the Local Government Association about it. I will advise the honourable member in writing of the results of that meeting. There will be a review of the White Paper, and the amendments to the Local Government Act will be proclaimed in a month. When the White Paper is issued, at that time I will proceed to amend the Local Government Act, which will have some consequential amendments to the Acts relating to the Brisbane City Council. I give the honourable member the assurance that I will refer his proposed amendment to the Local Government Association, and it will consider it. Amendment negatived. Clause 17, as read, agreed to. Clause 18 and Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Burns, by leave, read a third time.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Leader of the House) (12.19 a.m.): I move— “That the House do now adjourn.”

Prison Reform Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs) (12.20 a.m.): Tonight, I wish to bring to the attention of this House a submission titled “Kamikaze Prison Reform—Queensland style”. The author is Councillor Glenda Mather of the Livingstone Shire Council. She stated— “Never in my 28 years dealing with people, have I ever witnessed the mass destruction of human dignity as I have to staff at the Rockhampton Correctional Centre in recent months. If ever there was a case of culpable negligence to answer, I believe the Corrective Services Commission, as the employer of prison staff, would be groping to supply evidence to prove it took the necessary action to address the many safety issues brought to its attention by custodial staff. Despite the many attempts to get the message through to Prison Management and various members of the Commission—including Mr Hamburger, nobody was listening. Nobody seemed to care enough for human life to respond to the many warning signals this prison was sending out. Why did the Commission refuse to recognise its duty of care to its employees—the same employees who put their lives on the line every day in the interests of public safety? These officers couldn’t even protect themselves, and the Commission, their employer, obviously didn’t give a damn. Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5061

In just 8 weeks, two human lives were ‘wasted’—unnecessarily. Why? Because the Commission was cutting corners in one of the most important essential services of all—public protection. It failed to provide adequate security in the most hazardous workplace. I ask, where are all the Industrial Inspectors who are paid to enforce the Government’s Workplace Health and Safety Legislation? In determining liability, any Judge would ask the question ‘could these disasters have been foreseen and thus prevented?’ Undoubtedly the answer would be a resounding ‘yes’ because the Commission was repeatedly warned of the dangers. This is further evidenced by the Commission’s intention to reduce the staffing levels at this centre, and Stewart Creek (Townsville). My sources say 30 and 46 respectively. The Commission’s only concerns are obviously to push ahead with prison reform, keep the costs down, and if you don’t like our philosophy, get off the bus. Contrary to statements made by ignorant people in high places, staff here are not against reform. They are against vast and rapid changes which they consider detrimental to the health and safety of all persons concerned—including the prisoners. I consider this attitude not only responsible, but imperative. The radical agenda for award restructuring (12 hr shifts and split shifts etc.) failed to provide supporting information as to how the major changes would be safely implemented—and was rejected on safety grounds. Twelve-hour shifts mean less staff. I was personally told by members of the Commission that this Centre was going to lose staff.” Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that, quite obviously, the member for Peak Downs is abusing the Standing Orders by claiming to be reading a letter when, in fact, he is obviously reading a speech. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! I accept the point of order. Will the member for Peak Downs produce the letter? Mr LESTER: It is here. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member may continue. Mr LESTER: All that the member has done is deny Councillor Glenda Mather the opportunity to put forward her point of view of Parliament, and she will remember that. There is no risk about that. She said— “I was personally told by members of the Commission that this Centre was going to lose staff. How do you reduce staff without messy industrial action and adverse publicity? Either by offering the ‘golden handshake’ (the big bribe) or by ‘other means’. By ‘other means’ you create constant pressure, cause division within the troops, weaken their resistance, confuse them, render them helpless—and conquer them. This way they become so fed up, they are pleased to get out, in order to retain some sanity. I observed all of these signs, and I considered the Commission used every trick in the book to achieve its objectives. Prison staff could see no-one in authority cared—not only for their welfare, but for the welfare of the general public. Prisoner rehabilitation was top of the list. Prisoners were receiving the ultimate considerations, privileges unlimited, internal punishments were (and still are) minimised or dropped completely. Yet, at the other end, officers got not a damn thing. They are the prisoners in their own system. Their warnings of concern fell on deaf ears—frustration and tempers were high.” Time expired. 5062 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Human Rights Violations in India Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (12.24 a.m.): Tonight, I want to bring to the attention of members of the House the poor human rights record of India, a fellow Commonwealth nation. India has much to be proud of on the international scene. For decades it has been a leader in the fight against apartheid in South Africa. In recent years, the Indian Government quite properly has been admirably vocal in support of democracy in Burma. India has campaigned relentlessly for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, the Leader of the Opposition in that country. Unfortunately, this proud international record—the existence of true parliamentary democracy, the existence of a free press and of an independent judiciary—are not matched by similarly high standards when it comes to the treatment of people in official custody. Since 1985, Amnesty International has documented the deaths in custody of 415 people, and in all of these cases there was irrefutable evidence that death was a result of torture. Sadly, this is most likely to be only the tip of the iceberg. The true figure is more likely to be in the thousands. A close study of those suffering at the hands of police and the security forces reveals that most of the victims of abuse belong to India’s underclass. These include members of legally protected classes and tribes along with landless labourers and migrant workers. It is also apparent that deaths in custody are far too frequent in simple criminal cases where poorly trained officers resort to torture to extract confessions from suspects. More frightening, though, in a democratic country such as India is the growing understanding that torture and death are being used as a political tool to discourage persons who belong to the lower castes from pursuing claims in relation to land rights or working towards higher wages. The political overtones are just as dark in the Punjab, Jamu, Kashmir and Assam. In these areas, where there exist insurgent groups, the police and security forces have the protection of special laws indemnifying them against prosecution for acts committed “in the line of duty”. In these areas, rape of women in detention has become so prevalent that the High Court of India has strictly forbidden the incarceration of women in army camps. Clearly, India has a human rights problem of huge proportions. However, the Government of that country continues to bury its head in the sand and deny the facts. I find a statement by assassinated Prime Minister, Rajiv Ghandi, given in a television interview in 1988, most disturbing. He said— “We don’t torture anybody and you can check on that. Whenever we have had complaints of torture we have had it checked and have not found it to be true.” The evidence is clearly to the contrary. Although it is widely recognised that a conspiracy of silence is being perpetrated by police, doctors, magistrates and State officials, the truth about torture and deaths in custody cannot and, indeed, has not remained undiscovered. Thankfully, people of conscience in India are still prepared to speak out. I wish to place on record several quotes by prominent people in India which I believe give legitimate cause for hope that, given international support for human rights, and given sufficient pressure from concerned groups, including elected representatives such as ourselves, India can address this cancer of torture. Firstly, a judicial commission investigating the 1985 death in custody of Angadi Prabhak Ara Rao had this to say— “If a person dies in a police station, that circumstance itself is sufficient to create reasonable suspicion. When the death is of a young and healthy person in a matter of a few hours of his arrest, in the absence of explanation by the police regarding the death there is all the more justification to presume that the police are responsible or have something to do with the death.” Further, in 1987, the West Bengal Chief Minister in October of that year put quite succinctly the revulsion that compassionate human beings clearly feel. He said— Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5063

“Deaths in police custody are unthinkable in any civilised society. It is illegal and absolutely sickening.” Clearly, even the police and security forces themselves are aware of the problem and the need to combat it. The Indian police are under a great deal of pressure to combat crime and political and civil unrest. They are, unfortunately, politically partisan and, to make matters worse, are extremely poorly trained. According to a former police inspector general in Tamil Nadu— “When police are pressurised to deliver results, when they don’t have adequate time or manpower to devote to crime investigations, they take short cuts to achieve their ends. In this process violations of fundamental rights do occur.” Vijay Karan, Commissioner of Police in Delhi, has said— “The police have no right to beat up anybody. There are scientific methods of interrogation. I would like to ban torture and third-degree methods.” Amnesty International is mounting an awareness campaign in respect of human rights violations in India. I endorse without reservation the efforts of Amnesty International on this issue and call on members of this House to consider writing to the Indian Prime Minister, Mr Narashima Rao, and reminding him that, last October in Zimbabwe, on behalf of his country he signed the Harare Commonwealth Agreement. It should be pointed out to him that the agreement reaffirmed the fundamental guiding principles of the Commonwealth and, more significantly, emphasised a commitment to uphold human rights.

Mr C. Galtos Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (12.29 a.m.): I rise tonight to defend a member of the Brisbane business community who was grossly and improperly maligned in this place under the guise of parliamentary privilege. On 3 December last year, the member for Archerfield told this House that Mr Con Galtos, a bastion of the business community and, yes, also a member of the Liberal Party—as most competent business people should be—was somehow responsible for the Inala Community House losing over $180,000 in the stock market crash in 1987. How this came about was never explained by the honourable member, who presumably thinks so much of Mr Galtos that he believes that one man precipitated the worldwide share crash and that Mr Galtos was that man. Mr Galtos is certainly an astute and powerful businessman, but I think that not even he would claim to have total power over the world financial markets. Let me set the story straight. Mr Galtos was president and chairman of the Inala Community House from 1970 until 1986. During that time, the house funds were invested in bank bills, an investment classified as a trustee investment which, under banking regulations, was considered risk free. Mr Galtos stood down as president in January 1986, but remains a proud member of that organisation. The point that the member for Archerfield has overlooked is that the stock market crash occurred in October 1987, almost two years after Mr Galtos resigned. The decision to place the money into the AMP equity trust, from which it was lost in 1987, was taken at a meeting of the house council that Mr Galtos did not attend because he was overseas. Labor Alderman Clive Wells moved a motion at that meeting that the money be transferred from the secure deposit in bank bills to the AMP equity trust. I seek permission to table the minutes of that meeting in August 1987, two months before the crash, to set the matter straight. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! There is no need to seek permission. Mr SANTORO: When Mr Galtos was made aware of the decision, he wrote to the council expressing concern at the change because of his belief that the new investment was a breach of the house constitution, but by then it was too late. The member for Archerfield has misled the House and slandered a person who has spent all his life trying to help the constituents so sadly let down by the member. It is no wonder that some 5064 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly people in our society are arguing for the abolition of parliamentary privilege when it is misused as badly as has been done in this case. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to complete and utter order. Mr SANTORO: He has chosen to launch a petty political point-scoring attack on a respected community leader. When he was told the real story, he chose not even to reply to Mr Galtos. To try to redress the wrong that had been done to an upstanding member of this community by someone in this place—an event unfortunately not uncommon thanks to members opposite—I have outlined the true story and presented the documentation to prove it. I would also like to place on record my appreciation, and that of the Queensland community, particularly the residents of Inala, for the work done by Mr Galtos over all these years for the Inala Community House. During his 16 years as president, Mr Galtos was involved with the development and establishment of four child-care centres with the assistance of the Honourable Bill Hayden, the Inala Citizens Youth Club, pre-school and after-school care, the first family day care centre in Queensland, emergency care, family counselling and budgeting, legal assistance, health centre, credit union, emergency housing, musical morning teas for the housebound, the employment of a social worker and the distribution of emergency relief. It should be noted that Bill Hayden, now the Governor-General, is the only politician who, according to Mr Galtos, has given any support to Inala Community House. Out of respect for your position, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have refrained from any vitriol that perhaps one would have indulged in in a speech of this sort. It seems to me, again with respect, that your information was incorrect. This information has been provided to me not only by Mr Galtos but by others who were involved with him in the setting up of Inala Community House. I think you erred considerably when outlining your knowledge and your experience of Mr Galtos’ activities within that community that he was so pleased and very proud to serve.

Beenleigh Chamber of Commerce Awards Mr SZCZERBANIK (Albert) (12.33 a.m.): I rise this morning to congratulate the Beenleigh Chamber of Commerce on its recent business achievement awards function. One must realise that 1990-91 was a year of hard economic times for everyone, not only those on the land but also those in business. Recently, the Beenleigh Chamber of Commerce presented its business achievement awards. The function was attended by the Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development. I congratulate the Beenleigh Chamber of Commerce and the president and vice-president of that chamber on the running of the function, which was attended by more than 300 people. I would like to advise the House about two of the businesses that won awards that night. The judges’ award was won by Uniline Australia Limited, which was started under a house in Brisbane by Mr Matti Rounala in 1965. He started selling blinds and curtains from under his house. The award read— “Uniline Australia Limited was assessed by the judges as a ‘quiet achiever’ which has carefully and systematically built up an excellently based business and increased market share in a difficult economic climate. Uniline had to compete in the Major Manufacturers category against two of the region’s best performed manufacturing operations, and it was the opinion of the judges that the achievements of Uniline should not be overshadowed by the performances of successful companies such as Drizabone and Teys Bros. The special award recognises a job well done in establishing and building on an excellent base for a local manufacturing operation.” Four years ago the company initiated an import replacement program. It originally imported 100 per cent of its vertical blinds and is now manufacturing 100 per cent of its Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5065 product. Also, it imported 100 per cent of its fabric from France and Spain. Today, it manufactures 600 000 square metres, or 60 per cent of its product, in Australia. The other major winner of a prize that I would like to mention is Drizabone. It is one of the major manufacturing companies in Beenleigh. It does not have middle management. It has a boss and a secretary and everybody else in the work force is an employer. Three years ago, it exported 2 per cent of its product, two years ago 20 per cent, and the estimate for this year is 35 per cent. Drizabone outfitted the Queensland State of Origin team. I did not see the game, but I think that the players would have been very well dressed. The managing director of the company, Mr Maguire, said that high wages did not directly equate to a high labour cost. Drizabone is a progressive company that I would be proud to have in my electorate, and I wish them well. They are out there in the marketplace pushing their products, a large percentage of which it exports. I believe that Mr Maguire is a forward-thinking person. I have heard from other people that he would rather see the clothing manufacturing business competing in the marketplace on a zero tariff basis, an attitude which I find astonishing for an Australian company. Mr Maguire and his company should be applauded, and I applaud the chamber of commerce on the running of its achievement awards. Time expired.

University Enrolments Mr LINGARD (Fassifern) (12.38 a.m.): Today, the Minister for Education, in answer to a question from a backbencher, made great play about the fact that the amount of money for school grants has been increased. The Opposition certainly admits that the amount of money that is supplied now through the school grants scheme has been increased, but, as all people involved in education know, so have the commitments of the schools. When it comes to the support of resource centres and things like that, that money now is used to pay for a lot of extra items. While we agree that the amount of school grants has been increased, so have the commitments of schools. A similar comment applies to the additional amount of $256m that has been provided to schools over the last three years. The ALP has made great play of the payment of $84m a year. If any member looks at the EOG—the Education Office Gazette—of September 1989, he or she will see an outline of the present Government’s schemes for 1990. As Collins and Lingard—no relation—said in a PSMC report, all that the ALP had to do was pick up the amount of money that the National Party Government had provided and run with the scheme—and run, it did. If one looks at the September 1989 edition of the EOG, one will find, to be quite honest, as Collins and Lingard admit, that even more than $256m was provided for education. Mr Welford: It was an election. Mr LINGARD: It was not just an election. EOG is a publication of the Education Department. It does not contain policy for an election. That was an actual commitment to education at that time. Yesterday, the member for South Coast made some very important points about students seeking tertiary places. All backbench members should have listened very carefully to the figures that were provided yesterday, and they should listen to some of the figures that I will give tonight. The member for South Coast said that, last year, 27 000 students came out of Year 12—27 000. In Queensland, we were able to offer only 9 300 tertiary places. Let us look at some of the other figures that were quoted yesterday. As the honourable member said, there are 1 700 fewer Year 12 students going on to tertiary education now than was the case two years ago, even though the number of places in universities has been increased by 1 900. That is a shocking figure. To think that over two years, the period during which the Labor Party has been in Government, 1 700 fewer Year 12 students are going on to university, even though an extra 1 900 places have been provided. The reasons are quite obvious—because students are upgrading after their first year at university, or other students are taking tertiary places to improve 5066 6 May 1992 Legislative Assembly their academic qualifications. Year 12 students are finding it extremely hard now to compete for the available places. Mr T. B. Sullivan: How many students are deferring for one year? Mr LINGARD: I am not arguing about that. I am saying that there are many reasons. However, I shall refer to some other figures. Last year, there were 65 000 applicants for only 22 500 places in our universities. In 1990, there were 44 088 applicants. So, over two years, there has been a 21 000 increase in the number of students trying to obtain places in our universities. That has happened over the last two years. What we must all ask is: where have those people gone? Let me look at some figures that the vice-chancellors of universities from all over Australia provided at their last meeting. They said that 4 800 students in Queensland, who had qualified for entry to university, had tried to get into a university. They had actually passed Year 12 and should have got into a university. In 1990, there were 4 800 such students. In 1992, there were 12 400 such students. In other words, those students had qualified to get into university in Queensland and had missed out, so, over the two-year period that the Labor Government has been in office, there has been a 158 per cent increase in the number of students who have qualified to get into university in Queensland but have missed out. One cannot dispute with those figures. In 1990, there were 4 800; in 1992, there were 12 400. Time expired.

Rural Communities Policy Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (12.43 a.m.): It is a source of great pride to me that since my election to Parliament in 1989, our Government has expended considerable sums of money on capital works in the Cook electorate. While not wishing to be immodest or to draw inappropriate conclusions, I believe that this fact not only reflects on our Government’s recognition of the needs of people who live in the rural and remote communities that make up the Cook electorate, but is in some way a measure of the success which I have had as the member for Cook in bringing those needs to the attention of the relevant Ministers, and in actually securing direct results for residents throughout my electorate. If one looks around the Cook electorate, however, one will not find any multistorey State Government offices. There are no dual lane carriageways and no new art complexes. What we have done is work extremely hard to redress decades of neglect by the National Party in the provision of basic services to people who live in rural and remote communities. With the passage of time, I am convinced that historians will muse over the great irony that members of the National Party, formerly the Country Party and the supposed champions of the bush, paid nothing more than lip-service to the needs of country Queenslanders. The only things they provided in abundance were platitudes. Conversely, however, in the short period of just two and a half years, the Goss Labor Government has got on with the job. In the Cook electorate and elsewhere, this Government has been a Government of action. As the elected member for the area, I have helped to secure a massive injection of capital works which has assisted in addressing glaring deficiencies in the provision of basic services such as water supply, electricity supply, medical facilities, schools, police stations, housing, transport, port and communication facilities, and a standard of infrastructure and quality of lifestyle that for many years have been taken for granted by most Queenslanders, but are a dream that has finally become a reality for the people who dared to continue to live away from the south-east corner of this State under successive conservative Governments. In spite of this Government’s considerable efforts over the last two and a half years, there are still many small communities in rural and remote areas lacking a reasonable level of basic services. None of those services is more fundamental than is the provision of a reasonable standard of water supply and sewage disposal. It is therefore significant that, through this Government’s State economic development policy, Leading State, the Premier and the Government have confirmed the Labor Legislative Assembly 6 May 1992 5067

Party’s ongoing commitment to rural and remote communities by establishing a rural communities water supply and sewerage scheme. This scheme will foster implementation of water and sewerage services in those communities which are at present financially incapable of establishing the facilities and which have been so badly neglected by conservative Governments of National Party or coalition persuasions. I will cite briefly the policy document, which states— “Significant development opportunities exist throughout Queensland based largely on value adding to primary produce and various mineral resources. A current lack of access to reliable water supplies and waste disposal systems remains a major impediment to growth of tourism in remote areas and accentuates the concentration of industry in urban areas.” That is one of the problems that this Government is trying to address. The policy announcement was good news for people who live in rural areas and who have tolerated inadequate water supplies for many years. Approximately 90 communities with a population in excess of 100 are without a reticulated water supply, and there are approximately 80 existing water supply schemes that are below standard in quality or quantity. In addition, approximately 160 communities have fewer than 100 people but do not have a reticulated water supply or the financial capability to redress their needs under existing programs. It is important to note that the scheme that will provide special assistance to local authorities will be implemented in addition to the usual State Government Local Government Bodies Annual Capital Works Program loan subsidy scheme and COWSIP. When taken in conjunction with separate initiatives that are under consideration by the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs and the water resources groups of the Department of Primary Industries which are addressing the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, there is reason to be optimistic about the future water supplies for all rural communities. It is hoped that the latter program will be supported by ATSIC. I do not suggest that the water supply schemes of all communities will be attended to overnight. The announcement of this scheme, however, provides considerable hope for the future and demonstrates once again the Goss Labor Government’s commitment to people who live in the bush. I note with some irony the interjections that have been made during this debate by the member for Gregory, because many of the communities to which I have referred are located in his electorate. I believe he should be supporting this scheme in his electorate because members of the previous National Party Government neglected their constituencies over three decades. Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order. For the information of the member for Cook, I have not neglected anybody in my electorate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! There is no point of order. The member for Gregory will resume his seat. Mr BREDHAUER: The point I make, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that this program is designed to benefit the constituents of the member for Gregory. For that reason, he should be supporting the program throughout the community. Time expired. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 12.49 a.m. (Thursday)