Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 1986

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

864 4 September 1986 Ministerial Statements

THURSDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 1986

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. H. Wamer, Toowoomba South) read prayers and took the chair at 11 a.m.

PETITION The Clerk announced the receipt of the foUowing petition— Costs in Appeals under City of Brisbane Town Planning Act From Mr Innes (319 signatories) praying that the ParUament of Queensland wiU amend the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act so that costs wiU not be ordered to be paid by appellants or respondents where appeals are unsuccessfiil. Petition received.

PAPERS The foUowing papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under— Companies (Administration) Act 1981 Elections Act 1983-1985 Reports— Mortgage Secondary Market Board for the year ended 30 June 1986 Queensland Law Reform Commission for the year ended 30 June 1986 Disaster Appeals Trust Fund Committee for the year ended 30 June 1986 The Law Reform Commission on a BiU to EstabUsh Limited LiabiUty Partnerships for the year ended 30 June 1986 Proposal— (A) A proposal by the Govemor in Council to include within the Brisbane Forest Park, pursuant to the Brisbane Forest Park Act 1977-1981:— (a) AU that parcel of land described as Reserve for Park Purposes R.3245, parish of Enoggera, being portion 1257 parish of Enoggera, as shown on Plan No. SL.9552, proposed by the Department of Mapping and Surveying and deposited in the Office of the Surveyor-General and containing an area of 7.886 hectares. (B) A brief explanation of the proposal.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Nurse Education Hon. L. W. POWELL (Isis—Minister for Education) (11.3 a.m.), by leave: Yesterday during the Matters of Public Interest debate the member for TownsvUle (Mr McElligott) stood in this place to make a statement on nurse education. I bring to the attention of the House the inaccuracies contained in his statement and the way in which he and the Labor Party wish to downgrade nursing education in this State. The honourable member stated that the Queensland Govemment should negotiate seriously for the transfer of nurse education. On behalf of the Queensland Govemment, at repeated Australian Education Council meetings I have pleaded with the Federal Govemment to look honestly at the transfer of nurse education from hospitals to college- based programs. The Federal Govemment will not do that. Through its Minister for Ministerial Statements 4 September 1986 865

Education (Senator the Hon. S. M. Ryan), the Federal Govemment has said that nurse education will be transferred to coUeges of advanced education by 1993. In the meantime the Federal Govemment expects the States to pay for that tertiary education. I wiU put the matter in perspective. In 1973, through an agreement that was initiated by the then Labor Govemment in Canberra under Mr Whitlam, the Commonwealth Govemment agreed to fund totally tertiary education. That was proceeded with forthwith, immediately and totally. The fiinding for aU people who were being trained, and for teachers, in those coUeges, which could be regarded as colleges of advanced education, was immediately taken over by the Federal Govemment. The Federal Govemment has now made a policy decision—which it has no constitutional right to do—that the education of nurses should be transferted from hospitals to coUeges. The Queensland Govemment agrees that that is probably a good move and should be undertaken. However, honourable members and the people of this State should know that the Federal Govemment is attempting to tax Queenslanders on three counts as far as nurse education is concemed. In the first instance, the Federal Govemment is taxing the people and then reimbursing the State, with some of that money, for tertiary education. In the second instance, in addition to imposing that taxation, the Federal Govemment expects the State to pay for nurse education in colleges of advanced education. In the third instance, the Federal Govemment expects the State to use more Queensland tax-payers' money to pay for the replacement of nurses within the hospital system. Members of the Labor Party cannot get it through their thick heads that this State is being seriously disadvantaged by the Commonwealth Govemment on two funding counts. Under the Commonwealth and States Financial Agreement Act, money is taken from the State, and that money is supposed to be given back to the State. On two counts, it is not given back equitably. The first count is education. That has been chronicled repeatedly in this Assembly, so that even honourable members opposite should understand what is happening. The second count is health care and the Medicare arrangement. An examination of the Commonwealth Budget papers, which were presented only a fortnight ago by Mr Keating, reveals that Victoria was regarded as 1, Queensland was regarded as 0.49, South Australia was regarded as 1.58 and Tasmania was regarded as 1.57. Therefore, the indication is that health care in those States—South AustraUa and Tasmania—is three times more expensive than in Queensland. It will be seen that the Federal Govemment is discounting the amount of money that this State receives for health care by one-third when that amount is compared with that given to other States. Therefore, Queensland is being seriously disadvantaged. The Federal Govemment says that nursing is a profession and that nurse-training should be undertaken in tertiary institutions. The bottom line is that the Federal Govemment will not regard it as such. The rhetoric is there; the money is not. Until such time as the Federal Govemment funds nurse education in the same manner as it funds all other tertiary education in this State, nurses in Queensland cannot enter tertiary education institutions. There are no places for them. The Federal Govemment is offering the Queensland Govemment $1,500 per student. It costs $6,500 per student. It is offering nothing for capital works. The Federal Govemment expects the Queensland Govemment to use its hospitals as the venues for the training of nurses. As I said, the rhetoric is there; the money is not. It is high time that the honourable member for Townsville (Mr McElligott) and aU honourable members opposite realised the predicament facing Queensland and, indeed, nursing in this State.

72407—30 866 4 September 1986 Ministerial Statements

Occupation Licences, Bribie Island; N. W. and L. C. Turnbull Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying) (11.9 a.m.), by leave: On Tuesday night and again yesterday in the House, the member for Windsor (Mr Comben) made a series of wild accusations relating to a purported land deal windfaU of some $5m or even $7m to a Bribie Island family. He went further to claim that that famUy, which have had two Crown occupation licences, Nos. 445 and 454, totaUing 5 000 ha on the island for 60-odd years, were in some way to receive a pay-off for being "weU connected to the National Party". He claimed credit also for a story that some sort of deal had already been done with two members of the famUy, Messrs N. W. and L. C. TumbuU, to get 210 ha of the original 5 000 ha area as a special lease, which they would be able to freehold. Hansard records that the honourable member claimed that the Govemment had decided to offer to re-license this 210 ha area to the brothers, which they in tum—and I again quote the exact words of the honourable member opposite—"can freehold by spending $210,000 on improvements". That is quite incomect. To grab the media's attention, he threw in another jewel— "Something sinister is going on ... The Government needs to state why people who have no right to compensation are being compensated to the tune of between $5m and $7m". Later, he had the audacity to throw in another Uttle titbit for the media. I quote again from Hansard— "With local residents stating that the TumbuU brothers have strong and close National Party connections, I can only wonder if this compensation is in fact another bribe or sUng to friends to keep them quiet." In order to tempt the hunger for sensational headlines, he topped that off with— "In comparison with this scandal, even the $400,000 bribe to the Premier pales into insignificance." What contemptible words! The honourable member for Windsor further claimed that— "The facts are there. They remain undenied and are even admitted in newspaper articles. The imputation can be drawn. The Govemment must answer or it wiU again be condemned by its silence." The Govemment will answer, all right. Mr Speaker, the ALP has made much media mileage out of claims that some Ministers are writ happy; but, on hearing such a purely politicaUy motivated, headline- grabbing heap of plain untmths, innuendoes and straight-out slurs, any reasonably minded person would recognise the need for such actions. If the honourable member for Windsor cared to make those claims outside the privileged protection of this House, he could well me the day—and it would not be me issuing writs. Mr Speaker, the facts are these. It is quite comect that that family has been associated with the land for more than 70 years, and it is only natural that it would like to retain at least part of the 5 000 ha lease to continue the family's connection on Bribie Island. I believe that to be a reasonable assumption and desire on their part. Messrs Noel Tumbull and LesUe Cyril Tumbull and their forbears have held OL No. 445, an area of about 13 square miles, since before 1915 and OL No. 454, an area of about 7 square miles, since July 1975. They made representations for a more secure tenure. Their appUcation was investigated and an offer of a special lease of an area of about 200 ha was made by letter on 14 January 1985. I table the terms and conditions of such an offer and a sketch showing the location of the land that is included in OL 454. It is to be noted that the special lease offer was for a period of 50 years and that the lease is not convertible to a freehold or perpetual lease tenure. A lease condition required the land to be used for residential and grazing Privilege 4 September 1986 867 purposes and purposes incidental thereto. The proposed lease area is separated from high-water mark by an esplanade over which the Caboolture Shire CouncU holds a permit to occupy. That offer was not accepted by the TumbuUs. The country involved comprises about 200 ha of inferior tea tree and gum coastal forest with dense wattle undergrowth and areas of tea-tree swamp. The soUs were generaUy sandy on the ridges and peaty clay soils in the swamps. The investigation report indicates that this is country that usually would be considered to have no potential for development because of poor natural pastures and a strong natural regrowth. The departmental views are that any such development would be a very expensive exercise and of doubtful viability. The National Parks and Wildlife Service was at all times consulted and the arrangement eventuaUy made met with the service's approval. As I stated earlier, the Tumbulls did not accept the offer made in my letter of 14 January 1985. They made further strong representations seeking a freehold title,: They were told to submit a detaUed development program for consideration to enable the issue of a priority special lease. They were also told that the Land Administration Commission would arrange for investigation as soon as possible. This development program was eventually received and considered. I formed the opinion that it was not of sufficient magnitude to wamant consideration of a development lease in terms of section 205 (1) (b) of the Land Act. I have this moming posted to the Tumbulls a letter containing advice, and I will table a copy of my letter. In the letter I have advised the Tumbulls that, in coming to my conclusion, I have had regard to the type of development proposed and the expenditure envisaged compared with the total area involved and its location. It will also be noted that I have given the Tumbulls a fiirther opportunity to submit a better and more intensive development program, and that, if such a program is not received within three months, the Tumbulls are to be offered a special lease over the area in terms of section 203 (a) of the Land Act. It wiU be noted that, according to the offer made on 14 January last year, by virtue of the terms and conditions of the lease, freeholding of the land is prohibited. The reason the letter has not been posted before now is that although it was drafted late last week, I was in my westem Queensland electorate. This moming was the first opportunity I have had to carry out a final check of its contents and to sign it. All Queenslanders are entitled to be fairly treated. I believe that the TumbuUs are being fairly treated and that their claims are being considered. On the other hand, I believe that the approach and attitude I have adopted caters for the community's needs and interests as opposed to the TumbuU's individual needs. I beUeve that in this matter I am endeavouring to obtain as fair and reasonable a balance between the competing interests as can be achieved. I take strong objection to the member for Windsor's suggesting otherwise. As can be seen from the facts that I have just outlined and the papers I wiU table, the statements and comments made by the honourable member for Windsor have no or little basis in fact, and unquestionably were nothing but a poUtical ploy aimed at denigrating the fair and good work being carried out by my department on behalf of aU fair-minded people in this State. Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid on the table the documents referred to.

PRIVILEGE Redirection of Question asked by Member for Wolston Mr COMBEN (Windsor) (11.18 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege which affects every member of this House. On 5 August 1986, my colleague Mr R. J. Gibbs directed a question without notice to the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts. In reply, the Miiuster 868 4 September 1986 Questions Upon Notice said, inter aUa, that the question should be directed to the Minister for Lands. In response, the member for Wolston said, "I redirect my question." It is the custom and convention of this House that such redirected questions are placed on Notices of Questions for the next sitting day. In this case, contrary to practice, the question was never placed on Notices of Questions. Accordingly, Mr Speaker, will you inquire and advise this House, firstly, why that question has never been placed on the Notices of Questions; secondly, wiU you restore the question to Notices of Questions and, thirdly, as the question concems what I may call the Bribie Island scandal, will you inquire and advise whether this is simply another attempt by this Govemment to cover up in this House National Party cormption? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will look into the matter.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE Questions submitted on notice were answered as follows— 1. State Government Insurance OflSce, Shares in Castlemaine Tooheys Mr WARBURTON asked the Premier and Treasurer— "(1) Did the State Govemment Insurance Office hold shares in Castlemaine Tooheys? (2) If so, what was the size of the shareholding? (3) Did the SGIO divest itself of any of its shareholdings in Castlemaine Tooheys in favour of the Bond Corporation? (4) If so, what percentage of the shareholding was divested and when did this occur?" Answer— (1) Yes. (2)4 159 747 shares. (3) Yes. (4) The entire shareholding was disposed of on 29 August 1985 after the directors of Castlemaine Tooheys issued a recommendation supporting the price offered by the Bond Corporation.

2. X-ray Machines Mr NEAL asked the Minister for Health and Environment— "With reference to claims to the effect that about two-thirds of the people operating x-ray machines in Queensland's public hospitals and private medical practices have received inadequate training— (1) Are such claims comect? (2) What controls are placed on the use of x-ray machines in general?" Answer— (1) The legislation relating to licensing makes the foUowing provisions— (a) persons seeking a Ucence must satisfy the Radiological Advisory CouncU that they possess a knowledge of the principles and practice of radiation protection appropriate to the range of radiography to be undertaken. (b) persons using equipment under the direct supervision of Ucensees are exempted from the need to have a licence. (2) Use of equipment is controlled through the Ucensing procedures described above. Possession of equipment is govemed by the licensing of owners and the registration of equipment. Questions Upon Notice 4 September 1986 869

3. Purchase of Second-hand Japanese Articulated Buses Mr KAUS asked the Minister for Transport— "With reference to the purchase from Japan of second-hand articulated, or banana buses as they are commonly called, by the Brisbane City Council and some private bus operators and to the apparently significant number of these buses that will soon be operating on Queensland roads— How can the purchase of these second-hand Japanese buses be reconciled with the Government's stated aim of upgrading bus fleets?" Answer— At the time of purchase late last year, the articulated buses in question, which were manufactured in late 1984-85, had traveUed between 30 000 and 35 000 km. Those vehicles have Volvo chasis and were used at Expo 85 in Japan. They represented an attractive purchase for urban bus-operators and incorporated the latest technology, including air-conditioning, and were available at a substantiaUy reduced price. Minor modifications have been effected to ensure that the vehicles comply with the constmction and equipment requirements of the State Transport Act. In fact, purchase of those vehicles afforded operators an opportunity to introduce larger up-market vehicles at a price which compared favourably with the price of a standard urban bus.

4. Craftsmanship Competition; Apprentices Cup Mr KAUS asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs— "(1) Has the craftsmanship competition been successful? (2) What is the position with the Apprentices Cup?" Answer— (1) The success of the craftsmanship competition over the past year is an example of the exceUent work that apprentices throughout Queensland can do. Its success this year has been totaUy outstanding and reflects the confidence of young people within the apprenticeship system to undertake projects with self-motivation and flair. The articles prepared by the men and women participating in this year's competition, as in past competitions, have been of the highest possible caUbre. They show that Queensland skiUs can be of the highest magnitude. (2) The Apprentices Cup competitions were held successfuUy this year at Brisbane, TownsviUe and Emerald. The Brisbane event was, in fact, the Australian Apprentices Cup, with jockeys from many parts of AustraUa competing. AU States responded with enthusiasm to the invitation to participate. With the extending of the Apprentices Cup to other centres, and the support of the Queensland Turf Club, the future looks bright and it is hoped to hold the fiirstintemationa l Apprentices Cup in Brisbane in 1987.

5. Soil Conservation Legislation, Statement by Member for Cairns Mr ELLIOTT asked the Minister for Primary Industries— "(1) Is he aware of a statement reported in the Rural Mail of the week ended 30 August attributed to the honourable member for Caims in which he claims (a) that new soU conservation laws passed by this ParUament would worsen degradation, (b) that the new legislation puts total responsibiUty for soil conser­ vation on the landholder, (c) that the debate on the legislation was gagged and (d) that Queensland spends only $6.5m on soU conservation compared with the New South Wales Govemment's expenditure of $36m? (2) WiU he give the facts in relation to the new legislation and explain to the honourable member for Caims how the figure of $36m for New South Wales soU conservation expenditure is calculated?" 870 4 September 1986 Questions Upon Notice Answer— (1) Yes, I am aware of the article pubUshed in the "Rural-Mail" section of The Courier-Mail on Wednesday, 27 August, carrying statements attributed to the honourable member for Caims. (a) It is nonsense to suggest that the new soil conservation laws would worsen soU degradation. The new arrangements are directed towards the development and implementation of soil erosion control plans on individual properties as weU as on groups of properties. During debate on the Soil Conservation BiU the honourable member for Caims and other members speaking as representatives of the Labor and Liberal Parties praised the contents of the BiU. The only concem voiced was that the BiU was limited to the control of soil erosion. Some speakers would have prefemed the Bill to be expanded to include controls over land use and over other forms of land degradation. Those wider issues are already catered for by normal research and extension activities within the Department of Primary Industries and by legislation administered by local authorities and other State Govemment departments. (b) In my second-reading speech on 19 August I pointed out that the primary responsibiUty for the control of soU erosion rests with individual land-owners and land- users. The Govemment has four roles— to provide leadership in achieving co-ordination between affected parties; to provide extension services to ensure that the public is aware of the importance of controlUng soil erosion; to provide technical advice and assistance to enable land-holders to adopt erosion control measures; and to undertake research to develop effective and economically feasible methods of controlUng erosion. During the debate on 21 August it was clear that all honourable members who spoke accepted, and in most cases agreed with, that division of responsibiUties. (c) Mr De Lacy's claim that the debate was gagged is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. A study of Hansard will show that the debate on the legislation was definitely not gagged. (d) The figures cited by the honourable member for Caims both in this House and in The Courier-Mail report do not permit reasonable comparison of money spent on soU conservation by the Govemments of New South Wales and Queensland. The figures used, $36m for New South Wales and $6.5m for Queensland, are extremely misleading. They are used mischievously because the honourable member for Caims has been told by officers of my department that the comparisons that he wishes to draw are not valid. As long ago as April 1985 I issued a press release aimed at cortecting simUar misuse of those figures by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton). (2) Let me make it perfectly clear that in 1985-86 my department spent $6.8m of Queensland Govemment fiinds on soil conservation. This sum does not include any charges whatsoever for rent, buildings, clerical services, telephones, electricity, postage and so on. Those charges are bome by my department's general administration or by the Department of Works. That sum of $6.8m does not include the costs of the valuable contributions made to soU conservation by crop and animal husbandry officers within the Department of Primary Industries. Effectively, the $6.8m relates only to the salaries and operating and capital equipment costs incurted by the department's specialist soil conservation service, research and extension staff. The New South Wales system is entirely different. That State has a Soil Conservation Service which acts as an autonomous department. It covers the whole spectmm of Questions Upon Notice 4 September 1986 871 conservation of beaches, foreshores, national parks, stream banks, mines, major roads and railways. The New South Wales SoU Conservation Service also operates a vast fleet of earth-moving equipment, which includes just on one hundred bulldozers. The service advances loans to land-holders wishing to undertake soil conservation works. The New South Wales SoU Conservation Service has to provide its own land, buUdings, research faciUties and administrative support staff, none of which are costed into the $6.8m spent by the Queensland department. The honourable member for Caims (Mr De Lacy) has not pointed out that the $36m spent by the New South Wales service is the figure for gross expenditure. It does not show offsets for income received from the hire of earth-moving equipment or for interest and repayments of loans. Included in the New South Wales figures are amounts received from and expended on behalf of numerous other organisations such as Main Roads, Coastal Dune Management, Community Employment Programs and the National SoU Conservation Program. The report of the New South Wales SoU Conservation Service for 1984-85 showed that expenditure on behalf of other organisations added up to $6.38m. The Queensland figures take no account whatsoever of expenditure in Queensland on soU conservation activities undertaken by organisations such as the Departments of Harbours and Marine, Mines, Forestry, Main Roads, and Railways and the Water Resources Commission and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The Queensland figures do not include projects undertaken through the National Soil Conservation Program or the Community Employment Program. They do not include provisions for loans made through the Agricultural Bank Division of the Queensland Industry Development Corporation. A further major impediment to reasonable comparison is the difference between New South Wales and Queensland in terms of areas of land requiring protection against soU erosion. Most people agree that it is the land under cropping systems that is most in need of protection. In Queensland, cropping lands may be subjected to some rotation of crops, for example wheat altemating with grain sorghum. But essentially, almost all Queensland cropping land is cropped each year. Thus in New South Wales only about half of the cropping lands are actually under crop in any one year. The other half is under pasture. The AustraUan Bureau of Statistics published a report entitled Agricultural Land Use and Selected Inputs, Australia, 1984-85. That report shows that the area of land actuaUy cropped in New South Wales was 5 789 000 ha. In Queensland the area cropped was 3 047 000 ha, or not much more than half of the New South Wales area. If about half of the New South Wales cropping lands were being utilised under pasture in 1984- 85, it may be assumed that the total area of lands used for cropping in New South Wales is between three and four times the area devoted to cropping in Queensland. With respect to the honourable member for Caims, I suggest that he has to verify his sums. The way he makes comparisons would not please teachers of arithmetic or logic. The honourable member clearly demonstrates the Opposition's preoccupation with expenditm-e, and its faUure to appreciate that it is more important to look at what is being achieved rather than how much money is spent. If honourable members look at the land protected each year, they wUl find that in 1983-84, the New South Wales Soil Conservation Service was involved with the treatment of 68 660 ha of cropping land with stmctural soil conservation measures. That figure is from the 1983-84 annual report of the New South Wales Soil Conservation Services. In Queensland, in the same year 55 633 ha of cropping land were treated with stmctural contour measures. I repeat that 68 660 ha were treated in New South Wales in 1983- 84, and 55 633 ha in Queensland. If the honourable member for Caims insists on using his figures,the y clearly show that it cost the New South Wales Govemment almost five times as much to achieve what was achieved here in Queensland with an expenditure of $6.8m. I leave honourable members of this House to draw their own conclusions! 872 4 September 1986 Questions Upon Notice

6. Sale of Wheat to South Africa Mr ELLIOTT asked the Minister for Primary Industries— "With reference to the recent Federal Govemment decision to impose sanctions against South Africa, the result of which has been the loss of wheat sales to that country and, in light of that decision— What attitude should the AustraUan wheat growers take following the latest Federal Govemment decision to seU uranium to the French so they might in retum donate it back to us and the Pacific in the form of radioactive fallout?" Answer— Imposition of trade sanctions against South Africa by the Federal Govemment has resulted in a loss of wheat sales estimated at cument world prices to be approximately $30m. Although South Afiica is not a large importer of wheat, importing only approximately 300 000 tonnes in 1985-86, AustraUa enjoyed a large share of the market by supplying approximately 70 000 tonnes. That loss in sales comes at a critical time for the grain industry when heavUy subsidised grain sales from Europe and the United States are squeezing Australia out of traditional markets. One is left with the distinct impression that the AustraUan Labor Party Govemment in Canberta is more interested in posturing on the intemational stage than in addressing the problems of primary producers in this country. The decision of the ALP Federal Government to export uranium to France flies in the face of the declared poUcy of the ALP national conference. Everyone knows the imesponsibiUty of the French in continuing its nuclear testing in the Pacific, and it worries me that the same sort of irresponsibiUty and inconsistency prevaUs in Canbema. Sanity wiU not prevaU in Canbema untU we have tipped the ALP Govemment out of office. My advice to wheat-growers is to continue growing wheat to safeguard our longer term market share, and to vote National at the next election to restore sanity to the govemment of this country.

7. Settlement of Premier and Treasurer's Defamation Action against Channel 9 Mr VEIVERS asked the Premier and Treasurer— "With reference to the payment to him by the Bond Corporation and his comments in the Telegraph of 2 September in which he said it was 'very interesting' to watch the actions of the AustraUan Broadcasting Tribunal and the Labor Party- Is he implying in his comments any Unk between the tribunal and the ALP or any improper motives on the part of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal?" Answer— I made no such implication. It is the honourable member who, by the nature of his question, has made the implication—not I. It would be quite improper for any party to the proceedings, including the Australian Labor Party, to exert any pressure on the tribunal in an attempt to influence the conduct of the triljunal in a matter before it. In this context, I note from a newspaper report this moming that the Opposition has promised "dramatic developments" on this matter later this week. If that report is cortect, perhaps the honourable member and the Leader of the Opposition woiUd care to explain how the ALP comes to be privy to information that is quite properly before an independent tribunal. The Opposition might like to explain that one.

8. Widening of Pacific Highway, Oxenford Mr VEIVERS asked the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing— "With reference to an appeal in the Local Govemment Court in March which was upheld in respect to consent to the application of Oxenford Tavem Questions Without Notice 4 September 1986 873

Holdings Pty Ltd to erect a service station adjacent to the tavem and to the judgment and expert evidence given during the hearing that was highly critical, not only of the Albert Shire CouncU's town planning procedures, but the proposed access to the Pacific Highway from the site and in view of the fact that the Main Roads Department manual standards for the length of acceleration lanes and the distances in respect to access points to and from highways were ignored— (1) Has approval been given for the Main Roads Department to constmct an additional north-bound lane on the Pacific Highway at the Oxenford Tavem to allow access to the highway in conformity with Main Roads Department standards? (2) Will this result in the widening of the Coomera River overflow bridge on the north-bound side of the highway? (3) What is the total cost of this project?" Answer— I suggest to the honourable member that he should listen carefiiUy to this reply. (1) No. (2) No. (3) See (1) and (2). The honourable member would have to admit that he is the greatest diU in the House.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Medium-density Fibreboard Factory, Maryborough/Gympie Area Mr WARBURTON: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to the Govemment's decision to seek out interested parties for the estabUshment of a medium-density fibreboard factory that was to be buUt, evidently, in the Maryborough/ Gympie area, foUowing an approach from ACI AustraUa Ltd to the relevant department and Minister in about early June this year. I refer also to the personal involvement of the Premier and Treasurer which led to AustraUan Paper Manufacturers being able to submit a late bid after the closing date of 30 June, and I ask: Is it correct that APM withdrew its proposal on 30 August after lodging its bid in July this year as a result of his intmsion? Is it comect that APM has now announced its intention to constmct a similar type of operation at Oberon, near Bathurst in New South Wales? Is that yet another example of intmsion by the Premier and Treasurer that has cost our State a highly labour-intensive industry that would have been of great benefit to the Maryborough/ Gympie region and the State's economy? Su- JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The Leader of the Opposition would be the greatest super-snooper I have ever seen. He gets into trouble aU the time because he is always nosing around in areas he knows nothing about. The Leader of the Opposition has no idea and he does not know what he is talking about. What a load of nonsense. Everything I do is done to try to attract industry and jobs to Queensland, and the Leader of the Opposition knows that. I do not try to chase industry down to Oberon, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests. Mr Warburton: You couldn't keep your nose out of it. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The Leader of the Opposition, who has his nose stuck in everything that is either dirty or appears to be dirty—at least he tries to make it look dirty—is quite incomect in what he says. As Opposition members would be aware, the pine forest is up for tender. An Opposition Member interjected. 874 4 September 1986 Questions Without Notice Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The honourable member would not even know what I am speaking about when I speak about pine forests. I think the question should be directed to the Minister responsible. The matter wiU soon be examined by the department and by the Minister. Again the Leader of the Opposition is right off the track. He does not seem to know what he is talking about at aU. A Government Member: Negative Nev. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Yes, negative Nev; no doubt about it. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition ask Brian Burke or John Cain while they are in Brisbane today if they can give him a bit of a clue as to which way to go. Recovery of Deposit on Lear Fan Jet Mr WARBURTON: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to a note in the latest Auditor-General's report stating that the Government is stiU pursuing the recovery of a deposit of almost $250,000 on a Lear Fan jet that was ordered in 1982. As the note in this year's Auditor-General's report is almost identical to the note contained in last year's report about this matter, I ask: What, if any, chance have Queensland tax-payers got of recovering their quarter of a miUion doUars that he has seemingly wasted trying to buy an untested aircraft, virtuaUy off the drawing-board, from a company that has now gone out of business? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: In answering the Leader of the Opposition's question, at the same time I would like to speak to him about Bourke's store. Solo petrol and other enterprises that have been started by Mr Hawke and other coUeagues of the Leader of the Opposition and that have gone kaput and are out of existence. I could give the Leader of the Opposition a run-down on them. The Queensland Govemment is very progressive. It is the only Govemment in AustraUa that gives outback people a service by using an aircraft. The Premiers of the other States, including the Leader of the Opposition's mate from Westem AustraUa, have not got the intestinal fortitude—or whatever else one likes to term it—to buy an aircraft to service the people in their States. I refer particularly to Westem AustraUa. This Govemment does. It has bought several different types of aircraft, which have been employed very successfiiUy. If the Leader of the Opposition casts his mind back, he wiU recaU that on 17 September 1985 I informed the House that the Crown Solicitor was acting for the Govemment in the recovery of the deposit that was paid on the Lear Fan jet. Certain legal steps have now been taken and a writ has been served on Lear Fan Australia Pty Ltd, just as a writ has been served on the Leader of the Opposition. Visit to Queensland by Labor Premiers Mr NEAL: I ask the Premier and Treasurer: Is he aware that a group of sociaUst Premiers from other States will jet into Brisbane today at tax-payers' expense in a fiitUe attempt to prop up the faiUng fortunes of the State ALP organisation? I also ask: What has happened to the media outcry about the expenditure of pubUc moneys for purely political purposes, which media outcry would foUow him as Premier if he conducted a similar political foray into another State? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: What a foriom hope the visiting Premiers have. They are tax-gatherers and socialists—something that nobody else wants. They are coming to Brisbane to help prop up the Opposition. I thought that Opposition members were a little bit more cluey. As the honourable member for Balonne indicated, the media has not said anything about the wastefiil trips from Perth by the Westem Australian Premier, or anything about aU the money that he will spend as weU as the added expense of all the people who accompany him. It will be a tremendous cost. If it was I who were doing that sort of thing, the media's outcry would be heard. It is easy to see whose side the media is on. The media has said nothing about the extravagant cost that wiU be incumed by the Questions Without Notice 4 September 1986 875

Premiers. It will cost many, many thousands of doUars of tax-payers' money for them to come to Brisbane. It wiU be a large gathering of tax-gatherers, including the Opposition and its policies. What a way to try to win an election. It would be thought that the Opposition had more sense and brains than to try to bring aU the big tax-gatherers of the nation together where the Govemment can have a shot at them as much as it likes. Indeed, I thought that the Opposition would be trying to hide them somewhere in the bushes to get them out of the road. In its advertisements and by other means, the Labor Party is trying to make people beUeve that what this nation wants and needs to have is more and more taxes. The senior members of the Labor Party who are flying into Brisbane today from other parts of the nation to back up and support the tax poUcies of the Leader of the Opposition believe in a petrol tax, a tobacco tax, and a financial institutions duty, none of which is levied in Queensland. I hope those people come here more often. Indeed, I will suggest to Sir Robert Sparkes that, if they wish to come again, we pay their expenses. It would be much easier to try to sell a horse that has been dead for a month than to seU the fringe benefits tax, yet the Leader of the Opposition has got his interstate coUeagues to come here to try to sell that, the tax on superannuation and the capital gains tax. I hope aU those great tax- gatherers receive a warm reception from the people of this State, who will vote most honourable members opposite out of office. After the conclusion of this session, there is no way in the world that most honourable members opposite will be back in the House. I advise many of them to make the most of the next few days because, after the election, they will not retum. About aU the House wiU have as an Opposition wUl be a little bunch of them sitting over there. Workers' Compensation Premiums Mr NEAL: My second question, which is also without notice, is to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs. Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Once more, I have to ask the honourable member if the question is without notice. Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Will the House please come to order. I take it that the member for Balonne is asking a question without notice. Mr NEAL: Yes, that is right. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear the Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! If everybody else heard it, that is no concem of mine. I want to hear the words "without notice". Mr NEAL: Mr Speaker, I had foreshadowed a question without notice to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs. I now ask: Is he aware of problems with workers' compensation cumently being experienced by the New South Wales Govemment? If so, could he advise the House if the Queensland workers' compensation scheme is facing similar problems? Mr LESTER: I can assure the House that presently there is not much chance of Queensland employers relocating in New South Wales, because under the Labor Gov­ emment in that State, the workers' compensation fund is in chaos. Recently a White Paper was prepared on the problems with workers' compensation in New South Wales. Radical changes were recommended. However, a Cabinet subcommittee decided to reject those recommendations. Now the insurance companies have given the Govemment of 876 4 September 1986 Questions Without Notice New South Wales an ultimatum that, if changes are not made by 30 September, they will increase the premiums—wait for it—by 70 per cent. Furthermore, the insurance companies have made very clear that they wiU pull out of the system altogether if that increase of 70 per cent is not approved. If that happens, the Government Insurance Office of New South Wales will face annual losses of $500m. That is the mess that workers' compensation is in under the Labor administration of New South Wales—a high-tax administration. I now tum to some of today's newspaper headlines. One that features a photograph of a very glum-looking Mr Unsworth has the headline "Govemment Faces Workers Compensation Crash". Other newspaper headlines are "Compo Chaos Threat from Insurers", "BUlion DoUar Rip-Off' and "Banks Alarmed by Rises in Claims". One should not be critical of the New South Wales Labor Government if one cannot perform, so I wiU compare the record. In 1976, a baker and pastry-cook in Queensland paid workers' compensation premiums of $2.35 per $100. In 1986, the premium is $1.72. In the last 10 years it has gone down. However, in New South Wales, the premium is $9.45—and that is before the new 70 per cent rises are implemented! Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen: What could happen in a baker's shop to bring it up 5 per cent? Did they leave their toes behind? Mr LESTER: Speaking of toes—the people of New South Wales are very toey at present with the Labor administration. In 1976 in Queensland the premium for brick-layers, joiners and plasterers used to be $5.80; today it is $5.87. In New South Wales, the equivalent premium is $27.90. Furthermore, in New South Wales Opposition Members interjected. Mr LESTER: Opposition members are finding this a bit hard to take. I can understand that. Mr Mackenroth: We always find you a bit hard to take. Mr LESTER: This is fact. It is not fiction. Obviously, members of the Opposition will always find me hard to take when I dish out this sort of medicine. As I understand it, in New South Wales the employer has to pay $500 for every claim. That is a further imposition on employers in New South Wales. Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Occasional inteijections wiU be aUowed, but constant inter­ jections will not be aUowed. I wam honourable members accordingly. Mr LESTER: This financial year in Queensland, workers' compensation premiums will not be increased. Although in the 1984 review 192 premiums were increased slightly, 187 were reduced and 26 remained the same. In addition, Queensland has a merit bonus system of up to 50 per cent, which will remain. So aU is good in Queensland; aU is bad under the New South Wales Labor Govemment. That Govemment is continuaUy going downhUl. The Leader of the Opposition can ask the New South Wales Govemment for advice on how to mn a workers' compensation system. However, that might make things a bit awkward for him. Government Land Resumption for Commercial Development Mr BURNS: In directing a question to the Minister for Mines and Energy, I refer to his statement on 7 June this year in the Gold Coast Bulletin that the 1974 report on southem Moreton Bay has become a basic bible for committees to work on, that the Govemment has resumed Kangaroo Island, that the freehold land on Coomera Island will be next and that in 1979 the Minister had set up a committee that was in control of the matter. Questions Whhout Notice 4 September 1986 877

I now ask: As the 1974 report recommended no more development of wetlands, no more development of islands, and no more canal developments in which mangroves will be destroyed, why did the Govemment aUow the damming of the south arm of the Coomera River when the environmental impact statement was deficient? Why is the Govemment agreeing to the demands of the developers of Sanctuary Cove for land on South Stradbroke Island? Why have other developments, including commercial real estate developments that cause the destruction of mangroves, been aUowed in defiance of the recommendation of the 1974 report? Mr I. J. GIBBS: The report on wetlands that was commissioned in 1974 by the Govemment is an exceUent document. It lays down guide-Unes for development of such areas. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is obviously having a shot at Sanctuary Cove on Hope Island. That is one of the best developments in AustraUa. It is being carried out quite expertly. The honourable member is having a go at the developers of that resort for damming part of the Coomera River and dredging it out so that the river wUl become a navigable waterway. Early in the piece the Govemment, by agreement with the Albert Shire CouncU, was considering the resumption of Coomera Island. A committee was set up, in consultation with the Albert Shire CouncU and the Gold Coast City CouncU, to consider that. When the pressure began for the development of Kangaroo Island, the Albert Shire Council and the Govemment decided to shift quickly and to resume Kangaroo Island. The Co-ordinator-General is doing a great deal of work on that area. The Govemment is keeping an eye on it. By about the year 2005, one miUion people wUl be Uving between Springwood and the border. The planning and development of the whole of Moreton Bay, right down to the Gold Coast bridge, is important. At the present time the Co­ ordinator-General, through the Premiers Department, is doing a tremendous amount of work on that development and taking responsible action. I would like to see the private enterprise part of Coomera Island as the next area that will come into the hands of the Albert Shire CouncU or the Govemment. It is a shared responsibiUty and the Govemment is doing an exceUent job in that area. Mike Gore, if he is the person the honourable member for Lytton is having a go at, is doing a tremendous job also. He is creating jobs and a new concept in AustraUan leisure developments. I back Mike Gore aU the way. The honourable member for Lytton refemed to a piece of land on South Stradbroke Island. Mike Gore has requested a smaU piece of land on South Stradbroke Island so that he can fly passengers over there and land on the island. As long as the area of ground is only very smaU—just large enough to land a plane on—I would back his proposition. I would not support the provision of any large areas of land, across to the waterfront, for that purpose on South Stradbroke Island; nor would I aUow large buUdings to be built on the island. The island is in my electorate, and I take a keen interest in it. The honourable member for Lytton ought to be worrying about his own electorate. I will manage mine very weU. Dredging of Coomera River Mr BURNS: As the Minister has managed his electorate so very weU, I have a further question for him. I refer to a letter from the Minister for Primary Industries in relation to the damming of the south arm of the Coomera River—the area that the Minister is so concemed about and has looked after so weU. Mr Hinze: It is only temporary. Mr BURNS: Mind your business, fatty. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lytton wiU withdraw that remark. 878 4 September 1986 Questions Without Notice

Mr BURNS: I am sorry; it is skinny. Yes, I withdraw it. The Minister said— "I advise that an Environmental Impact Study was undertaken in relation to the dredging proposed for the South Arm of the Coomera River. However the EIS did not examine recreational or commercial fishing activities, or the effects of the proposed dredging on these activities." I do not know how it could, Mr Speaker— "My Department has since sought an assurance from the developers that the impact of the dredging on fishery matters will be recognised and minimised where possible." I ask the Minister: What steps has he taken to ensure that the damming of the river, as a result of which the water has been taken out of it, will minimise the environmental impact and will be carried out according to the provisions of the 1974 report that he has been reported in the press as supporting? Mr I. J. GIBBS: I say firstly that I fiiUy support the dredging of the Coomera River in order to make it a navigable waterway. For that to be achieved, the river has to be either dredged out with a cutter dredge or dammed and dried up so that work is done more quickly than it could with a dredger. I have been keeping my eye on the operation and have been working with the Gold Coast Waterways Authority. I fiiUy support what the authority is doing in that area. I am quite happy to mn a campaign on the issue, because I believe that Coomera River should be a navigable waterway. The work is being done at the cost of the Sanctuary Cove development. If the honourable member for Lytton would like to mn a campaign in my electorate, I would be quite happy to get up on the stump with him. Statements by Federal Minister for Trade on Economy Mr SIMPSON: I ask the Premier and Treasurer: Is he aware that the Federal Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, threatens to label fellow AustraUans as traitors if they dare to seek new wage and working artangements in order to keep their businesses afloat? Is he aware that Mr Dawkins claims also that the New Right has wrecked the progress that he claims Australia has made over the last three years? Surely Mr Dawkins has been living in another country, for he appears to be unaware of the present sad plight of AustraUa, which is the direct result of Hawke ALP socialist Govemment's moves to destroy the economy of AustraUa by setting high interest rates, and high taxes, creating high unemployment and a huge national debt and pitting one group of AustraUans against another. I ask: Should not Mr Dawkins and the Prime Minister listen to the business people and others in AustraUa and resign before they min Australia? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: To answer the last part of the honourable member's question first—the Australian Labor Party has already mined Australia. It is a bit late for the members of the Federal Govemment to resign, but we wiU make them resign at the next election. Mr Dawkins, Mr Hawke, Mr Crean and others have the hide to say that the New Right threatens overseas markets and Australia's credibility. It is extraordinarily strange that those people have never refemed to the large number of occasions on which Australian markets have been blocked by militant union action. Strikes have occurted one after another. The Japanese have tumed to Africa and other countries to buy coal and other products. Not one word has been spoken about that by Dawkins or his coUeagues. That is sheer hypocrisy. A recent article in a newspaper reported Mr Dawkins as saying that actions by radical employer groups had wrecked the progress made in the past three years towards improving Australia's reputation for reUabiUty. What a joke that is! Mr Dawkins defended his comment that action by the employer groups was treasonable. I have never heard Questions Without Notice 4 September 1986 879 him say anything when the unions are treasonable. On occasions they can be placed in that category. The newspaper article stated— "He said militant employer action was a threat to AustraUa's economic fiiture and was doing 'enormous damage' to AustraUa's intemational reputation." If anybody has done any damage to Australia's intemational reputation, it is the Hawke and Keating Govemment. It has done aU the damage. It has increased interest rates and taxes and imposed new taxes in every direction. I wiU not list them because all honourable members know what they are. Opposition members are silent because they feel guUty about that. If they do not feel guilty, they ought to feel guilty. No doubt they will commiserate with themselves tonight when they talk about what a wonderfiil job they have done in wrecking this nation. They are the culprits, not the employers as they have suggested. Mr STEPHAN proceeding to give notice of a question— Mr Casey: The Minister for Primary Industries is not here to Usten, so you might as weU table your question. Mr STEPHAN: Someone else might like to listen to find out what is going on. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to state his question. Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to state his question. Mr STEPHAN: If I was not interrupted, I would get through it more quickly. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr STEPHAN: Perhaps I should start again. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Whereupon the honourable member gave notice of a question. Mr R. Lawler Mr STEPHAN: In directing a question to the Minister for Education, I refer to a report in The Courier-Mail on Monday, 25 August, which is headed "ALP brawl on eve of Hawke's visit". Honourable members may have heard of Mr Reg Lawler, the secretary of the Gympie branch of the ALP. It was reported that Mr Lawler and three supporters set out to dismpt a dinner attended by the Federal Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) in connection with the sale of uranium, and resulted in a "bar-room brawl". Bearing in mind that Mr Lawler is a high school teacher in Gympie, I ask: Is that the type of action that one would normally expect from employees of the Education Department? Mr POWELL: I thank the honourable member for his question. I read the article Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Ms Warner: Are you going to sack him? Mr POWELL: I thank the honourable member for Kurilpa for her interjection. Obviously, she is keen to see the person reprimanded because of his reprehensible behaviour at an ALP function. Ms Warner interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Kurilpa did not ask the question. 880 4 September 1986 Questions Without Notice Mr POWELL: My attention was drawn to that article in The Courier-Mail. I read it with interest because I was intrigued that an ALP member had attended an ALP function, taking with him a loud bailer to make sure that he was heard. I find that action quite incredible. Not only did he take his loud bailer, but he also took along a device for playing music so that when his voice was ignored Opposition Members interjected. Mr POWELL: I reaUse that the rank-and-file members within the ALP are ignored. However, that gentleman took along a music-playing device and played loud music solely to dismpt the meeting. I thank the honourable member for Gympie for drawing to my attention the fact that the person who dismpted the ALP meeting was a schoolteacher. That is absolutely disgusting. I am sure that aU honourable members like to see decomm maintained at meetings, despite the actions of people such as Mr Dawkins and Mr Hawke. However, I find it disgusting when a high school teacher acts in such a manner. If the students who are in his classes were to act in a similar manner Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen: Name him. Mr POWELL: Reg Lawler is mentioned in the newspaper article. Mr Mackenroth: You just happen to have the newspaper article on your desk. Mr POWELL: My attention has just been drawn to the fact that the person involved is a schoolteacher. Members of the Opposition are now trying to defend that person. I wonder whether those honourable members were also involved in the attempt to dismpt the meeting. Perhaps Opposition members wiU invite that same schoolteacher along to the meeting that is to be held with tax-gatherers from the south, who are coming to Brisbane today. Opposition members may recall that on the last occasion when the southem tax- gatherers came to Queensland to campaign on behalf of the ALP, the number of ALP members sitting in this House was reduced to 11. Perhaps on this occasion the numbers will drop even further so that the ALP wUl provide only enough persons to make up a squash team instead of a cricket team. All persons within the community notice the behaviour of teachers. Teachers hold an extremely responsible and important place within the community. Mr Vaughan: So do Ministers. Mr POWELL: Yes, Ministers do play an important part within the community. Ministers act in the manner in which they are supposed to act. I beUeve that teachers should also act in that manner. When a teacher behaves in the manner in which that schoolteacher is reported to have behaved, that teacher cannot complain when he has difficulty in maintaining discipline within the class-room. The actions of that schoolteacher should be condemned by aU honourable members in this House.

Ferguson Park Racecourse, Gladstone Mr PREST: In directing a question to the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing, I refer to promises that he made in April 1982 and again in September 1985 to provide finance to upgrade the Ferguson Park racecourse at Gladstone. I have been informed by the committee involved in the proposed upgrading that the Minister has assured it that he does not break his promises. I accept that. However, I ask: WUl the Minister be able to honour that promise during the Govemment's cument term of office, or can he give clear indications as to when his promises will be honoured? Questions Without Notice 4 September 1986 881

Mr HINZE: I appreciate the concem of the honourable member for Port Curtis and also of the mayor of the city, who indicated that the stalls were in a deplorable state. I asked the council to have patience with me. I think everyone in Queensland knows that I have been trying to put a package together to overcome some of the problem areas in the State. I confirm that, as soon as fiinds are avaUable, consideration will be given to all the areas, including the one refemed to by the honourable member. Fire Levies Mr PREST: I direct my second question to the Minister for Comective Services, Administrative Services and Valuation. On 28 November 1985, the then Minister in charge of fire services, Mr Tenni, denied that there was a shortfaU in finance for fire services by way of levy payments. A departmental document of accounts clearly shows that Mr Tenni misled the House, as that document shows that of the estimated total levy on property-owners of $59,091,959, only $41,069,366 was received, leaving a shortfaU of $18,022,593 for the year 1985-86. A press statement reveals that the present Minister said that property-owners will not have action taken against them for non-payment of fire levies. I now ask: Why does the Minister not intend to take action against the defaulting property-owners? Will the financial shortfaU in levy payments mean that eventually, to make up for the shortfaU by the defaulters, increases in levy charges will have to be imposed on those property-owners who pay the levy? Mr MUNTZ: It is a well-known fact that there has been a review of the fire levies under the system. In fact, residential property-owners and residential owners have been advantaged quite considerably. The levy attributed to residential properties and unit- owners of this State is considerably less than what it was under the previous insurance- based scheme. Some difficulties have arisen within the commercial and industrial areas in categorising the various fire levies. They have been reviewed on two occasions and, since the last review, have been in place now for some weeks. The shortfall in the funding has been due to the delay on the part of the various local authorities in issuing the various notices, and a delay has occumed in the payment by the various property- owners. Obviously, there is a shortfall in the funding, and that has been accounted for. Conditions in Country Hospitals Mr GYGAR: In directing a question without notice to the Minister for Health and Environment, I refer to legal action that doctors in country areas have been forced to take against the Queensland Govemment because of the Minister's refiisal to negotiate or discuss with them the appalling conditions under which they must work. I ask: (1) Why does the Minister refuse to hold meaningful discussions with these mral doctors? (2) Why has the Minister aUowed this matter to drag on unresolved for nearly five years? (3) Will the Minister confirm or deny widespread mmours that he has referred to these doctors as "western whingers"? (4) In view of the Minister's new-found National Party afiUiation, why is he treating these doctors who provide the essential foundation for hospital-based medical care in mral areas with such disdain and contempt? Mr AUSTIN: It is interesting that the honourable member for Stafford has a new­ found interest in the residents of the country. I have never heard the honourable member make a speech or ask a question about anything that might benefit anyone outside his own Uttle territory in Stafford. Mr Innes: Are you seeking a new mral seat? Mr AUSTIN: I will certainly be speaking in this place longer than the honourable member for Sherwood, because he wiU be defeated at the next election. 882 4 September 1986 Questions Without Notice

It is interesting that the honourable member for Stafford has elected to ask a question on a prepared brief from medical superintendents with the right of private practice. There are a number of such persons in our country hospitals. Unfortunately, the honourable member has accepted a brief from those medical superintendents, and has not bothered to contact any other person as to whether in fact negotiations have been taking place about this matter. I inform the House that negotiations were taking place until one of the esteemed medical practitioners who has the right of private practice decided that he would be better off, or the doctors would be, if the negotiations were conducted with The Sunday Mail. Immediately the honourable member decided to conduct his negotiations through the media, the departmental officers decided that those negotiations could cease. I point out that that was not my decision, because the negotiations were taking place with the departmental officers. It is impossible to negotiate on any matter, irtespective of whether it concems private doctors, nurses, janitors or groundsmen, through the media. I point out for the benefit of the honourable member for Stafford that again he is on the wrong track, and that is obvious. While I am on my feet, I will take the opportunity to inform the House that other negotiations are taking place in the hospitals system that the honourable member is very much involved in. Some time ago, a proposal was floated in Queensland for the estabUshment of a health commission. It was brought to my attention by a couple of medical practitioners that the honourable member and a number of other doctors, including one named Dr Grant Cameron, have been trying to negotiate with certain medical staff employed in the hospitals systems to reactivate the proposal to establish a health commission in this State. It is interesting to note-: Mr GYGAR: I rise to take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I categoricaUy deny that I proposed a health commission. I request that the Minister accept my denial. Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order has been made out. Mr AUSTIN: I did not say what the honourable gentleman has just said. Let me say that a health commission would be just another quango. I have to point out to the House that every State Govemment Health Department in AustraUa that has been involved with or has experimented with a health commission has moved away from that scheme. Mr GYGAR: I rise to take a fiirther point of order. I have denied that I proposed a health commission, and I ask the Minister to accept my denial. Mr SPEAKER: Orderi I have mled that I did not hear the Minister in any way refer to the honourable member, and I cannot therefore ask him to withdraw his comments. Mr AUSTIN: Mr Speaker, if the honourable member cannot cop the heat, he should stay out of the kitchen. The honourable member is already teUing people involved in the hospitals system that when he becomes Minister for Health, he wiU set up a health commission. I presume that in the eyes of the people who are talking about the estabUshment of a health commission, Dr Grant Cameron will be the chief commissioner. Everyone wiU have to wait a long time for the health commission to be set up because, for one thing, the honourable member for Stafford wiU not be in the Parliament to be able to do it. In conclusion, aU I can say is that the medical superintendents who have the right of private practice and have claimed that they have not been able to negotiate with the department are talking nonsense. Apparently they have elected to foUow a course that was taken by the resident interns in the hospitals some time ago, and have elected to seek an award. I do not object to that. If the medical superintendents who have the right of private practice wish to seek an award, that is their right. I presume that negotiations will continue on that matter. Questions Without Notice 4 September 1986 883

Premier and Treasurer's Travel Expenses Mr R. J. GIBBS: In directing a question to the National Socialist Premier of Queensland, I refer to Mr SPEAKER: Order! I mle that terminology completely out of order. The honourable member should resume his seat and then put the question in the proper tone and manner. If the honourable member does not, I will mle the question completely out of order, and the honourable member will be ejected from the Chamber accordingly. Mr R. J. GIBBS: Anything to keep you happy, pal. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the honourable member for Wolston under the provisions of Standing Order No. 123A for contempt for the Chair. Mr R. J. GIBBS: All right. In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to earUer comments by the Premier about interstate Premiers visiting Brisbane to assist in getting rid of this tired, worn-out and corrupt Govemment. I ask: Is it true that the Premier does not need to travel outside the State to waste public fiinds as he is ferried by a special pilot in a Super King aircraft to the Ten Mile nearly every second week-end? Is it a fact that the pilot flies him to the Ten MUe, flies back to Brisbane, and then flies back again to the Ten Mile to retum him to Kingaroy or Brisbane? Is the Premier aware that the commercial cost of one round trip to the Ten Mile is $2,500? As this is not just a one-off situation but, indeed, a regular occumence, is this not another reason why this Govemment— and the Premier in particular—should be kicked out of office? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Let me say that the honourable member for Wolston is a good mind-reader. I would love to go up there to see my son, but throughout the year I hardly ever have an opportunity. What the honourable member says is an absolute load of nonsense. He knows where he has spent a lot of his time—out there. It costs him a lot of money to be "out there"— an awful lot of money. To answer the question; no, it is completely untme. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the honourable member for Wolston that unless he asks a question of some seriousness I wUl take the necessary action. I assure him of that. It was an extraordinary question.

Cost of Premier's Flights to Cairns Mr R. J. GIBBS: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to his appearance at the Young Nationals Conference in Caims earlier this year and I ask: Did he fly to the conference from Brisbane aboard his publicly funded $8m jet? During the conference was he required to retum to Brisbane and afterwards fly back to Caims at times when commercial flights were avaUable? After the conference did he then retum to Brisbane aboard the jet, making a total of two retum trips to Caims at an estimated cost to the tax-payers of $10,000 during the Young Nationals Conference? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I do not know if the honourable member expected me to walk to Caims. When the Labor Party was in Govemment, that is the way it operated. In other words, it went nowhere. I think that the honourable member refers to the day that I had two appointments in north Queensland. One of the appointments that I attended was in the moming. It was a Queensland Country Women's Association conference attended by about 1 000 representatives. I recaU that I had to retum to Brisbane to attend Sir James Ramsay's fiineral. Naturally, I then had to retum to north Queensland, where I spent a number of days visiting different places. Just for the honourable member's information, I wiU be going back up there again during the election campaign and I wiU be traveUing 884 4 September 1986 Days Allotted to Supply around. I take it that, when the time comes, the Leader of the Opposition will use tax­ payers' money to get himself up there also.

Closiu-e of Illegal Casinos Mr MACKENROTH: In directing a question to the Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police, I refer to his reported statement that Ulegal casinos in Brisbane would be closed down if they continued to operate and I ask: Is it correct that as a result of his statement the Valley casino has closed down? Mr GUNN: I would say that if the Valley casino did exist it got a fright and shifted. I do not know much about what happened to the massage parlour that was reputed to be there. The honourable member is, of course, an expert in such matters, but I am at a disadvantage as I never visit such places. I believe that the Govemment has acted promptly, and as far as I am concemed the casino is no longer in existence. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired.

DAYS ALLOTTED TO SUPPLY

Sessional Order Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Bumett—Leader of the House): I move— "(1) That for this session, unless otherwise ordered, and notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 307, not more than seven days shall be aUotted for the consideration of the Estimates, the Supplementary Estimates, the Vote on Account and the Resolutions of Supply. (2) That for this session, unless otherwise ordered, the House may, on the days allotted for Supply, continue to sit untU 10 o'clock p.m. Each of the periods between 12 o'clock noon and 5 o'clock p.m. and between 5 o'clock p.m. and 10 o'clock p.m. shall be accounted an allotted day under the provisions of Standing Order No. 307. Two allotted days shaU be allowed for the discussion of the Estimates of a department. At the termination of the period so aUowed the Chairman shall put every question necessary to decide the Vote under consideration and shall then proceed to put the question for the balance of the Estimates for that department; all such questions to be decided without amendment or debate: Provided that, if the discussion of the Estimates of a department be concluded before the expiry of the two days so allowed, the period remaining shall be allocated to the discussion of the Estimates next brought before the Committee. (3) That all other provisions of Standing Order No. 307 shaU, mutatis mutandis, continue to apply." Mr SPEAKER: Order! Will the Clerk please read the next order? Mr BURNS (Lytton) (12.20 p.m.): Now that the Minister has moved that motion, may I speak to it? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BURNS: He has just moved that motion and, under the provisions of Standing Orders, I have a right to debate the motion. He did no more than move the motion, which leaves me in the position of wishing to debate his motion. All he is doing now is trying to pull a trick to get himself out of a position that he got into this moming when members on this side of the House called "Not formal" to a notice of motion on the Business Paper. The reason that people are concemed about this type of motion is that the Govemment is consistently gagging debates. In 1984, 15 days were allocated to debates similar to the ones covered by the motion moved by the Leader of the House. In 1985, II days were allocated. The motion before the House provides for only seven. I expect Days Allotted to Supply 4 September 1986 885 that members of the Liberal Party may wish to speak to the motion; but, when they were part of the Govemment, only six days were aUotted. I can recaU what happened in 1974 and 1980, when the member for Nundah (Sir WiUiam Knox) was either leading or a senior member of the Liberal Party, which was a part of the Govemment. In those times on at least two occasions only six days were aUotted to Supply. So I hope that the Liberal Party will not scream about the number of days aUotted for these debates. It is time that the House was given the opportunity to debate fiiUy the Budget and the Estimates of each and every department. Some Ministers of this Govemment have never had their Estimates debated. They have always been protected by motions moved by the Leader of the House that gagged debate and prevented Estimates being discussed. Recently the House was informed that the Estimates of only two departments were to be debated, those of the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services. A later mmour was that three Estimates would be debated. Another Minister must have gained some courage, or the Govemment had another day that it wanted to fill in. That is not the way the House should operate. The Parliament should ensure that each and every Minister defends his Estimates in this place and aUows each and every member to have a say about them. The Estimates of departments affect the people we represent; they affect each and every person in my electorate, in the same way as they affect each and every person in every other electorate in the State. Govemment members who sit back and accept blindly these motions give away their rights as members of Parliament. The passing of these motions demeans the House. By supporting them, honourable members put themselves in the position of saying that the Parliament does not matter. This House is consistently under attack for the very low number of days that it sits and the very few opportunities that the Opposition has to question Ministers and to go about the business that we as parliamentarians are elected to do. We are elected to represent the people and to have a say on issues affecting the people. When suggestions for a parliamentary public accounts committee are made, the Premier always says that Queensland does not need such a committee because it has the Parliament where honourable members can undertake review by questioning Min­ isters. Honourable members are not given any right or any time to question Ministers. We are not allowed to do so. Mr Lane interjected. Mr BURNS: It is all very well for the Minister for Transport to sound off. When he was a back-bench member of the Liberal Party, he used to complain, too. The ministerial club uses its numbers in the party-room to protect its members from any embarrassment and from any attacks on their administration and on the way in which they efficiently—or, mostly, inefficiently—mn their departments. The people of Queensland are becoming tired of this ParUament's being used by the National Party for its personal use. The people of Queensland are demanding that the ordinary member of Parliament be given the right to question Ministers to find out what is happening. Allowing back-bench members to ask a few questions at question-time on a Umited number of sitting days is not sufficient. Every other Parliament in the Commonwealth extends the right to its members to debate the Estimates. I repeat that the Estimates of many departments have not been debated for years. It is time that the Opposition was given the opportunity to debate them. When on some nights the Govemment is stmggUng to get sufficient business and when there is insufficient business on the Business Paper for the House to operate, it is a scandal for the Govemment to gag debates on Supply and the Estimates. We as members of Parliament—that is, everyone here—have a right to question the Ministry and to have Ministers put their Estimates to the test. One example is the recent Auditor-General's report. What about the questions that have been raised in the Auditor-General's report about Allen CaUaghan and others? We should be able to debate the Estimates of the Premier's Department. We should be able to question the Premier 886 4 September 1986 Days Allotted to Supply about his accountability for his department and question him about whether the statement by the Auditor-General is right, whether the statements in the court were right or whether the statements that the Premier has been making in the House are right. However, we are never given an opportunity to do that. I wiU begin with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs (Mr Lester), who spent $300,000—or $30,000, or something Uke that—climbing the Great WaU of China. I have visited China on a number of occasions. The Chinese Govemment invites people to visit the Great Wall and pays their way. I do not know how the Minister found things to buy of that value. What about the Minister for Tourism (Mr McKechnie), who whipped off to New Zealand with an entourage, and the amount of money spent by the Minister responsible for racing? Honourable members should be entitled to question each Minister about the operations of his or her department. Mr Hinze: No trouble. Mr BURNS: The Minister says, "No trouble." However, the Govemment has moved a motion to restrict the debate on the Estimates to seven days. Two years ago, 15 days were allocated to that debate. Why is it that in 1986 eight fewer days are needed than were needed in 1984 to debate the Estimates? Members of the Liberal Party should not scream too loudly because, when that party was in Govemment, it voted for six days to be allotted to the debate on the Estimates. The Labor Party was in Opposition during those years. Members of the Opposition have witnessed the performances of both the Liberal Party and the National Party in Govemment. To sum it up—the Govemment gags the Parliament; it gags the people. The Queensland Parliament is not a people's House. It is a fomm for the National Party to mn things in its own way. On a number of occasions the Premier has said, "We mn this Parliament." Mr Speaker himself would have to—oh, I wiU not pick on the Speaker. That would only get me into trouble. The gag is applied in many ways other than by resolution of the House. The Opposition opposes the gagging of debate. I applaud the Opposition member who called "Not formal" and thus aUowed this debate to take place. Hon. W. D. LICKISS (Mount Coot-tha) (12.26 p.m.): The Liberal Party opposes the restrictions being imposed on the Estimates debate. One would think that any Govemment worth its salt would not only expect but also encourage debate on the State's finances in the hope that some good would result, particularly in view of the present economic cUmate. The first day allotted to Supply last Tuesday merely allowed for the presentation of the Budget by the Premier, and nothing more. Today is the second aUotted day. It has already been stated in this Chamber that the Budget debate will end today. It has been indicated that seven days will be allotted to the debate on the Estimates. Honourable members have been advised also that the Estimates of two departments wiU be debated and that the seven days will in fact be seven allotted days. Although seven days have been allotted for consideration of the Estimates, in effect the Estimates will be debated for less than four sitting days. One wonders about the significance of an interjection made this moming by the Premier that honourable members ought to make the best of the next three days. That statement is significant. At a time when the Australian economy is probably at its lowest ebb, the economy of this State is not brilliant and Govemment accountability generaUy is under consider­ ation at both State and Federal levels, honourable members should be afforded the opportunity of debating fully the Estimates. Days Allotted to Supply 4 September 1986 887

Members of the Liberal Party wish to participate in the Budget debate. I have examined the list of members who wish to speak, and even with the times presently afforded honourable members to speak, some members wiU not be able to participate in the Budget debate. As I have said, the Estimates of only two departments have been selected for debate. UsuaUy, the Estimates of at least six departments are debated annuaUy in this ParUament. The Liberal Party indicates quite clearly that it opposes not only the gagging of this debate but also the effective gagging of the Parliament when no notice has been given of an intention to call an election or of the date of an election. Mr FitzGerald: It will be held in 1986, and it is getting very close to the end of it. Mr LICKISS: That is right. The honourable member for Lockyer, who is wet behind the ears and has only been a member of this ParUament for a few months, does not reaUse the ramifications of parliamentary debate and the importance placed on the availability of time for debate in this place. The Liberal Party opposes the motion. It opposes the restriction of debate. I had hoped that the Govemment, in its wisdom, would have realised the importance of a wide-ranging debate on the economy of AustraUa and, in particular, the importance of a comprehensive debate on the financial affairs of this State at this time. Hon. L. W. POWELL (Isis—Minister for Education) (12.30 p.m.): The remarks of the two previous speakers smack of hypocrisy. In accordance with the Sessional Order moved by my coUeague, over 800 minutes wiU be made available for the debate. If Opposition members cannot compress their remarks in a lucid fashion in order to fit into that time, I do not know what is wrong with them. The ParUament has had plenty of time to debate various issues, such as in the Matters of PubUc Interest and the Adjoumment debates. An election wiU be held some time later this year, and all honourable members are aware of that fact. The standard of questions asked in this Chamber is really reaching a nonsensical level, and if Opposition members did the right thing by asking searching questions, they would receive detailed answers; there is no question about that. Ample time is avaUable for this Assembly to discuss the Budget and the Estimates. I move— "That the question be now put." Question put; and the House divided— AYES, 42 NOES, 31 Ahem Lester Braddy Scott Alison Lingard Bums Shaw Austin Littleproud Campbell Smith Bailey McKechnie Casey Vaughan Bjelke-Petersen McPhie Comben Veivers Booth Menzel D'Arcy Wamer, A. M Borbidge MiUer Eaton Yewdale Cahill Muntz Fouras Chapman Newton Gibbs, R. J. Clauson PoweU Goss Cooper Randell Gygar ElUott Row HamUl FitzGerald Simpson Innes Gibbs, I. J. Stephan Kmger Glasson Stoneman Lee Gunn Tenni Lickiss Harper Tumer Mackenroth Henderson Wharton McEUigott Hinze McLean Jennings Tellers: MiUiner Tellers: Katter Kaus Palaszczuk Davis Lane Neal Price Prest Resolved in the affirmative. Motion (Mr Wharton) agreed to. 888 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

SUPPLY Committee—Financial Statement—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 2 September (see p. 765) on Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's motion— "That there be granted to Her Majesty, for the service of the year 1986-87, a sum not exceeding $709,000 to defray Contingencies—His ExceUency the Govemor."

Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (12.39 p.m.): The 1986 State Budget was a lazy Budget prepared by a lazy Treasurer of a lazy Govemment. The general reaction to the Budget can be seen from the comments in the newspapers. The Daily Sun regarded the Budget as being a lack-lustre, lazy Budget.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Chamber will come to order. The conversations that are taking place in the Chamber wiU cease.

Mr CAMPBELL: The article in the Daily Sun stated— "The State Govemment yesterday produced an amateur-hour Budget which would be even more disturbing if it could be fuUy understood." The article further stated— "It is a Budget devoid of inspiration and energy, and one which appears to be designed to hide more than it reveals." An article in The Courier Mail stated— "The Budget the Premier introduced yesterday must have been one of the most unexciting election year Budgets this State has seen." As the Leader of the Opposition said, the Budget has no economic basis. It is a Budget of lost opportunities, no vision and no initiatives. Queensland has the worst-performing economy of any State. However, the Budget does not take account of that fact. Another aspect of the Budget that concems me is that it wiU do nothing to aUeviate the unemployment problem. An article that I have here is headed "No-tax Budget hits jobs". Because the Govemment is totally uncaring, caUous, and shows no concem whatsoever for unemployed people, unemployment figures wUl continue to rise. The Budget also lacks economic depth and is based upon poor accounting principles. An article that appeared in the Daily Sun stated— "A further Budget worry is how little the Govemment wishes to tell voters about the use of their tax money." The article states further— "The Govemment stiU declines to say how much it, statutory authorities and other govemment-related organisations owe on loans." A Budget that does not easily define the total debt of the State, including that of statutory authorities, is an attack upon the accounting profession. It shows how sloppy and inconsistent the Government is. An article outUning expenditure by Govemment Ministers appeared in the Daily Sun of 3 September. That article stated— "The Ust makes challenge more difficult because it was neither full nor open." The article also stated— "The Govemment's Budget was a cover operation and it is perhaps to be expected that the Ust of Ministerial expenses has been treated with the same intent towards disinformation." Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 889

The accounting branch of the Treasury Department should be ashamed that reactions such as those are coming from editors of newspapers. I tum now to the document titled Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure and point to some discrepancies in the first list pubUshed in that document. In relation to the subsidy for community home care, the figure given for revenue received during 1985- 86 is $2,515,227, whereas the figure given by the Auditor-General is $2,506,599. The next item listed is the subsidy for senior citizens' centres. The figure quoted in the Estimates is $842,402, whereas the figure given by the Auditor-General is $851,030. In relation to the National Campaign against Dmg Abuse, the figure given in the Estimates differs by $100 from the figuresgive n by the Auditor-General. In the Estimates the figure given is $1,610,800, whereas the figure given by the Auditor-General is $1,610,900. That discrepancy highUghts the sloppy and inconsistent way in which the Govemment conducts its business. In last year's Budget, the approved vote in relation to the subsidy for senior citizens' centres was $1,216,000. Of that figure, only $851,030 was actually expended, at a time when communities such as Bundaberg need fiinding for the erection of a senior citizens' centre. The State Govemment has retumed to the Commonwealth Govemment money that could have been spent on providing facilities for senior citizens. It is a shocking state of affairs that such a sloppy Budget has been presented. The Budget is lazy, inconsistent and lacks depth. I refer honourable members to a report on revenue by Andrew Stewart, who states— "The last of the lucky low tax Budgets—that could be Sir Job's fourth Budget as Treasurer. The Budget is a neat accounting package relying heavUy on the Federal Govemment's generous over-inflation rises in fiinding to the State to keep the Queensland Govemment's revenue raising at below inflation rate increases. The federal revenue grants to Queensland rose 10.8 per cent and State revenues are budgeted to rise by less than five per cent." The Budget has been held together by Commonwealth money at a time when the Queensland economy is performing so poorly. Of the 18 key economic indicators released in August 1986, Queensland has the worst result in five, the second-worst in eight and was below the national average in 12. The National Party Govemment has done nothing to help improve Queensland's economy. At 9.6 per cent, Queensland had the worst result in unemployment. In Febmary 1986, it had the lowest male average weekly eamings at $391.40, which is 7.4 per cent below the national average. Queensland also had the lowest female average weekly eamings at $250.50, which was 9.4 per cent below the national average. For the June quarter 1986, Queensland had the highest drop in the number of new dweUing units approved, a faU of 35.8 per cent compared with the same quarter a year earlier. In May 1986, Queensland's job vacancy rate was 0.6 per cent, which was the second- worst result in Australia. For 1984-85, Queensland household income per capita was $10,410, which was 9.8 per cent below the national average. In the year to the September quarter 1985, new fixed capital expenditure grew by 8.4 per cent in Queensland compared with the same period a year before, whereas the national growth rate was 15.2 per cent. Queensland is performing very poorly in all those areas. 890 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

All the Treasurer wants to do is to blame Canberra, but he cannot even do that with any consistency. On 31 August 1986, in The Sunday Mail, Joh was talking about getting out of farming. The article stated— " 'It's impossible to make a profit growing grain, it's scandalous,' Sir Joh said. He vowed not to begin grain farming again until the ALP Federal Govemment was removed from office.

The Premier blamed the Federal Govemment, fuel and labour costs for his decisions. He would not blame unfair trade practices by the United States and Europeans who have dumped subsidised grain on world markets, depressing prices." Yet, on the same page Quentin Dempster quotes the Premier as saying— "Our mral industries, especiaUy sugar and, more lately, wheat and cotton, have been affected by the world trade situation." That is total inconsistency. The Premier says that Queensland has a balanced Budget. It is interesting that the figures on the income side balance with the figures on the expenditure side. But how is it done? It is a manipulation of fiinds through the tmst accounts. On page 16 of the Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure, in the entry "Contribution to Special Major Capital Works Program Fund", the Treasurer allocated $51,676,000; yet, to balance the Budget, he transposed $212,526,000. Further, in the entry "Amount to be credited to Special Projects Fund", the amount allocated in last year's Budget was $51,224,000; yet $79,224,000 was expended. Over $150m was transferted from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the tmst funds just to balance the Budget. If the Treasurer did the right thing, he would create as much excess as possible. That is what budgeting is aU about. There was an aUocation of $ 146m under "Increases under PubUc Service and Other Awards"; yet nothing was expended. In other words, there was a potential saving in that allocation of $ 146m. If the Budget had been properly prepared in 1985, a credit balance or an excess in funds of at least $146m should have resulted. It is furphy to speak of balancing the budget when all that the Govemment has done is transfer funds among the trust accounts. It is similar to the workings of a household budget. It is easy to say that a household budget is balanced when the extra expense is being added to the Bankcard balance. That is a parallel to what the Govemment has done with the 1986 Budget, which is reaUy just a list of expenditure. The important feature of the Budget is the amount of wastefiil expenditure indulged in by this State Govemment. I am reminded of what was said on 8 October 1901 when the first Budget of a Federal Govemment was presented in the Commonwealth ParUament. The Federal Treasurer at that time, the late Sir George Tumer, made the foUowing statement, which is pertinent to what is occurring in Queensland in 1986. He said— "Another grave responsibility which rests upon us at this particular time is to take the utmost care that there shall be no extravagant expenditure." The edict that should apply in Queensland in 1986 is that the Queensland Govemment has a grave responsibUity resting upon it to take the utmost care to ensure that there shall be no extravagant and wasteful expenditure. The National Party State Govemment has made poor, costly and excessively extravagant decisions merely for the self-gratification of Ministers. For example, an electoral brochure that cost $350,000 is causing considerable concem. At a cost to the Queensland tax-payer, pamphlets have been distributed for the benefit of National Party back-benchers. The Premier and Treasurer's aeroplane cost $8m, and Queensland Unlimited has been allocated $2m in the Budget for advertising, in spite of the fact that there is a need for expenditure to create employment opportunities instead. Before the Budget was presented, the Govemment amanged for two fiiU-page advertisements to appear in the newspapers in an attempt to "sell" the Budget. If the Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 891

Govemment wants to convince people of the merit of the Budget, National Party members should go out into the community and be prepared to support it rather than try to hide behind glossy advertisements. Expenditure upon such wasteful undertakings reduces funds that would otherwise be available to provide services for the aged and the disadvantaged. Not only does the Govemment engage in wasteful and extravagant expenditure, it also engages in pork- bartdUng that is allowed to go unchecked. A great deal of money is involved in the constmction of major projects, but many of the projects prove not to be economical, because no proper planning, estimating or budgeting is carried out. The projects do not provide opportunities for employment but, rather, destroy jobs, which is a further disadvantage suffered by the community. It should be remembered that Queensland has the higliest per capita indebtedness of any State of Australia. For example, because the Tarong Power Station was so located as to pork- bartel the Premier and Treasurer's electorate, the additional cost that is to be bome by Queensland consumers amounts to $259m. Through mismanagement of the electricity industry resulting in the capacity to generate power far in excess of demand, and in an attempt to disguise its inappropriate power-development proposal, the Govemment has had to prematurely close down the Swanbank and ColUnsville power stations. Another example of mismanagement is the constmction of the Tartms Weir, which is estimated to cost $4m but benefits only a few graziers. One person in particular Mr Prest: Who is that? Mr CAMPBELL: That is the Premier. It will benefit his property. That $4m could be better spent, for example, on the provision of a better water- supply system on the Gold Coast. In 1980, the Bjelke-Petersen Dam at Murgon was estimated to cost $17m. At that time, the Department of Primary Industries reported that the economic retum from constmction of the dam would be very marginal. What did the Govemment do? It went ahead and built the dam. Now it finds that the dam has been built on limestone and is likely to leak. To plug the leak, the Govemment has to plug leaks to 50 metres or more of concrete. It is now to cost $46m, for which everyone in this House and everyone in Queensland, including all of the pensioners and the disadvantaged people, will have to pay. At a cost of $ 19m it was not really an economic proposition. It is now a disaster. Projects such as that are costing the Queensland economy milUons of dollars. Queenslanders have to accept not only wasteful decisions and unchecked and pork- bartelling major projects but also a Treasurer and a National Party that back losers all the way through. In the Evans Deakin share deal the Govemment lost $6m. The Walkers share deal is another instance in which the Govemment lost money. ANI was able to make a million dollars profit. People such as G.E.M. & L.L. Bahnemann Mr Prest interjected. Mr CAMPBELL: The Premier does get a good retum. In actual fact, he got a retum of $400,000. The important thing to note is that the Queensland Govemment has been backing losers and that is costing the tax-payers money. In the Auditor-General's report, under the heading of Department of Industry Development, the Auditor-General says in his third note that expenditure was $65,000 which comprised a payment of $20,598 for a call-up of a guarantee to G.E.M. & L.L. Bahnemann and repayment of Commonwealth advances of $44,481. Another note in the report states— "The variation was due to a much higher contribution from Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1984-85 to finance the call up of a guarantee made in respect of Suttons Foundry Pty. Ltd." 892 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

A guarantee was also made to White Motors. Because the Treasurer and the National Party are backing losers, it is the ordinary people of Queensland who are picking up the tab. The Govemment is also waiting for the refund of the $250,000 deposit that it paid on the Lear Fan jet. The real daddy of them aU is the way in which the Queensland Govemment has been sucked in to providing money for the Greenvale nickel project. In the Estimates, $8 5m has been aUocated to cover guarantees that have been given by the Queensland Govemment to the company operating that project. It is a shocldng state of affairs that every person in Queensland is picking up the tab for guarantees given by the Government to the Greenvale nickel project. That project is an example of the losers that this Govemment is backing. It is a very poor state of affairs. However, the Govemment has had to back away from its proposal for the Queensland Industry Development Corporation to help out its old crony, Mike Gore, to the tune of $5m for Sanctuary Cove. The real concem that arises from aU of this is: Who is paying for it? In effect, it has been discovered that it is a deliberate policy of this Govemment to make certain that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That has been happening for a decade. At a time when Queensland's economic problems are the worst of any of the other States, it is the poor who are paying and making most of the sacrifices. Mr Phil Day has prepared a report on an analysis of income distribution, in which he says that the sharing of wealth in Queensland has been less equitable than in Australia as a whole and that, given the consistency of these facts over a period, a strong presumption must be made that they reflect deliberate Govemment policy. He says also that it must be presumed that a substantial minority of Queensland electors tacticaUy approve of this income disparity—or, more charitably perhaps, are insufficiently aware of its impUcations.

Sitting suspended from I to 2.15 p.m.

Mr CAMPBELL: Before the luncheon recess I was commenting on a report by Mr PhU Day on an analysis of income distribution, which showed that the balance between high and low incomes was more pronounced in Queensland than in Australia generally. It further shows that although Queensland had the highest percentage of high income recipients in Australia, throughout the same period average incomes in Queensland were lower than for Australia as a whole. Who is paying for the extravagances and the waste of the National Party State Govemment? That is being paid for by the disadvantaged people of this State—the pensioners and other low-income-eamers. Although Queensland is supposedly the low tax State, for many of the necessities of life it has the highest charges. I shall now tum to a very basic cost for people in the community, that of house insurance. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard figures showing the cost of house insurance. Leave granted. Home Insurance—$40,000 wood/fibro house Govemment Charges Total Cost Stamp Duties and Fire Levy $ $ Queensland 168.40 64.40 New South Wales 102.65 20.65 Victoria 98.99 26.85 Mr CAMPBELL: That shows that in Queensland the total cost of insurance on a timber and fibro house is $168.40, which includes State Govemment charges such as Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 893

Stamp duty and fire levy of $64.40. In New South Wales, the cost of insurance is $102.65, with Govemment stamp duty and fire levy charges of $20.65; and in Victoria the cost is $98.99, with Govemment charges of $26.85. That shows that the Queensland Gov­ emment stamp duty and fire levy charges are three times those of the other States. That is an imposition on the ordinary people who have to insure their homes. The ordinary people are being caught up not so much by what are called State Govemment taxes but by State Govemment charges. It is the pensioners and the poor people who are being slugged. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Booth): Order! I do not want to stop the honourable member, but I am concemed about the document that he wishes incorporated in Hansard. He has given certain figures for the States of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Is the honourable member quoting figureso f a certain insurance company? Mr CAMPBELL: No. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The figures which the honourable member quotes must have some basis. Mr CAMPBELL: This information was provided by the Parliamentary Library. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I think the Pariiamentary Library was remiss in not giving the honourable member the company from which the figures came. However, leave has been granted. The honourable member may continue. Mr Yewdale: It is an average. Mr CAMPBELL: Yes, it is an average. The second matter that affects ordinary pensioners is ambulance charges. Queensland imposes a very heavy slug on pensioners for ambulance charges. I seek leave to incorporate a table that shows ambulance charges for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Leave granted. Ambulance Charges— Single Family Pensioner Pensioner $ $ Queensland 14 28 New South Wales Free Free Victoria 4 6 Mr CAMPBELL: That table shows that a single pensioner in Queensland is charged $14, yet the board wants to increase that figure. A single pensioner in New South Wales is not charged at all and in Victoria the charge is $4. A family pensioner in Queensland is charged $28; in New South Wales, it is free; and in Victoria, the charge is $6. Pensioners in New South Wales receive a free ambulance service. Queensland charges three times more than does Victoria for ambulance charges to pensioners. Another difficulty faced by pensioners is electricity costs. Once again, the pensioner in Queensland is slogged fairly heavily. Even taking into account the proposed concession to pensioners, in Queensland they are stUl charged a great amount. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table of electricity charges for single pensioners. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I am a littie concemed about having this material incorporated without the source being shown. I accept the honourable member's honest statement that the figures come from the ParUamentary Library. I would like to discuss these matters with the honourable member later. The one on ambulance charges seems fair enough. With the charges for electricity, no amount used is shown. They give me some concem. Is leave granted? Leave granted. 894 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) Electricity—Single Pensioner Quarterly Annual Cost Electricity BiU $ $ Queensland 53.88 215.52 New South Wales 31.52 126.08 Victoria 53.39 213.56 Mr CAMPBELL: I will detaU the charges that are shown for an ordinary pensioner using 425 kW of power and 325 kW of controlled hot water. In Queensland, the quarterly electricity charge is $53.88, which is a total annual cost of $215.52. In New South Wales, the quarterly charge for that same amount of electricity is $31.52. The annual cost for a pensioner in that State would be $126.08. In Victoria, a single pensioner using the same amount of electricity as his counterpart in Queensland is charged $53.39 a quarter, or a total of $213.56 annually. Those two Labor States are providing their pensioners with electricity that is as cheap as, if not cheaper than, it is in Queensland, even with the concession that wiU be granted. It is the same story with car registration. It costs more to register four and six- cylinder cars in Queensland than it does in New South Wales and Victoria. In Queensland, a pensioner is charged $204.10 to put a four-cylinder car on the road. In New South Wales, registration is $171 in the country and $197 in the metropolitan area. In Victoria, the cost of registering a four-cylinder car for a pensioner is only $110 in the country and $130 in the metropolitan area. That shows that pensioners are treated better in those States than they are in Queensland. I tum to essential State Govemment services, including the provision of housing by the Housing Commission. Queensland charges a single pensioner more than any other State for a Housing Commission unit. The annual rent in Queensland is $1,222. In New South Wales, it is $1,019.20. Victoria charges the same rent as New South Wales. In Westem Australia, the rent is even cheaper. The weekly rent in Westem AustraUa is $17.60. As I have said, in Queensland it is $1,222 per year, which is slightly more than $23 per week. Taking into account basic essential services such as Housing Commission rents, electricity charges, car registration and ambulance fees, Queensland pensioners have to pay $339.34 more each year than pensioners in New South Wales and $308.86 more than pensioners in Victoria. That is the cost to the poor pensioners in Queensland. Queensland pensioners are being charged more than pensioners in other States for basic essential services. The charges to which I have refemed are not regarded as taxes. However, Queensland pensioners are being overcharged. I tum to the matter of rates. Queensland has a very low rate rebate. This year's Budget does not contain a comparison of the Queensland and interstate rate rebate. Why do Queenslanders receive lower rate rebates than people in other States? Why are Queenslanders charged higher rates than people in other States? I will cite some examples. Taking into account the Govemment rebates, the annual cost to a pensioner in Port Macquarie, New South Wales, is $340. In Victoria, at Lakes Entrance, the net cost to a pensioner is $320. In Bundaberg, the average cost to pensioners is $585. Why do Queensland pensioners have to absorb that extra cost? I wUl tell honourable members why. It is because this Govemment is not providing State Gov­ emment subsidies to Queensland local authorities. That is the reason. I tum to grants to local authorities from both State and Commonwealth Govern­ ments. In 1979 the State Govemment provided $57m in grants. In 1984 the grants had risen to only $58.8m. Mr Gunn: What about the Commonwealth? Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 895

Mr CAMPBELL: In 1979 the Commonwealth Govemment provided fiinding of $49m. By 1984 that amount had increased to $ 159.5m. An annual increase of 25 per cent in grants by the Commonwealth Govemment to local authorities has occumed, whereas most State Government grants have not been increased to take inflation into account. In absolute terms, the amount remained the same. If the figure had been kept in Une with inflation, an extra $28.9m should have been provided by the State Govem­ ment. That is the extra cost that has been imposed on rate-payers. Mr BAILEY (Toowong) (2.25 p.m.): I am pleased to speak in this debate on the Budget. Despite the mainly negative comments that have been made by Opposition members, I commend the Premier and Treasurer for the very sensible way in which he has approached the finances of this State and the rational way in which Queensland's Budget is balanced, despite the statistics that are thrown up by the negative Opposition members. I assume that because Labor Party members are in Opposition, that is another excuse for their being negative. I address myself to the matter of local govemment appropriation. I hope consider­ ation can be given to the points I make, particularly in regard to increasing the number of staff working in local govemment supervising such things as rezoning in Queensland, and particularly in Brisbane, and the town plan. I raise two intertelated matters that I believe reflect upon the administration of the city of Brisbane. In recent days the Liberal Party State President has made much of the allegation that cormption is the norm, rather than the exception, when dealing with the State Govemment. He has implied that the Queensland Govemment has the philosophy of always looking after National Party supporters. When I outline the following story, all honourable members will agree that Mr Moore could do no better than to send a copy of his remarks on this subject to his own Liberal Brisbane City Council. It seems to have the same odour attached to it as did the Askin Govemment in New South Wales. I refer to the decision by the council to approve the constmction of a three-storey house on a smaU 16-perch allotment in Dart Street, Toowong. The council administration defied the views and opinions of the local people and gave the green light to that project. The property is partly owned by a close friend and supporter of the deputy mayor. Alderman Beanland. As can be seen from the various newspaper articles I have with me in the House, this is a matter of public record. The connection between the part- owner and the deputy mayor has been admitted. He went on record and said that the lady who partly owns the property had organised fund-raising fiinctions for his election bid. Apparently, that frank admission does not constitute improper conduct in the eyes of the Liberal Party. That is a sickening double standard and an intolerable abuse of power for weU-connected friends of the deputy mayor. The result of that decision is that the property concemed is now a vacant block and a three-storey house will shortly be erected on the site where the previous house was quickly demolished after the approval was mshed through. UntU now, this area was zoned Residential A and was confined to single or double-storey dweUings. Serious questions need to be answered by the council, not the least of which is: Is this the norm? How many other poUtical mates have been favoured, and does this have impUcations about other zonings in the new town plan? Dart Street, Toowong, where this proposed development is to take place, contains some of the best and most historical homes in Brisbane. The councU and the Liberal Party, which make such a song and dance about preserving Queensland's heritage, have, for the most cynical reasons, ridden roughshod over both local opinion and the historic character of this area. It appears that this decision was made for one reason; to benefit a friend and supporter of the deputy mayor. It is not as though the objection to this proposed rezoning and the erection of this three-storey house was not weU-aired and not shown to the council. A petition, a copy of which I have here, was signed by every resident in the 896 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) street, and many letters have passed between the council and a number of the residents. I have copies of some of the letters, and several of them went to the Minister. Mr Peter Bridgman's home is right next door. It is an old Queenslander that is being beautifully renovated. He has written a letter to the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing, which states— "The people in this street (Dart Street) have expressed grave disappointment over the way the approval was given, and I have been encouraged to assist you with your enquiries. As you will see from the attached material, senior Council officers and Aldermen Beanland, Tumbull and Denman were fiiUy aware that residents resisted the proposed development. Four invitations to view the site first hand remain to this day unacknowledged, and yet the Council purports to have made its decision on the grounds that neighbouring owners would not be adversely affected. This was despite a finding by the local building surveyor that neighbours would be badly affected. A 7.5m plus high wall within a few feet of any home is, surely, grave detriment. Alderman Beanland, in a telephone conversation of 12th May 1986 assured me that the appUcant would be required to advertise." It is important to remember that, because that is what did not happen. The letter continues— "Informal advice from CouncU officers is that such an appUcation, given adverse reports from the Building Surveyor and the Town Planning Team Leader and vigorous resistance from residents would invariably be forced to advertise, if not rejected outright." That did not happen. The Brisbane City Council—and the Liberal Party, which makes such a song and dance about preserving our heritage—has, of course, ridden roughshod over those people. Alderman Beanland is also recorded as saying that he disagreed with that decision. He said that he disagreed with a decision of his own council not to advertise for objections and had put his views in writing. If the deputy mayor does not have any influence on his own administration, one can reasonably ask: Who does? Alderman Beanland said that he does not want a bridge from the Toowong/St Lucia area across the Brisbane River, yet the council is stiU investigating that proposal. At this stage, that proposal stUl has the backing of the Lord Mayor. Alderman Beanland is obviously a Claytons deputy mayor. He cannot stop his council from pursuing a Toowong bridge and he cannot stop the council from making a decision to aUow a very favourable deal for one of his own political supporters. That is what we are told by Alderman Beanland. If he cannot do anything in the council, the people of Toowong could be wondering what he might possibly achieve if he won my seat. The points raised are wider than just the inadequacies of Alderman Beanland. The decision was originally raised in the media by Alderman St Ledger, who is the councU's opposition spokesman on town-planning. Alderman St Ledger told a neighbour that he would pursue the matter. The Minister for Local Govemment (Mr Hinze) pubUcly invited Alderman St Ledger to provide him with detaUs. I was informed by the Minister that he has not heard from Alderman St Ledger, who has apparently decided that he will not do anything beyond making a press statement. On several occasions I have raised the matter with the Minister, who advised me that there has been no actual breach of the law in this case. Clause 55 of the town plan requires the councU to consider the characteristics of a site when making its decisions. Obviously, in this instance, it did not. Although the legal provisions have been observed, the spirit of the law has been grossly abused. Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 897

I chaUenge the council administration to reverse its decision that has given a considerable financial windfall to a friend of the deputy mayor and to invite local opinion by advertising for objections. That is what is usually done in such circumstances. The council administration probably wiU not act on my suggestion because it is more important for the council to help its mates than to look after the legitimate interests of ordinary people. The second matter I raise is connected to the matter to which I have just refemed. It is the matter of the council's proposed Zone Z. It is not going beyond the bounds of reaUty to describe this provision as a crippling body-blow to the historic character of the inner and near city areas, including Auchenflower and Torwood, which are in my electorate. Zone Z would give to the councU the same opportunities as those avaUed of by the Askin Govemment of New South Wales and the Hamer Govemment of Victoria— both Liberal Govemments—for which they stUl stand condemned. I have been personaUy overwhelmed by protests from people who are concemed that they might suddenly find themselves next door to a multiple dweUing. The deputy mayor waged a strong campaign against the Govemment when it sought to simplify the appeal conditions of the Local Govemment Act and the City of Brisbane Act. He distributed petitions throughout my electorate and in other areas. He claimed that people should have a right of appeal. He deliberately lied about the intent of the legislation. That distortion has caused enormous and unnecessary concem to many of my constituents. I wonder what Alderman Beanland thinks about the right of appeal against decisions of his own council in relation to Dart Street at A.uchenflower and the Zone Z. The right of appeal was taken away summarily from the concemed citizens in my electorate. That reeks of hypocrisy. A number of organisations have complained about the Zone Z classification. There are many reasons why organisations should be concemed about the rezoning. The new town plan provides for a new zoning to replace certain existing Residential A zones within a 4 kilometre radius of the central city area. Those areas most affected wiU be WooUoongabba, Highgate HiU, West End, Auchenflower, Red HiU, Kelvin Grove and Windsor. Prior to the release of the town plan, no warnings were given by spokespersons for the Brisbane City Council that the Z zoning was being considered. Residents of those affected areas have until 5 p.m. on Monday, 8 September to lodge objections. Under the terms of the town plan the Residential Zone Z is intended— "... to facilitate redevelopment by providing for duplex houses on sites with a minimum area of 800 sq m. Where the area of any site exceeds 2 500 sq m, attached houses are also allowed subject to the consent of council. Such development will require a site with a frontage of 20 metres or more and wiU be limited in height to no more than two storeys." That regulation makes a mockery of what can happen to a 16-perch block in a Residential A area. That description suggests that sites of an area less than 800 sq m would not be affected. However, town-planning officers have already confirmed that relaxation of the regulation goveming building next to boundary lines wiU allow greater flexibiUtyfo r the owners of smaller sites. The flexibility that will be provided, however, is unsure and unspecified. My principal objections to the Residential Z zones are that not enough information has been obtained in relation to them and nothing is made clear in the town plan. No significant attempt has been made by the councU to inform those residents in those areas how they will be affected by the proposed changes. No requests or submissions have been made by those residents for a rezoning from Residential A to Residential Z. That rezoning could be imposed upon them without further notice.

72407—31 898 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

It is now the responsibiUty of residents within the affected areas to inform their fellow-residents of the proposed changes and to organise sufficient opposition before the Brisbane City Council wUl change its mind. However, very little has been done about that. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, especiaUy as the zoning is completely new and residents have neither the relevant information nor adequate time in which to form opinions. There is no doubt that, by the promotion of duplex and attached housing, the Residential Z zone wiU change the character of inner-suburban Brisbane. Although the councU is aware of the possible problems, members of the councU— and in particular the Lord Mayor—have repeatedly spoken of the need to preserve the character and style of inner-suburban dwelUngs. However, the reaUty is that Residential Zone Z encourages the demolition of inner-suburban dwellings, otherwise there would be no need for the introduction of the new zone. During the last five days, numerous real estate agents have approached elderly residents in the Auchenflower area in an endeavour to purchase their homes. Those real estate agents see a quick profit without the necessity of stipulating the quaUty of building they intend to constmct on those sites. It is unclear as to how the Residential Z zoning differs from the existing R2 zoning within Residential B zones. The new Zone Z appears to be an attempt to aUay the fears of residents who are concemed about the rezoning from Residential A to Residential B. Although town-planning officers within the councU have suggested that the appearance of houses within the Residential Z zone will improve as a result of the rezoning, no guide-lines on the design of duplexes or attached houses in the Zone Z have been laid down. Mr Davis: Too much uncertainty. Mr BAILEY: There is an enormous amount of uncertainty. The honourable member for Brisbane Central is in the same predicament as I am. Within his electorate he has enormous numbers of people who are spending large sums of money on upgrading their existing residences. Mr Davis: That is why I support ZORO. Mr BAILEY: The honourable member for Brisbane Central has also mentioned the new committee known as ZORO. As I was saying, no guide-Unes have been set for the design of those new dweUings. However, guide-lines do exist within the Spring Hill development plan. It escapes me why such guide-lines should not be in Zone Z, unless the purpose of allowing duplexes and attached houses without specifying that the design should be of stated quality is to allow cheaply buUt, higher-density housing. If it is good enough for Spring Hill residents, why has it been deemed not good enough for those in the adjoining inner city suburbs or in Brisbane central proper, represented by the honourable member for Brisbane Central (Mr Davis). Mr Davis inteijected. Mr BAILEY: Isn't it terrible that an inane remark like that is introduced into a sensible topic? It is unclear how sites under 800 square metres would be affected by the zoning relaxing building regulations on boundaries. Two council officers have already advised members of the Windsor residents action group that it will be possible for residents on properties of less than 800 square metres to relocate their homes on their boundary lines on one side, but they must have a fireproof wall—brick with no windows or openings— on that boundary line. Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 899

Large numbers of residents in the affected inner city suburbs bought dwelUngs in Residential A areas specifically because they would be free from intmsion by incompatible land uses. That comes from the 1986 town plan volume 1 page 7-2. Ratepayers who buy homes in the most highly protected zoning available within the town plan, that is. Residential A, are all the more entitled to greater consultation, more information and a longer period in which to gauge the effect of proposed changes and, if necessary, to lodge objections. This consideration to rate-payers in what is supposedly the most highly protected zone was not given in this case to inner-suburban residents affected by Z Zone. If the introduction of Z Zone is to reverse a trend of negative population growth in the inner suburbs, it should be pointed out that such negative growth is the result of the increased incursion of industrial and commercial usage in the inner suburbs rather than of the desire of the resident population to move. Those points have been made very succinctly and very clearly by the ZORO group. The town plan makes it clear that such is the intention of the Z Zone. Surely it is incumbent upon the council to rezone land it currently holds in the inner suburbs from light industry or commercial to residential. As the ZORO group points out, if the council is merely trialling Residential Z, why should the residents occupying 5 per cent of the total area within a 4 km radius of the city be used as guinea pigs? If the council intends that Z Zone should lead to cheaper, affordable housing, as has been stated by council officers, should not the residents already in Residential A Zone be informed by the council that their land values, rather than increasing, are likely to remain static or fall in relative terms? If the purpose of Z Zone is to create cheap housing in the near city area, cannot this be best achieved by leaving the area as it is, with largely undeveloped, relatively inexpensive dwellings on small parcels of land, mostly 400 square metres? What have the criteria been for establishing which of the Residential A areas within the 4 km radius of the central city district should remain Residential A and which should be rezoned to Z? If this has been an arbitrary and indiscriminate rezoning, it is unfair. If it has been based on certain characteristics that distinguish one Residential A block from another adjacent Residential A block, those criteria should be made clear. Despite statements by the Lord Mayor that residents would be attracted to inner-city areas with the introduction of duplexes and townhouses under Residential Z, the fact is that townhouses are not provided for under the zoning, and there remain no design guide-lines for duplexes. The introduction of Z Zone would be likely to lead to an increase in the itinerant population of the inner suburbs. Real estate agents consulted about the likely development of Z Zone have suggested that residential houses, occupied in the main by owners, would make way for duplexes (or small unit-style development) which would be occupied largely by tenants. Inner suburban areas could probably see a change in composition from the curtent mix of owner-occupiers and tenants to a greater domination of tenants in what could become, and are fast becoming, the dormitory suburbs of Brisbane. That has happened on many occasions in areas such as Maryvale Street, Toowong. Some of the small blocks of units have tumed into slums in a very short period. How that type of development was ever permitted in the first place, I do not know. It has caused the destmction of some of the most beautiful colonial homes in the electorate of Toowong. As I said previously, those areas could become the dormitory suburbs of Brisbane. The established pattems of behaviour associated with people who live in areas with a higher proportion of rented accommodation lead to lower maintenance of yards and footpaths and demonstrate a total lack of involvement in community affairs. People are concemed that as Residential A has been tumed into Residential Z, which is basicaUy Residential RB2, similarly Residential Z areas might be tumed into Residential RB3 or RB4 in town-planning schemes. That concem about Z Zone possibly becoming a stepping stone to Zone B for more intensive, higher density development is not aUayed by statements from the Brisbane City Council that no such intentions are presently held by the council. Similar statements were made to Residential A rate-payers who now find that they will be living in Residential Z. 900 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) Any zone change that has the potential to be used as a lever for changing the zone further in a town plan that will be produced at some time in the future should be resisted, if only because of the potential I have refemed to. The residents of the areas affected have only until 5 p.m. on Monday to register their protests. The Council has provided no guide-lines, and no indications have been given about the standard of project development or quality control for the suggested Z Zone. It will be very difficult for people to identify the problems. Having been provided with an example of the fast movement involved in erecting a three-storey buUding in Dart Street, Toowong, for the most dubious and spurious reasons, I can only wonder if it is possible for the residents to be able to muster sufficient organisational skills in such a brief period and register a protest that will be strong enough to cause re-examination of the project. I suggest that the committee of which I am chairman—the parliamentary advisory committee on matters affecting the Greater Brisbane area—together with the Govemment and the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing (Mr Hinze), in particular, should look very closely at what has been suggested and, if necessary, impose guide-lines for the Z Zone. Brisbane has a character than can be very easily destroyed. The electorate that I represent has an extraordinarily large number of beautiful old homes that range from workers' cottages Mr Innes: Just like Spring Hill. Mr BAILEY: It is interesting to hear an interjection being made by one of the members of the Liberal Party. I understand that Govemment members are considered and deemed to be wimps for not replying to the excessive contribution from members of the Liberal Party who have perceived their role over the years as one of opposition. They do nothing else but bucket this Govemment while at the same time expressing a wish to again be bed-fellows—co-mlers—with the Govemment. That is very interesting. I do not find the behaviour of the member for Sherwood surprising, because already he has made a fool of himself about Spring Hill and obviously he wiU make a fool of himself about some of the things that have happened in the Brisbane City Council and are beginning to show. The closing-time for protests is 5 p.m. next Monday. The time set aside for objection to the zoning proposal is extremely limited, bearing in mind that it is complicated by its lack of definition yet probably devastating in its effect. I suggest to the people who will be affected that they should protest as soon as possible and ensure that their objections are lodged by Monday. In that way, at least, there wiU be a chance that the exercise will be reconsidered or that the zones will be relocated to benefit the citizens of Queensland, rather than to benefit the cronies in the Liberal Party who already look as though they have their avaricious hands out to use the zoning for their own benefit. Mr SMITH (Townsville West) (2.49 p.m.): I want to draw attention to the Order in Council of the 23 November last dealing with amendments to the revised schedule of fire lev7 groups one to 12 inclusive that give authority to the Minister to determine categories for the purpose of determining commercial fire levies. The Opposition has consistently drawn attention to anomalies in the scheme, which was intended to be implemented by 1 July 1985. In fact, the implementation has been so chaotic that the Treasury has had to advance over $18m as at 30 June this year to keep fire services operating in Queensland. That is rather interesting, especially when one considers a recent answer given by the Minister. The question was asked whether fire services in Queensland were in trouble, and the reply was in the negative. The tmth has now been revealed, and it is that the fire services require the massive sum of $ 18m. Because of the level of dissatisfaction with the scheme, it is quite clear that many property-holders will either not pay the levy or will seek mechanisms to delay payment, and one wonders if the $18m will be the worst result or if in fact there will be a further blow-out. It is rather interesting that even last year there was a difference of about $3m Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 901 in the estimates of collections and the allocation in the Budget. I am not quite certain whether the Govemment intended to establish a slush fund or not, however, that could well be the case. As I said, I certainly would not be surprised if a blow-out occurs because now that the final date for appeal has passed, some trusting people, who previously took no action in the belief that sanity would prevail, have now found that the gate has been closed and they are confronted with significantly higher costs than under the old insurance levy. The Minister has always maintained that anyone who was correctly insured would not pay more under the new scheme. That pious hope has now been blown right out of the water and, of course, has taken with it a casualty—the previous Minister. It is also interesting to note that the Minister tried to blame the local authorities for making mistakes with the classifications. Sir Albert Abbott was very quick off the mark to refiite that. He is one of the Govemment's supporters. Mr Prest interjected. Mr SMITH: Yes, "crony" might be a better description. Despite the supposed input of aUeged experts and special advisers. Stage 2 of the fire levy system has been an absolute shambles and highlights the fact that there is a big gap between those who dream up the policies and the people who have to bear the impact of the ill-advised schemes. Even though the Mark 10 version—and I think it is about that—with aU its categories, was supposed to be free of defects, the Minister this year has had to put out scores of press releases throughout the State in an attempt to counter the indignation expressed when people receive their so-called revised notices. In fact, the public outcry has not been able to be contained because the timing of the delivery of the fire levy notices was not able to be controUed. That was done to suit the various local authorities. In Brisbane, there is further indignation because, although many people have just recently completed paying the levy, the council has now altered the method of collection and, in fact, property-owners have immediately had to make a payment in respect of the 1986-87 financial year. Of course, many people just did not budget for that so it came as something of a shock to them. Under the Stage 1 scheme property-owners were fiddled by the insurance companies. Under Stage 2, in many instances people probably paid the full dump from the insurance companies. When this scheme was implemented they were only supposed to pay pro rata. So most people have in fact been caught. They have been caught at least twice in the last few years, and are not very happy about the whole thing. What owners may not have realised is that the last Order in Council gave the Minister discretionary authority—at his whim—to assign any property to any of the 12 categories. In other words, a property could be given any designation whatsoever. Two conclusions can be drawn from that action. The first, and probably the most accurate, is that the levy in its present form is unworkable; that it has been a total failure and it should have been scrapped. Incidentally, I understand that many of the Govemment members who are hanging onto their seats by their toe-nails are urging that course of action to the Minister. The time has probably now passed. Nevertheless, I want to make it quite clear that I have no basic opposition to the philosophy of the scheme, but it was always clear to members on this side of the Chamber that it would be impossible to introduce a levy scheme into the commercial and industrial area with the same ease that led to the comparatively incident-free introduction of Stage 1. A dummy mn of the new scheme should have been carried out whUe the old insurance-based scheme was still in existence. By doing that aU the problems could have been sorted out before the formal change was made. This Govemment did not think of that. 902 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

My second conclusion is that the Minister has been in a position to dispense favours at will. I certainly accept that the present Minister has inherited the problems from his predecessor but he, in fact, walked away from what is a Cabinet decision, for which aU Ministers must accept a share of the consequences. In spite of the fact that ministerial assurances have been spread round like confetti, assuring property-owners that they would not face heavy premiums, the community suspects that the levy will guarantee the payment of millions of extra dollars into the Govemment's coffers and will effectively be yet another Government service tax. Of course, the Opposition has found out, particularly from an answer to a question asked in this Chamber, that the Govemment claims not to know what income has been generated from Stage 1, even though payments are remitted every three months by local authorities and the scheme has now been in force for a couple of years. ReaUy, nobody knows how much money is coming in and what the Govemment is getting out of it. Mr Prest: That is a bit like the accounts of Mrs X. Nobody knows what is in there. Mr SMITH: That is not a bad example. The Queensland Govemment's administration of fire services continues to appall the Opposition. I think it was in August 1985 that I drew attention to the appalling condition of fire appUances. One wonders just how much has reaUy been done in that area. As contained in the Estimates of Receipts and Expenditures 1986-87, the Govem­ ment's contribution to fire services will be $8,757,500, which represents one-eighth of the total estimated expenditure on fire services, with the remainder to be met from fire levies on property-owners. That means that in the forthcoming year $70.Im wiU be expended on fire services. That is an increase of only 4.2 per cent on the $67.3m expended last year. On the Govemment's own figures, that compares poorly with the increases in fire services expenditure in the preceding five years. I seek leave to have the table of expenditure for the preceding five years incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted.

$ MiUion % Actual Increase Expenditure 1981/82 46.5 23.3 1982/83 53.7 15.5 1983/84 58.4 8.8 1984/85 62.2 6.5 1985/86 67.3 8.2 1986/87 70.1 (estimated) 4.2 Mr SMITH: The Govemment claims increased expenditure of 12.7 per cent on normal operational costs including salaries, wages, purchase of equipment and so on— I am not certain what sort of equipment that would be—yet not one additional fire­ fighter will be employed in Queensland. The Govemment states that since 1980-81 fuU-time professional manning has increased by 215, but that has not meant adequate staffing of aU brigades. Almost half of that increase—102—was absorbed by the South Coast Fire Brigade, which in the early 1980s was desperately and dangerously understaffed. For several years the South Coast Fire Brigade Board, the chief officer and the fire service unions made repeated and urgent requests for extra staff. The Govemment finally began to respond to that crisis of undermanning in 1983 and 1984. The increases in manning on the south coast have merely served to cortect an existing severe shortfall in staff and have barely kept pace with increases in population in the district of the South Coast Fire Brigade. Since 1980, that population has increased by more than 40 per cent, which has seen the additional fire risks of continuing high-rise residential development and the expansion of residential Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 903 buUdings into mral bushland. The Govemment continues to promote tourism as Queens­ land's premier industry, yet it is prepared to tolerate inadequate fire protection for Queensland's major tourist areas. Mr Borbidge: There is no problem whatsoever, and you know it. Mr SMITH: I do not know that. I would not expect the honourable member for Surfers Paradise to admit it. I thoroughly understand his position. The problems on the south coast are mirrored by those in the district of the Maroochy Fire Brigade, which is also characterised by a dramatic growth in population, tourist visitations and high-rise development, but the Maroochy Fire Brigade has not even benefited from the level of staff increases finally granted to the South Coast Fire Brigade. Despite a population increase of nearly 40 per cent since 1980-81, the manning of the Maroochy Fire Brigade has been increased by only four professional fire-fighters. The Maroochydore station, which serves the high-rise residential area, is so undermanned that frequently only one officer and one fireman are on shift. That is insufficient to man both the pump and the hydraulic platform appliances, the latter of which is critical equipment for any high-rise fire. Early this year a fire in the Woolworths store at Nambour stretched the Maroochy Fire Brigade's resources to the Umit. With all available fire­ fighters at the scene of the fire, the chief officer had to ask the mechanic, a non-fire­ fighter, to bring the hydraulic platform from Maroochydore to Nambour. Pine Rivers Fire Brigade services the rapidly expanding residential areas on the outer north side of Brisbane. The Pine Rivers brigade has insufficient staff to man all stations 24 hours a day. Townsville is another significant provincial centre. The Govemment regards the TownsvUle Fire Brigade as being adequately manned. However, early in August, with aU avaUable crews fighting bush and grass fires round the city and on Castle HiU, four off-duty fire-fighterswer e recalled to provide protection for the rest of TownsviUe. These men sat at headquarters without even a fire engine to use. Townsville is fortunate that no fires broke out in the commercial area of the city as the brigade's response would have been delayed by having to recall an appliance from the bush fires. In brigades other than the Metropolitan, Ipswich and South Coast brigades, it is not uncommon for an appliance to tum out with a crew of only one officer and one fireman. That not only reduces the speed and effectiveness of the crew at the fire but also endangers fire-fighters'safety . If it is necessary to use breathing apparatus to effect a life rescue or to penetrate to the seat of the fire, the men cannot adopt the minimum safety procedure whereby one fire-fighter mans the fresh-air base and two fire-fighters accompany one another inside the buming building. That is a very sensible requirement. Queensland's largest fire brigade, the MetropoUtan Fire Brigade, which services Brisbane, also continues to face difficulties with undermanning. In December 1985 the Metropolitan Fire Brigade was forced to redeploy existing staff in an attempt to lift manning levels in suburban outstations. The brigade hoped that, by lifting out station crew levels to one officer and three firemen, it could provide a more effective response to house fires and thus reduce fatalities. However, that redeployment entailed stripping vital staff from inner-city stations, which provide cover for Brisbane's high-rise area, most of the major hospitals and a significant part of Brisbane's industrial and commercial areas. The inner-city crews were reduced from one officer and five firemen to one officer and three firemen. In addition, it is now common for one of those three firemen to be a partly trained and very often inexperienced probationer. No other capital city in AustraUa employs as few as one officer and three firemen on first-responsevehicle s for inner-city areas. In 1982 the New South Wales Board of Fire Commissioners recommended a minimum crew level of one officer and five firemen for inner-city first-response vehicles. 904 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) The on-shift manning complement for No. 3 station at Annerley is so reduced that Annerley usually has only one appUance available for duty. MeanwhUe, that station provides protection for high-density residential areas, several major hospitals and the South Brisbane industrial area. Faced with the Government's refusal to increase overall staff numbers, the MetropoUtan Fire Brigade had Uttle choice but to redeploy staff between inner-city and suburban stations. That practice of robbing Peter to pay Paul is precisely the practice that the National Party Govemment is putting in place for Queensland brigades. The Govemment's redeployment plans cannot deal with understaffing in brigades such as Metropolitan, Pine Rivers, South Coast, Maroochy and Townsville. The redeployment depends on natural attrition in allegedly overmanned brigades. There is no guarantee that natural attrition in some brigades wiU take place at a time or at a pace that wUl aUow for comecting undermanning in other brigades. The Opposition seriously questions the Govemment's claim that expenditure on normal operational expenses wiU increase by 12.7 per cent in the forthcoming year. According to the Budget papers, there wiU be no increase in staff, and the wages and salaries of existing staff will increase by 5 per cent at the most over the next year. I can only assume that part of the increase in operational costs evolves from the Govemment's costly and contradictory practice of propping up the system of fire brigade boards while at the same time developing and expanding centralised management. It is high time that Queensland fire brigade boards had a proper departmental stmcture. The Govemment must do away with the nonsense in the board structure at present. It is the ultimate exercise in political cronyism that the National Party Govemment continues to fiind 81 individual fire brigade boards while all significant administrative, personnel, industrial and training decisions are made by the central management of fire services. Mr Borbidge: Mr Smith Mr SMITH: I have answered the honourable member's question. I have given him my reasons. The money wasted on expenses of the members of fire brigade boards could be put to better use by employing more professional fire-fighters. The fire levy funding of fire services now means that Queensland has a user-pays system of fire protection for property-owners, but many property owners throughout Queensland are not afforded adequate protection because of undermanning. While undermanning also threatens the safety of fire-fighters, the Govemment shows a fiirther disregard for their safety by neglecting to implement adequate measures to deal with chemical fires and emergencies. Despite the public outcry over the Rite Gro fire at ZUlmere in January 1985, the National Party Govemment continues to faU to allocate resources to combating chemical hazards. It refuses to introduce stringent licensing requirements for the manufacture, storage and transport of chemicals. It fails to require mandatory placarding of chemicals, chemical stores and chemical factories. It refuses to fund adequate planning, training and equipment to combat chemical emergencies and incidents by fire brigades and other emergency services. The Govemment's failure to provide a centralised data bank on chemical hazards and the location of chemical sites was highlighted at the recent Consolidated Fertilizers fire at Strathpine. As at the Rite Gro fire, the fire brigade units arrived at the fire with no knowledge of the chemical hazards confronting them. If the community is to be provided with an adequate fire service and if fire-fighters are to be afforded minimal protection of their health and safety, the Govemment should aUocate increased funds to fire services. The increase of 4.2 percent in fire services funding cannot meet the increasing demands placed upon fire services. Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 905

I now refer to another area of Govemment neglect and mismanagement. It is the stated poUcy of the Queensland Govemment that rehabiUtation of prisoners is an important aim of the prison system. I have read with considerable interest the intemal operational audit commissioned by the Minister, but I believe that it faUs to address matters of wider concem. That in itself is not so much a criticism as rather a statement that the Govemment has a "put out the bush fire" phUosophy to the whole problem, which is of a continuing nature and not unique to Queensland. I beUeve that the only long-term initiative that could go a considerable way to minimising the problems presently being experienced would be the estabUshment of an all-party parliamentary committee of inquiry to investigate all aspects of the Queensland prison system. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard my notice of motion that appears on the Business Paper and calls for the estabUshment of such a committee. Leave granted. (1) That an all-Party Parliamentary committee of enquiry be estabUshed to investigate aU aspects of the Queensland prisons systems. (2) That the committee shall consist of members of the Legislative Assembly. (3) That no Minister of the Crown shaU be a member of such a committee. (4) That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records unless otherwise determined by the House in any particular case, save, however, that a Minister of the Crown or any officer of the Public Service shall not be obUged to provide information, oral or written, which has been— (a) certified by a Crown Law Officer to be information which, if it were sought in a Court, would be a proper matter in respect of which to claim Crown privUege; or (b) certified by the responsible Minister, with the approval of the Ministers of the Crown in Cabinet assembled, to be information such that its disclosure would be against the public interest. (5) That the committee may proceed after seven days have elapsed from adoption of this motion by the House with the despatch of its business notwithstanding that aU members have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (6) That the committee shall be provided with aU the necessary staff, facUities and resources for its purposes. (7) That the committee shall have leave to sit during any adjoumment of the House notwithstanding that any such adjoumment exceeds seven days. (8) That the committee shall have power to appoint persons possessing speciaUst knowledge to assist it in an advisory capacity in its meetings and its deUberations. (9) That the committee may appoint legal counsel to assist the committee on any matter requiring legal advice. (10) That the committee shaU have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such recommendations as it may deem fit and shaU make regular reports to the House as to the progress of the proceedings of the committee. (11) That the committee shaU not sit during the sitting of the House except by leave of the House. (12) That the committee shaU be required to present a fiiU and detailed report to the House within three months of the commencement of its investigation. (13) That the foregoing provisions of this motion, so far as they may be inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. Mr SMITH: The Minister for Cortective Services, Administrative Services and Valuation has said on numerous occasions that the Queensland prison system is the best in AustraUa, if not the world. The same Minister has promised the introduction of programs to assist prisoners with their rehabiUtation, including education officers in major prisons, program officers and, a prison psychologist. The Minister has promised two new prisons to relieve the curtent overcrowding problem. The question to be addressed is reaUy how weU these proposals achieve the rehabilitating goal. The building of new prisons is, in fact, indicative of ad hoc reaction 906 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) to problems in the prison system rather than a planned consideration of management policies and practices. BuUding new prisons now wiU solve overcrowding in the short term only, and that point needs to be thoroughly understood. It is weU known inter­ nationally that ceUs wUl be fiUed if they are buUt, given the cument cUmate of longer sentences and the stronger approach to crime. There is, therefore, a need to address the question of existing overcrowding first. This National Party Govemment has shown no understanding of the criminal justice system, of which prisons are but one component. Instead of reacting to overcrowding by buUding new prisons at great expense to the State and tax-payer, a properly conceived policy would immediately reduce prison populations in tried and tested ways already operating in other States in Australia and overseas. The Queensland tax-payers are the ones who have to pay for this Govemment's lack of understanding and foresight. Let me expand on some of the reasons for overcrowding. Fine-defaulters, who are in prison mostly because they are poor, could be sent to prison only for wilfiil refiisal to pay fines. In May this year, of the 406 or so people admitted to prison in this State, 104, or about 25 per cent, were fine-defaulters. Victoria is presently in the process of testing new legislation to reduce imprisonment for fine-defaulters and it seems to me that the Govemment of Queensland—an ALP Govemment after the election later this year—should immediately address itself to that question. Mr Stephan: Have you heard of the fine option? Mr SMITH: I wiU come to that. I turn to the matter of parole. The Parole Board of Queensland is one of the most cautious in AustraUa. It could be said that it is cautious to a fault. At least 50 per cent of applicants for parole in this State are refiised parole. Because of the cost of approx­ imately $20,000 per prisoner per year, one must ask the question: Can we afford to keep prisoners for an extra six months or a year merely because the Parole Board is concerned that prisoners will reoffend on parole? IncidentaUy, recently in reply to a question that I asked in this Chamber, the Minister told me that the cost was $20,000.1 am far from convinced of that. In fact, I beUeve some costs are submerged and that the real cost could be as much as 50 per cent higher and close to $30,000. I know that that figure would embamass the Minister and I can understand his wish to cover it up. Even though those prisoners are forced to wait an extra six months or more, if they are going to reoffend they wiU do so when they are released. In other words, the six-months period will not make any difference to the prisoner but it involves an additional cost of up to $15,000. It is curious that the rates of recidivism of Queensland and New South Wales prisoners are not appreciably different. Because Queensland releases fewer prisoners on parole, Queensland's rate of recidivism among prisoners released on parole is lower—a meaningless statistic in terms of the overaU cost to the community. To encourage the granting of parole, the Queensland Govemment could have passed legislation similar to that passed in New South Wales in 1983. Under that legislation, prisoners are refiised parole only when the board has important concems. In other words, the onus or responsibility is reversed. At present, too many prisoners do not know why their parole has been refiised. Parole Board hearings are held in camera and no-one can make head or tail of them. It is very demoralising for people who want to make a new start in Ufe. The 1982-83 figures show that 67 per cent of male prisoners were refiised parole. In Queensland, unlike the practice in other States, prisoners are not given a reason for refusal of parole. The remission system could be changed to give genuine incentives to prisoners to rehabilitate themselves. At present, a prisoner might be given full remission and have only a couple of months' imprisonment to serve. If he has a disagreement with a supervisor or is involved in a small incident, he could lose aU his remissions. That practice should be changed. A more educated approach should be adopted. Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 907

The Dmgs Misuse BiU was debated recently in this Chamber. If it has not been proclaimed, it wiU soon be proclaimed. It wiU lead to increased sentences and the conviction of more prisoners. The users rather than the ones who really should be apprehended will be caught. The Labor Party abhors the increased use and trade in dmgs in AustraUa, but believes that the problem in Queensland is being tackled at the wrong end. The Mr Bigs will not be caught. The ones who will come to grief will mostly be users, who will be imprisoned for longer periods. That will not assist in their rehabiUtation. It wiU lead to an increasing number of problems in the prison system and greater use and trafficking of dmgs in prison, increased violence and, of course, overcrowding, which is the central problem. The AustraUan Institute of Criminology has forecast that before the year 2000 Queensland will have a prison system containing only Ufe-sentence prisoners. Can Queensland afford to allow that situation to develop? A Prisons Department report in 1984 found that some sections of prisons in Queensland stiU in use are below the minimum standards for prisons set by the United Nations and the Australian Institute of Criminology. That is a damning finding. The No. 2 gaol at Brisbane Prison is totaUy inadequate. The inmates have no access to fresh water, nor do they have sewerage in their cells. Townsville prison has insufficient all-weather protection for prisoners. At times, TownsviUe has a very hot climate. Townsville prison was one of the first gaols built in Queensland. It is desperately in need of renewal. A building program will be undertaken at Townsville prison with the constmction of a remand section and women's prison. That means in other words that, unless the Govemment makes a much stronger commitment to rebuilding prisons, Townsville's very outdated prison will remain in use. Most prisoners in Queensland have neither power outlets in their ceUs to enable them to watch television or to use other basic electrical appliances nor the ability to control lighting in their cells. Lights can be left on all night. Prisoners in other jurisdictions throughout Australia and overseas have control over those amenities. Those matters should be attended to before new prisons are built so that all Queensland prisons at least meet with the United Nations minimum standard guide­ lines. I have already mentioned that one of the two proposed new prisons will be situated at Lotus Glen, near Mareeba in north Queensland. That prison will be about 1 Vi hours' drive from Caims. There is no way that it can be shown that that site would be in the interest of rehabilitation of prisoners when visitation—so important for rehabUitation, in that it maintains vital contact with family and friends—will be made more difficult for most people. How many families would be able to make regular visits to that remote location and how many relationships will fail as a consequence of such ill-conceived planning? It is well known that the site was purchased through a National Party member, although sites closer to Caims were available. On Tuesday of this week I asked the Premier to name the beneficiaries of the company Izaria Pty Ltd that sold the land to the Govemment. However, the Premier denied all knowledge of the sale and denied influencing the selection of the site. Although the Premier may not have been directly involved, the local people are strongly attracted to the evidence of heavy poUtical intervention, because more suitable sites much closer to Caims were available to the Govemment. No Budget allocation has been made for those prisons unless, of course, one considers the trifling sum of $90,000 that has been allocated. Where will the money come from? Why should Queenslanders have to foot the bill for facilities that could well become white elephants? Privatisation of prisons has occumed in the red neck areas of the United States. Although that system is roundly condemned by the majority of authorities in the United States, it could well have some appeal to the National Party people in Queensland. 908 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

The Minister spoke about private enterprise building the prisons under a buy-back artangement with the Govemment. Any moves for privatisation of prisons must attract public condemnation and must not be aUowed to get off the ground in this State. It is also very important to take on board that the constmction costs of prisons are not the only costs. New prisons mean many more prison officers—again at an enormous cost—but, more importantly, at a time when prison officers of the required calibre are difficult to obtain, those at established prisons very justifiably complain of massive understaffing. The construction of a prison near Mareeba will also involve enormous costs of transport, both in the initial constmction and in the continuing costs of transporting goods and providing services to the proposed new facility. The people of Mareeba have been ignored in the planning process and no amount of bleating and grandstanding by the local National Party aspirant—I think his name is Dillmore—for the tablelands district can erase that important fact. I have visited the site of the proposed new prison and looked at it from a number of vantage points. In fact, I did not need to go onto the property. The only thing that the site has going for it is the availability of water. In all other respects it is an unsuitable site, and the figures quoted for soil types that would allow farming activities Time expired. Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (3.19 p.m.): I am not surprised that Opposition members want to speak about everything except the Budget. They speak about alleged cormption and every little thing they can think of because they know that the Budget is a good Budget and that it is difficult to shoot holes in it; so they want to speak about something else. Mr Prest: There is nothing in it to talk about. Mr BOOTH: That is what the honourable member says. In these troublesome times, there is need for restraint and a responsible Budget. That is what has been presented. This aftemoon, an honourable member said that the Budget should have been more adventurous. This is not the time for an adventurous Budget. Some quite peculiar statements have been made. Early in his response to the Budget, the Leader of the Opposition said that a lot of hidden things meant that the Budget was not balanced. Then, towards the end of his speech, he said that there was a lot of money there that was not being used. He cannot have it both ways. Mr Palaszczuk: That is not true. Mr BOOTH: The honourable member for Archerfield can make up his own mind on that. Mr Borbidge: The Leader of the Opposition said that it was an accountant's Budget, not an economist's Budget. Mr BOOTH: That is quite right. The honourable member for Bundaberg (Mr Campbell) said that it did not add up. The Opposition has not got its act together. It does not know what points to attack or what points to go along with. The Budget was well received by the media. I noted the articles by newspaper critics, watched television reviews by commentators—some good and some not so good— and listened to the radio reports on the Budget. It is one of the best received Budgets since I have been a member of this Chamber. I am not here to make any apologies for the Budget. I wiU comment on its initiatives, some big and some smaU. Some of the smaller initiatives might be more important than the big initiatives. It is all very well to say that the Budget is not balanced because the Queensland Electricity Commission has money owing. That is the user-pays principle and I see Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 909 nothing wrong with that. There is no reason why the people who use the electricity or any other services should not pay and service the interest. I am not sure what the Leader of the Opposition is on about. He talked about the fact that the Budget is not balanced. The honourable member for Bundaberg (Mr Campbell) said that it is like a householder saying, "Yes, I am OK, but I've got more money on the credit card." I do not go along with that analogy. Does the Leader of the Opposition contend that before a new hospital, school or power station is built the money has to be saved up? That is not the way business works. If the Queensland Govemment did that, Queensland would be in a predicament similar to 30 years ago when the Labor Party was in power. As long as the Queensland Govemment can meet its repayments each year on the generating stations, hospitals and schools, the Budget will be balanced. That is what has occurted. Mr Borbidge: It only takes 5 per cent of consolidated revenue. Mr BOOTH: That is right. I will not talk about what happened in New South Wales. If I made only a 5 per cent repayment in my business dealings, I would be very happy. I make no apologies for that. In my opinion, the user-pays principle is sound. Surely it is only right that the people who use new harbour facilities pay for them. The Govemment has established that principle in the Budget. The amount of money allocated to the Department of Children's Services for extra work is, to some extent, a response to public demand. It is not a huge amount of money, but it will do the job. It is only right that the department should be managed cortectly. A new Children's Services Department office will open soon in my area. Over the years, my electorate has had good service from the Toowoomba office, but the new office will improve the service and will service the surtounding towns of Clifton, AUora, Killamey, Goondiwindi and Stanthorpe. One could say that that is an example of clamouring by the public that has been successful. I am pleased that the Govemment will carry out the wishes of the people. I now tum my attention to the topic of education. The Opposition has been strangely silent up till now. It is not so many years ago that class sizes were said to be too large, along with many other things that were considered by the Opposition not to be quite right. It appears to me that most of the complaints have been resolved because not much mention has been made of class sizes or anything else. At one stage, it may have been appropriate to argue that colleges of technical and further education were not quite up to standard in respect of the availability of teachers. I understand that that problem has been resolved. A TAFE college is under constmction in my electorate. Mr Palaszczuk: Paid for by the Federal Govemment. Mr BOOTH: The Federal Govemment has paid the principal cost of constmction of the college, but it must be remembered that the State Govemm.ent acquired the land and has accepted responsibility for the provision of teaching staff, and the payment of all recurtent expenses. I am glad that the honourable member interjected because I now have the opportunity of informing the Committee of what has been done by this Govemment. Mr I. J. Gibbs: And whose taxes were they? Mr BOOTH: That is another good point. I cannot remember who said that 47 per cent of the State Budget was Federal Govemment revenue disbursement, but I must say that the Queensland Govemment expected 47 per cent of revenue disbursement, and possibly a bit more. Earlier in the debate, it was argued that the Federal leader of the National Countr>' Party (Mr Sinclair) suggested that the States should levy and collect their own taxes. I have no quartel with that suggestion. If the Federal Govemment wants the States to levy their own taxes and take responsibility for expenditure, I would 910 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) not be worried in the least. I can remember a time when the State levied and collected its own taxes. It was only during World War II, when it was considered more expedient to collect taxes on a national basis, that the States surtendered their authority for levying and collecting taxes. Mr Gygar: Surtendered it? The Federal Govemment stole it! Mr BOOTH: One could say that. I have never been sure that it was a good idea. I would be quite happy for the Queensland Govemment to accept the responsibility for the collection of taxes once more, and I think it should do so. If ever the Federal Govemment were to say to me that the States should take back responsibility for collecting taxes and I found myself in a position to do that, I would grab the opportunity with both hands. I make no apologies for the fact that the TAFE college has been built by the provision of funds from the Federal Govemment. The honourable member for AjTcherfield (Mr Palaszczuk) can rest assured that the responsibUity for providing teaching staff and for land acquisition has been shouldered by the State Govemment and that, if it had not done so, that college would not be under constmction now. I will not talk only about State Govemment schools. Non-Govemment schools have received an increase of 7 per cent. Although it could be argued that that may not be quite enough, I am sure that the non-Govemment schools would be glad to receive it. A lot of encouragement has been given to non-Govemment schools. There are a number of non-Govemment schools in my electorate and, as yet, I have not heard any complaints from them about the level of support they receive from the Government. School facility improvement assistance is provided by way of subsidies for non- Govemment schools. Off the top of my head, last year Scots CoUege at Warwick received $130,000 in interest subsidies. I can assure the Committee that that sum was grateftiUy received by the school. All honourable members would know that I Uve in a country city. I can confidently state that that school is of great assistance to the economy of Warwick. It attracts students from throughout Queensland and some of its students have gone on to become top public servants and have taken their place in high society in other parts of the State. Taking all things into consideration, it is a great privilege to have non-Govemment schools located in the electorate. I am pleased that the Govemment has seen fit to support those schools. The Opposition has attempted to denigrate the level of increase in the number of police officers. I believe that the Govemment's goal should be to provide a sufficient number of poUce officers. I do not think that areas should be aUocated more poUce officers than are needed. Mr Palaszczuk: You are a businessman: you should know that not enough police officers have been provided for in the Budget. Mr BOOTH: I wiU not admit that. It has been my experience that when a poUceman is needed, he has been available. I have always been able to get a poUceman when I needed one, and there appears to be a sufficient number of them. Mr Palaszczuk: How many extra police officers were aUocated for your electorate? Mr BOOTH: That is a good question. I do not think that any additional police officers have been assigned to my electorate. There has been very little increase in the population. Taking into account the population of my electorate, I think that the 33 police officers in the area are sufficient. If I thought extra police were needed, I would be asking for them. I have found that the policing in Warwick is adequate. For that reason I have not asked for extra police. When somebody teUs me that more police are needed and can prove to me that they are, I will endeavour to get them. A similar situation exists with nurses. The Minister for Health (Mr Austin) is always under fire. It is often asked why has he not done more for the nurses, why are there not more nurses here, there and everywhere? Running a hospital is a bit like mnning Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 911 any other business. It has to be adequately staffed but it does not have to be overstaffed. When the new nurses are put into the system I am hopeftil that one or two of the nurses—perhaps a few more than that—will go to Warwick as I beUeve it could do with some extra nurses. Moreover, I am hopeftil that the nurses wiU be spread round where they are needed. Another thing that I want to speak about is the habit that the Federal Govemment— not only the cument Federal Govemment but also previous Federal Govemments—has adopted of starting something and then opting out. Pre-school education is a classic example of that. The Federal Government started it up and it said, "We wiU do this; we will carry it on. It is a great initiative." When the time arrived for that project to be carried on, the Federal Govemment suddenly pulled the mg from under it and said, "The project has either got to cease or someone else wUl have to pick up the funding." That does not do anything for me. That is not the way to go. The Federal Govemment should look and plan into the fiiture to see where it is going, how long it can support a project such as that and make provision for it. Mr Palaszczuk: You are arguing against yourself Mr BOOTH: No, I am not arguing against myself I am talking about pre-schools and the initiatives that are required to maintain them. I would have thought that someone like the honourable member for Archerfield would be able to add up to the extent that he knows that if a pre-school project is started by the Federal Govemment, surely it would take very grave reasons why it puUs straight out of that project. Another issue that I intend to refer to is the electricity rebates for pensioners. I wiU refer to something that was said by the Federal member for Rankin (Mr BeddaU), a person who comes from the area of the honourable member for Archerfield. Mr BeddaU went on the radio A Government Member: He is a bit rank. Mr BOOTH: Yes. About a week ago on the radio he said, "Don't take any notice"— talking to the pensioners—"of the fact that you have been promised this rebate; they won't pay it." Let me look at the track record of the State Govemment to see how many promises it has broken. There are not many of them. When the rate rebate was introduced, the same stories were spread about, "Oh, they won't give you the rate rebate". But the Govemment did. I beUeve that that rate rebate has been accepted very gladly and very weU by the pensioners of this State. Mr Borbidge: Some of the councUs tried to take the credit for it. Mr BOOTH: Some of the counciUors tried to take the credit, I suppose. They were not able to get away with that. In the present Budget the maximum amount allowed has been increased. Mr Davis: They haven't got it yet. Mr BOOTH: No, but they wUl, and they wiU vote accordingly. The honourable member for Brisbane Central can be assured that when election day comes the best battlers that the Govemment will have out on the hustings wiU be the pensioners. The pensioners will vote for the National Party because they know that this Govemment delivers. They also know that the Govemment will talk to them. If pensioners have something to talk about to the Government, the Government is always open to talk. The same can be said for all members of the Cabinet. WhUe the member for Brisbane Central is on the subject, I will inform him of the access that is avaUable to Ministers and back-benchers. I cannot recollect that I have ever failed to get an appointment for anyone—pensioner or otherwise—with a Minister. Mr Davis: Because you are an old tory and you have got tory Ministers. Mr BOOTH: The honourable member should not talk mbbish like that. It does not matter where the people come from. The honourable member for South Brisbane 912 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) can bring into me two or three of his mates and they will be given an appointment. The honourable member does not try. If he cannot get an appointment for people it is because he does not try. This Govemment is where it is because it has always beUeved in access to the Cabinet, access to the Premier and access to the back-bencher. That is why the Labor Party has no chance of defeating the Govemment and that is also why it wiU be swept out of Opposition. After the demise of the Whitlam Govemment, the Opposition in this place had only 11 members. After the next State election, if the Opposition wants to take part in a cricket match, the Govemment will have to lend it a 12th man. In fact, I do not think it wiU have even 11. Because my time is mnning out, I want to pass on to one or two other things. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr BOOTH: I am glad that the member for Archerfield mentioned my opponent at the forthcoming election. She has never before been heard of in the political field. In fact, I did not even know that she still Uved in Warwick. Although I had met her once, I was not sure she stiU lived in the electorate. After the election, she will never be heard of again. Mr Littleproud: I think you wiU be right. Mr BOOTH: I think so. I wish to deal with Medicare. As there has been so much conflict over Medicare fiinding, one would think that the figures could be pursued through the Federal Budget papers and one could find out without any trouble what has happened. However, if one does pursue those papers, one has a job to find out what payments have been made to the States. Certainly no reason whatsoever is given for the lack of information. Because the Federal Budget cannot be overlooked, during this debate it has been mentioned a great deal, along with the economy of this nation, which mbs off on the economy of this State. Mr Davis: I will give you credit for one thing, Mr Booth. At least these are your own words, not like some of your spineless back-bench coUeagues. Mr BOOTH: I ask the honourable member not to waste my time with that. I want to say something about the Federal Govemment, because I believe that many economists in the Federal sphere are either inexperienced or not watching the results. Throughout the drift in the economy, there was the idea that the doUar coiUd be propped up by high interest rates. There is an old saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and high interest rates certainly have not done much to prop up the dollar. I do not think they ever will. What will prop up the doUar is an improvement in Australia's balance of payments. The only way that can happen is to provide more incentives to the people whose work contributes to the economy. Because some other members have cited figures that certainly do not appear to tie in with figures contained in the Federal Budget, I wish to read the following from the Federal Budget— "Official estimates of Australia's extemal debt are not yet avaUable beyond end-December 1985. It is clear, however, that due to overseas bomowings in 1985- 86, and to a lesser extent valuation effects from the depreciation of the Australian dollar, Australia's gross and net extemal debt would have increased substantially through the year. On provisional Treasury estimates, Australia's gross extemal debt increased from $68.7 biUion or 33 per cent of GDP at end-June 1985 to around $86 bUlion or 37 per cent of GDP at end-June 1986." That is a decent sort of a hike in 12 months. The Budget continues— "Over the same period, Australia's net extemal debt is estimated to have risen from $51.4 biUion or 25 per cent of GDP to around $66 bUlion or 28 per cent of GDP. Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 913

Australia's official reserve assets declined from $13.5 bUUon at end-June 1985 to $13.0 billion at end-June 1986. Balance of payments transactions reduced reserves by $2.1 bUlion; this decrease was primarily on account of the funding of the Commonwealth Govemment's foreign exchange requirements and the Reserve Bank's testing and smoothing transactions in the foreign exchange market, partly offset by interest on official reserve assets. The depreciation of the AustraUan dollar and movements in the price of gold added $1.6 billion to the Australian doUar value of reserves. Australia's official reserve assets when measured in $US terms at end-June 1986 were $US8.8 bilUon, compared with $US9.0 bilUon at end-June 1985, a decrease of $US0.2 bUlion; in SDR terms the decrease was SDR 1.5 biUion." What I am about to read is the really interesting part of the Budget— "Over the course of 1985-86 the AustraUan doUar depreciated by 13.4 per cent on a trade-weighted basis. The cumency depreciated by 27 per cent against the deutschemark, 14 per cent against sterling and 33 per cent against the yen, against a significantly weaker US dollar, it appreciated by 1.8 per cent (Chart 12). The year was characterized by two bouts of particular weakness"— these are the ones that puUed the mg out from under the Hawke Govemment— "in November 1985 and June 1986, continuing into July. These faUs appeared to reflect concems about the cument account deficit and some uncertainty about the future course of Australian economic poUcy and prospects against the background of deteriorating commodity markets and Australia's relatively high inflation rate." It wiU take a great deal of work to rectify this nation's balance of payments problem. It may not be impossible, but it wiU be very difficult. It has been stated that the way to improve the balance of payments position is through secondary industry. I am not sure that that is so. Despite the fact that the agricultural industry has had trouble with prices and overseas markets, the industry should be carefully monitored because Australia is principally an agricultural nation. Things may improve. Govemments should be seeking ways to improve the viability of this nation's agricultural industry. I tum to interest rates. Pushing up interest rates to prop up the dollar appears to be futile. The cure seems to be worse than the disease. Mr Davis: What do you want to do? Let the dollar go right down? Mr BOOTH: It would be far better to float the doUar and see what happens. It may not decrease in value much further. Interest rates must be lowered so that people can start working again. Young people who are trying to increase primary production are finding it fairly difficult with the curtent interest rates. Mr Davis: Why? Mr BOOTH: Because interest rates are just too high. The highest interest rates that a farmer can afford to pay and still remain viable are about seven or eight per cent. Mr Davis: You get all the interest taken off your tax. What are you complaining about? Mr BOOTH: One still has to make a profit. If all the ideas of the honourable member for Brisbane Central are as good as that, I do not doubt that Yellow Cabs would have been glad to get rid of him. Mr Lee: Interest rates at present are too high for any business. Mr BOOTH: I confined my remarks to agriculture. It might be all right for a person who mns a j^xi-cab Mr Lee: He short-changes them on the gaUonage. 914 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

Mr BOOTH: I will leave it at that. I will deal with a couple of matters that are either not contained in the Budget or are weU hidden. My comments relate to agriculture. I am glad that the Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Tumer) is in the Chamber. I believe that completely different crops should be considered. Perhaps the priorities of the Primary Industries Department could be reamanged in order to attract plant-breeders to the State to consider new crops. Over the years events have probably caused people to think that the crops that have already been developed are the only ones that can be developed. I am not sure that that is so. Money ought to be aUocated to investigating completely new crops. Mr Turner: Kenaf up in the Burdekin. Mr BOOTH: That is being considered. There is a research station in my area. I would Uke to see some of the plant-breeders from that research station given the time to investigate new crops. During my time as a member of Parliament—indeed, during my whole Ufetime— dryland pasture has never been developed for the temperate zone. The same appUes to New South Wales. A sensible and suitable dryland pasture has never been developed. If it were, it would be worth milUons of doUars to this State. This State has used natural pastures. However, in recent years, natural pastures have gone backwards. I do not think that natural pastures respond to fertilisation as weU as people think they do. Mr Lee: Buffel grass has gone a long way towards it. Mr BOOTH: In the westem areas buffel grass has certainly helped, but it has not been much help in my area. It is not quite as good in areas where there are heavy frosts. New priorities should be set. Mr Davis: I agree with you. There is a lot of stuff that we could seU to India that we could grow here. Mr BOOTH: I am not sure of that, but the honourable member for Brisbane Central has just fixed up all of Queensland's problems. I have always worried a little about our plant-breeding program, because Queensland needs newer crops. I am worried also about the crops Queensland cumently grows. It is possible that perhaps insufficient money is being aUocated for the breeding of wheat, barley, oats and so on. Queensland has pulled out of oat-breeding, which, because of the present state of the agricultural industry, seems crazy to me. The cattle industry is about the only industry that is doing well. More should have been done either to breed new varieties of oats or to consider the varieties of American oats that are avaUable. About 12 years ago, one of our plant-breeders, Dr Rose, introduced new oat varieties into Queensland from the United States of America. Dr Rose did not breed those varieties, but he did introduce them. They were a big help to Queensland's oat varieties. Most of the varieties of Queensland's crops need to be updated, as they have slipped back somewhat. For that reason serious consideration should be given to improving the oat-breeding program. I am a dairy-farmer. Therefore, I grow oats. It would not surprise me if there were as much oats planted in Queensland next year as any other crop. The area under oats might surpass that under any other crop. In recent days some prominent people in this State have said they intend not to grow any more crops. I am one of the mugs who has been trying to do that as well. Queensland will have to look at other crops, and I believe that oat-breeding is very important. It is also important to continue to improve our barley and wheat varieties, because they may yet be needed. A disaster may occur in another country that destroys its crops. Australia needs to have sufficient crops for its own use and its export markets. Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 915

Mr Davis: What about chick-peas? Mr BOOTH: When chick-peas were first grown, it was thought that they would be a good crop, but I am not convinced. I now comment on two matters raised by the member for TownsvUle (Mr Smith). In regard to the Dmgs Misuse Bill, he said, "We will not catch any of the Mr Bigs. We will only catch the users." The first thing I say is that, if there were no users, there would not be any Mr Bigs. If Australia is really fair dinkum about ridding itself of dmgs, it would introduce a better education system into the schools. I beUeve that has started. I do not see any way to avoid penalising the users. The other matter he raised related to the Parole Board. It costs a lot of money to keep a person in prison, and certainly no-one should be kept in prison beyond the defined time. He said, "Can we afford to keep people in prison?" Perhaps the other question to be considered is, "Can we afford not to?" Society has to know that Australia is fair dinkum. I am quite happy with the Parole Board. The only problem I am aware of is that some people find it difficult to lodge papers. There should be greater access to lodge papers. I began my speech by saying that it is a well-balanced Budget. I stiU believe that. Time expired. Mr GYGAR (Stafford) (3.49 p.m.): The State Budget for this year has been a great disappointment in many areas. It has faUed to reduce pay-roU tax, so that once again more businesses will be paying pay-roll tax than there were 12 months ago. The Budget has failed to provide any relief from the extortionate charges imposed by the Queensland Govemment on small business. The nebulous and still not yet fully explained electricity benefit for pensioners and the failure to revise rail freight charges for Queensland's stmggling mines are a great disappointment. It has been said that if the Budget is the best that the Govemment can do in an election year, the State is in more trouble than most people suspect. The Govemment has failed to address many areas in the Budget. Two matters on which I shall speak briefly before passing on to other subjects are health and police— two recognised problem areas in which the Govemment has done virtually nothing. As to health—the Govemment, with great fanfare, announced the employment of an additional 550 hospital staff—not 550 nurses as Govemment members have been suggesting. However, by the Govemment's own admission, that increase has been provided only to meet the needs arising from population increase and new facUities coming on stream. In fact, the Govemment makes it plain that there is to be no relief for nursing work-loads in this State and no real increase in the number of nurses employed this year by the Govemment. The Minister for Health is the only person who does not recognise that a nursing crisis is looming in this State. The Govemment cannot maintain its head-in-the-sand attitude on that issue. The Govemment seems unwilling to face the facts. Its unwillingness to face reality is exemplified on page 109 of the document titled Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure, in which the salaries and wages of hospital staff are shown clearly. It shows that last year the Govemment expended $548.7m on salaries and wages and this year the estimate for salaries and wages is $5 82.6m. That represents an increase of 6.1 per cent in wages for the whole of the hospital system for one year. This moming, the Minister provided some figures in answer to a question. Out of a $33.9m increase, $ 13.7m will be required to pay for the 550 new staff, leaving only $20.2m, which is a real rise of only 3.6 per cent in salaries and wages for this year. Anyone who puts his signature to that document either lives in Fairyland or is engaging in an exercise of deliberate deceit. The Govemment surely must be aware of the recent court decisions in the southem States granting increases in the salaries of nurses. Any reasonable and rational Govemment would have acknowledged that sigiufi- cant increases in the wages of nurses and terms and conditions of employment were 916 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) inevitable in this State this year. However, provision is made for an increase of only 3.6 per cent in salaries for this year. That will be taken up inevitably by the creep effect of other wages and of additional staff who are required for increasing technological services. The Budget freezes salaries in Queensland's hospital system. That is so unrealistic as to border on the irtesponsible. The real attitude of the Queensland Govemment towards nursing staff and similar issues was summed up in the answer given by the Minister for Health in reply to a question asked in the Chamber yesterday. I could not believe the answer that the Minister gave to one of the usual pre-written Dorothy Dix questions to which honourable members have become accustomed. Mr Innes: Dorothy Neal? Mr GYGAR: No, it was Dorothy Clauson. With great willingness to oblige, the member for Redlands asked the Minister a question that he was not at all surprised to be asked. The Minister then proceeded to tip buckets on the Liberal Party's nursing policy. With the Minister for Health one can always tell when one has hit a raw nerve; one receives a violent reaction similar to the gross untmths that he told in this Chamber and the deliberate deceit in which he engaged, and which he was forced to withdraw, following a mUng given by Mr Speaker this moming. The Minister said that there were inconsistencies in the Liberal Party's health policy. The Minister was highly critical of the Liberal Party for suggesting that in the next three years it would be necessary to train 2 000 additional nurses. He said that the Liberal Party proposed that the cheapest and most cost-effective way of bringing new nurses on stream in this State was to retrain nurses who had left the work-force. The Minister was very upset by that, saying that they would not be necessary. It was not until this moming that the Minister for Education finally revealed the Govemment's tme position on nurse education. The Minister for Education said quite bluntly that nursing education in Queensland would not move into tertiary institutions and that one could not see any logic in the argument advanced by the Minister for Health. The Minister fails to recognise that Queensland's system of nurse education must be moved into the college-based system; otherwise, the nurses of Queensland wiU be regarded as second-class citizens and their qualifications will not be recognised outside the State. If that occurs, the brain drain from Queensland will become a stampede. No- one with a serious long-term commitment to nursing will want to waste his or her time studying in Queensland if the qualifications obtained will not be worth the paper they are written on. However, the arrogant Minister for Health and the Minister for Education think that they can sweep the matter under the carpet. Unless the Govemment wants to drag this State kicking and screaming back into the days of Florence Nightingale, an increase in the number of nurses in this State wiU be required to take up the slack that will result when trainee nurses move out of the hospital system and into tertiary institutions—as they must. Queensland will have either a second-class system with second-class nurses and second-class qualifications or a system of which the people of Queensland can be proud and can have confidence in. The Govemment cannot have it both ways. The Ministers are not only doing^the people of Queensland and the nursing profession a grave disservice, they also do a grave disservice to the National Party, because their actions indicate that there are troglodytes and fools who make the policy decisions. That state of affairs cannot continue. Queensland must move ahead at the same rate as the other States, or it will be left behind in a backwater in which the only nurses who wiU be employed within the Queensland hospital system will be those who cannot obtain employment or training in other States. The people of Queensland deserve better. Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 917

I tum now to the plastic, transparent statement that was made in relation to the Govemment's commitment to the stamping-out of chUd abuse. That statement was made only one and a half weeks after the Minister for Health and Environment ordered the closure of the Jefferis-Tumer Matemal and Child Welfare Home in Ipswich. That home was a place where mothers who anticipated problems with their children and where people who thought there might be a prospect of child abuse could go to obtain qualified counseUing, treatment and support before any child abuse took place. Although the Govemment claims that it is serious about stamping out child abuse, it closes down one of the most valuable facilities in Queensland. That home was not established for the treatment of children who had been abused but did excellent work in endeavouring to prevent child abuse in the first place. Its closure resulted in the abolition of preventive medicine in relation to child abuse. The Budget is also a grave disappointment in relation to the provision of additional police. An additional 281 police are provided for in the Budget. However, there are qualifications. The Budget papers state that 100 of that number will be provided on account of the population growth in 1986-87—in other words, no real increase. We are just paddling furiously to stay where we are. Of the total of 281 additional police to be provided, 81 represent a forward commitment against population growth in 1987-88. A great deal of debate has taken place in relation to the meaning of the term "forward commitment against population growth". Are those additional police going to be provided, or not? The remaining 100 of that total of 281 will be a special advance against future population growth, to enable additional officers to be trained to meet the needs of Expo 88. In other words, those 100 officers will not be available for the general policing of this State; they will be allocated specifically to meet the needs of Expo 88. Therefore, the maximum number of additional police that Queensland will receive will be approximately 181. That occurs at a time when police manpower levels are so low that the Police Commissioner has found it necessary to seek publicity on the front pages of the daily newspapers by begging the Govemment to provide at least an additional 500 police so that the police force can keep pace with the soaring crime rate. Honourable members would agree that it is a credit to the police force in Queensland that the crime clear-up rate is keeping pace with that in other States. Here again, Queensland has a Govemment that goes out on the highways and byways and preaches law and order and shouts law and order from the roof-tops, yet this State has a soaring crime rate. The Govemment refuses to acknowledge the request of its own police commissioner—the man whom it appointed as the best man to head the police. He is begging on the front pages of the daily papers for police manpower to take care of soaring crime rates in this State. No wonder the Budget is a disappointment. All honourable members have to do is to pick up the papers and look at the crime rate. A few weeks ago, an ironic story featured in the Gold Coast Bulletin, in which someone advertised a new housing estate. The big seUing point of the housing estate was that it had very high waUs around it that nobody could get over. It was said that security guards would patrol the streets aU the time and, because of television surveillance, nobody could get in. It was, in effect, a fortress. What an indictment upon this Govemment, when purveyors of housing estates can use as a selUng point the fact that they can give the occupants the security that the police of Queensland are totally unable to provide. That is on the Gold Coast where, strangely enough, the Govemment members who represent the area have been absolutely silent. The Gold Coast is one of the fastest- growing areas in the State. It has all National Party representation at the moment, and so is an area in which one would think people could get some action. However, in Nerang, which is an area that intemational statistics recognise should have 30 policemen, there are only five policemen. That is not good enough. The thousands of Queenslanders who are having their homes broken into, their cars stolen and who are fearful to walk on the street have had enough of the Govemment, which talks a lot but does absolutely nothing about law and order. 918 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) Is there any member in this Chamber who has not had his home broken into or does not know someone who has had his home broken into in the last two years? I note that three honourable members are indicating that they know no-one who had his house broken into. I would suggest that the honourable member for Mount Gravatt merely indicates how little he moves in the community because he lives in an area that has one of the highest crime rates in the State. He obviously knows nothing about the people whom he is supposed to represent in this House. Mr Davis: Someone who knows someone. Mr GYGAR: I know someone who says he knows someone who voted for the National Party at the last election, but even he will not vote that way at the next election. Such people are getting harder to find. I must pay a compliment to two members of the Govemment who have raised issues of vital importance to this State. I refer to the honourable member for Toowong (Mr Bailey) and the honourable member for Southport (Mr Jennings). The honourable member for Toowong raised the Dart Street issue, in which he accused the deputy mayor of Brisbane of being involved in cormption. "Cormption" is a dreadfiil word—it is not one that I would use—to use about Govemments of any variety, but it was raised by the honourable member for Toowong and it deserves to be addressed. I am delighted to have the opportunity to address it in the Chamber this aftemoon because it allows a very clear analogy to be drawn between the way Liberals in office handle such issues and the way that the National Party handles them. Regrettably, I have to set the story straight because, in his enthusiasm to launch a bitter, vindictive and petty personal attack against Alderman Beanland, who by mere coincidence happens to be the honourable member's opponent in the next election, the honourable member for Toowong became so carried away with his enthusiasm that he neglected to state a couple of very pertinent facts. One of the pertinent facts that he did not state was that Dart Street is not in the ward of the deputy mayor. Alderman Beanland; it is in the ward next door. However, never being one to allow the tmth interfere with a good story, the honourable member for Toowong proceeded to talk as though there was some nefarious deal that went on because some approval was not advertised. UnUke the rezoning approval of the National Party headquarters, which should under the town plan have been advertised and was not, what the honourable member for Toowong was referring to was a building approval, which did not have to be advertised. I wondered why the honourable member for Toowong became so upset and excited about the fact that it was not advertised. Of course, there is no requirement for it to be advertised. The honourable member said that a three-storey house would be imposed upon a street occupied by unwilling persons because the owner of the site Mr Lickiss: A three-storey building. Mr GYGAR: The honourable member said it was a three-storey building, having forgotten, of course, that the building was a house. It must be remembered that this is a house among other houses, and honourable members will draw the distinction between that constmction and the five-storey office block constmction that the National Party wants to erect. Mr Lickiss: It is a nine-storey building. Mr GYGAR: That is even worse in an area in which nothing over three-storeys has previously been erected. Honourable members might like to be aware that the legal experts have said that the constmction will contain three storeys because technically the garages wiU count as a storey, despite the fact that the garage will be constmcted in an area that has been excavated from the slope. The fact of the matter is that the house is a dual-level constmction that has been built into the slope. Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 919

Far from it being the case as suggested by the honourable member for Toowong, the owners of the site are not members of Alderman Beanland's campaign committee; in fact, they are not even members of the Liberal Party. The honourable member may be surprised to leam that the objectors—the people who Uve in Dart Street and who objected to the proposal—were long-standing members of the Liberal Party and were supported by Alderman Beanland, who is another member of the Liberal Party who did not want the constmction to take place. In fact, it did take place; it was constmcted. Why could that have been the case? Good heavens—cormption? I am understandably becoming confused because the honourable member for Toowong said that the deputy mayor was cormpt because he opposed the proposal that no-one accepted, but which became an eventuality in any case. I inform the Committee that it happened because the chief building surveyor surveyed the plan, approved it and made a recommendation. The planning section surveyed the plan, approved it and made a recommendation. The planning poUcy advisory committee of the Brisbane City Council, despite the objections made by members of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Party's deputy mayor, still aUowed a proper and appropriate plan, recommended by the bureaucracy, to be approved and proceed to constmction. One could contrast that set of circumstances with the circumstances that occumed in respect of the headquarters of the National Party. The locals were given no opportunity to object and there was no participation in proceedings before the Local Govemment Court. Because the National Party and its friends wanted it to happen, it happened by virtue of a ministerial rezoning. Ministerial rezoning is an extraordinarily unusual procedure. Mr Henderson: What about the bug at City HaU? Mr GYGAR: I am afraid that the honourable member is searching desperately for a red herring. What I am talking about is a ministerial rezoning. The Govemment says that there is nothing wrong at all with rezoning of the site owned by the National Party to allow it to quickly make a few hundred thousand dollars on the side. The Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing (Mr Hinze) explained that it was aU entirely proper. The paid officers of the Department of Local Govemment, whose salaries are provided by the tax-payers of Queensland, out of the goodness of their hearts took on board this wonderfiil development. They took it to the Brisbane City CouncU and told the councU that it would happen anyway. If that is considered to be fair enough, then OK. The next time I require a rezoning carried out, I wonder whether the Department of Local Govemment, acting for the State Government of Queensland, will provide me with a free advisory service and with officers who wiU caU on the Brisbane City Council and persuade it that the rezoning ought to be carried out. I wonder whether those officers would carry that brief to the Brisbane City Council and then inform the council that it would happen anyway. Is it any wonder that clouds of odour arise over that organisation. Mr Innes: Assisted along the path by a Labor Lord Mayor. Mr GYGAR: It is alleged that the Labor Lord Mayor was involved 12 months before it was approved and had given it the nod. I do not think anyone would doubt the levels to which the AustraUan Labor Party would sink when it is in power. What I am talking about is carrying briefs for special interest groups. It involves two accusations. The first is that at the moment in Queensland, there are two classes of citizens: the friends of the National Party, and the rest of the population who catch-as- catch-can. When special classes of citizens can be identified, the appropriate name for it is "carrying a brief. If there is anything literaUy cortect about that saying, it was this appalUng rezoning of the headquarters of the National Party to provide that political party with a benefit of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Department of Local Govemment, fiinded by the tax-payer, picked up the brief and did all the negotiations and all the paper work: but, of course, there is nothing wrong with that. 920 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

If nothing is wrong with that, I invite the Govemment to offer the same free advisory service to everybody else in this city who wants a rezoning that he knows the city councU would not aUow under the town plan. I am sure that many people would love to be able to buy a piece of land under one zoning and then ask their mates to carry the brief and say, "Don't worry about a thing. We will rezone it for you and you can make a profit of hundreds of thousands of doUars." Of course, honourable members opposite say that nothing is wrong with that; that it is quite all right; that the Local Govemment Department, by implication, must do that for everyone. I look forward to another 30-storey building being buUt for the Local Govemment Department to handle aU the people who will carry briefs for everybody else in this State with the same enthusiasm as they carried the brief for the National Party of Australia—Queensland and its profit-makers in the background. I am not alone in being concemed about odours that might arise from the actions of this Govemment. One member of this Pariiament, by his actions and his courage, has shown that he must be Ustened to when he raises issues. I refer, of course, to the honourable member for Southport. Has anyone else in this Chamber been prepared to sacrifice his political career rather than to stand quiet when cormption is unveiled? The honourable gentleman deserves to be listened to. He has raised a number of issues in this Chamber. I suggest that honourable members now listen to the words of the honourable member for Southport. I will use his words, not mine. He is a member of the National Party, a member with a proven track record of being able to sniff out cormption and, with a fearless eye, pick it up as it goes past. It is a matter of some regret that, with age and the crossing of the border, the honourable member's eyesight is faltering and his sense of smeU grows less. Nonetheless, he stiU covers the issues. I mention a couple of those issues. Firstly, there was the Sea World scandal and the Keith Williams affair. Honourable members would be aware that that started on 29 June 1979 when Mr Williams was appointed as the chairman of the Gold Coast Waterways Authority. At that stage, even the local newspapers, when reporting it, saw fit to put at the bottom of the story— "Footnote: In April this year. Sea Worid paid $25,000 to the National Party's Bjelke-Petersen Foundation" Mr AHERN: I rise to a point of order. I was wondering how the honourable member for Stafford relates this to the Budget, which is curtently before the Committee. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr RandeU): Order! I have been Ustening carefiilly to the honourable member's speech and I think he is skating around the edges. I would Uke his speech to relate in some way to the Budget. Mr GYGAR: I am relating this to the propriety of the conduct of the finances of this State, which is what the Budget is aU about. On the subject of finances—the finances of the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation benefited by the sum of $25,000, according to the Gold Coast Bulletin, for Mr Williams to dine privately with the Premier. What did the member for Southport (Mr Jennings) think of that activity when Mr Keith WiUiams was reappointed to the Gold Coast Waterways Authority? Mr Doug Jennings described the decision as most unfomnate and unwise. Mr Jennings accused Mr Williams of having a conflict of interest. Does anyone else say any more or less than that? Mr Jennings, a member of the National Party, tags this Govemment with being sullied by confUcts of interest. On the Gold Coast, Mr Jennings and the National Party went so far as to pubUcly call on the National Party to sack Mr Williams because of his conflict of interest. When a man with the proven integrity of Mr Jennings is saying such things, is it any wonder that problems exist in this State? Is it any wonder also that, in reference to the Lindeman Island deal, Mr Jennings, according to a report in the Gold Coast Bulletin, condemned the sale as a special deal to a particular group that had set a precendent for other special deals? An honourable man—a man with a track record—says these things about his own Govemment. Is it any wonder that disquiet is in the land? Mr Jennings also said Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 921 that, when public land is involved, there can be no doubt about the propriety of the transaction. I entirely support Mr Jennings's statements. I also support the foUowing statement from the Gold Coast Bulletin— "... there can be no doubting Mr Jennings' political courage." Further, on the Lindeman Island scandal, Mr Jennings said— ".. .the Lindeman thing was a precedent I couldn't have lived with and I'm quite sure the party couldn't have Uved with." Hear, hear! Mr Henderson: Do you reckon we should send him up to City HaU now? Mr GYGAR: No. All I teU the honourable member is that the National Party should start listening to Mr Jennings, because when he says that there are vested interests, an odour of corruption and problems in his own Govemment Mr Littleproud: You are making innuendoes. Mr GYGAR: All right, I will not make any innuendoes: I wiU teU the honourable member about the cormption in the Queensland Govemment. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Randell): Order! I ask that there be no cross-firing in the Chamber and that the honourable member address the Chair. Mr GYGAR: Very well, Mr Randell. I am delighted, through you, to speak about cormption in Queensland, in particular the Blake affair, which this Govemment has tried to shove under the carpet for nearly two and a half years. This scandal commenced in March 1984, when a person defalcated on his insurance accounts. He was a licensed insurance-broker, a tmstee under the terms of the Tmsts Act, a prominent member of the National Party, a candidate for the National Party and a person with whom the Premier was pleased to appear in advertisements. The Premier stood up and said, "I support this man." The problems with Mr Blake's accounts were first detected in March 1984. In fact, what later emerged was that shortages of up to $120,000 had been criminally misappro­ priated. On 31 December 1984 the Insurance Commissioner was so concemed about the issue that he wrote to Mr Blake demanding answers to questions that had been raised. Because honourable members in this Chamber did not believe that the Govemment could be so bad as to ignore such blatant acts of iUegaUty and to cover them up, we kept quiet about the issue. Regrettably, we were wrong. On 3 September the matter was first raised in the House. On 4 September it was again raised. This time, in answer to a specific question, the Minister for Police replied— "I have been informed that a complaint was received conceming an alleged offence of false pretences involving one Patrick Blake, and this complaint is still the subject of a police investigation by members of the Fraud Squad." On 4 September 1985 the Fraud Squad was involved. Perhaps one of the members of the Govemment could explain why it is that the Fraud Squad stiU has not got round to interviewing the people who made the complaints or to talking to the people who took over the firm to try to rescue it for the poor premium-payers who had been left in the lurch by Mr Blake and who had all of his books. Perhaps members of the Govemment could explain why, when the Insurance Commissioner by reputation and by deed has shown that he is not reluctant to prosecute people for breaches of the Insurance Act for failing to lodge retums, he has failed to take any action against Mr Blake. Why is it that Mr Blake has apparently stiU not received any visits from the poUce force? Why is it that the Govemment has refused to answer those questions? Why is it that there has been no investigation of that fraud when, quite clearly, if Govemment members had cared to glance at the table of this Chamber on 4 September 1985, they would have seen tabled an extract of Dun's Gazette, which showed that MercantUe Mutual Insurance Ltd had taken action against Patrick Blake for more than $5,000 in premiums that had 922 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) disappeared? Those were premiums that remained unpaid by a tmstee, a registered insurance-broker, with a legal obligation under the Insurance Act to pay those amounts. Mr Comben: Why did Mrs Blake go on television and say, "The Premier knows aU about my husband's dealings," when it was raised in the House? Mr GYGAR: I did not see that. If the Premier has been involved in this, I suggest to honourable members opposite that an odour will continue to sumound this Govemment and that question? will be asked of the Govemment for as long as criminals with National Party corfnections are not investigated by the poUce, for as long as Govemment agencies such as the Insurance Commissioner do not take action against them and for as long as Government quangos, such as the former SGIO, pay back the premiums and try to hide what has occumed. Time expired. Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (4.19 p.m.): I have pleasure in joining this debate. It would be constmctive if I were to get away from the sorts of things the Committee has heard for the last 30 minutes. There is no doubt that people's personal finances, the finances of the State and the finances of this nation are mainly determined by the way the national economy is mn. The Federal Govemment, through income tax, sales tax and tariffs, collects the major share of taxation revenue. It must be conceded that the State Govemments can either complement a good Federal Budget or try to compensate for one that has many shortcomings. The 1986-87 Queensland Budget attempts to do the latter. It attempts to compensate for a Budget that wiU make things extremely difficult for the nation, the State Govemments and individuals. It must be bome in mind that national export eamings are extremely low. The Australian dollar has declined in value. In the last 12 months the doUar has depreciated by something like 30 per cent. The private sector is completely over-taxed. In its last Budget, the Federal Govemment increased taxation by $1.5 billion. It must be remembered that Queensland's share of the taxation from the Federal Budget was down 26 per cent. In addition, in recent years Queensland has been demonstrably short-changed by $362m. That is evidenced by speeches made by the Minister for Education, the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing and the Minister for Health and Environment. It is on that basis that the Queensland Budget was framed. The purpose of the Budget is to maintain Govemment services and to provide a framework for a profitable private sector. Working on a 7 per cent increase in State receipts and nU growth in the public service, Govemment services are being held steady. However, in welfare services, which has a greater need as a result of the downtum in the national economy, an increase in funding has taken place. That is to be congratulated. If this nation is to puU itself out of its recession, it is essential that the private sector be stimulated. I will mention some of the initiatives taken in Queensland's Budget to do so. They include pay-roll tax adjustments, an extension of the apprenticeship schemes, investments in technology, technology parks and other developments associated with technology. For example, $600,000 has been granted for consultancy subsidies and $185,000 has been granted to the Queensland Science and Technology Council. The Small Business Development Corporation has been granted a 30 per cent increase in funds. The Queensland Industry Development Corporation has been given a $50m grant and, of course, a brief to give venture capital to those parts of industry that would not usually obtain capital from the private banks for mral reconstmction and other activities. That brings me to the excellent work that has been carried out in recent months by officers of the department of the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology (Mr Ahem). Those officers have travelled throughout the west. The local business people Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 923 have been most appreciative of the advice given to them by those officers on revamping and redirecting the enterprises that they are undertaking. In fact, in the last couple of months a co-operative store in Chinchilla has had a major revamp, to good effect. The Queensland Govemment realises that, if there is to be real growth—and I emphasise the word "real"—it has to be in the private sector, in the productive sector. In recent years the Govemment has had a good track record. In the 1960s and 1970s the Govemment recognised that the way to expand was through mining and farming. Approximately $ 1,000m a year was being spent on the infrastmcture and devel­ opment of new mines. Farming was pushed west of the grain belt to the westem downs, out as far as Roma and Mitchell—almost to Augathella. Yesterday, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs (Mr Lester) spoke about the tremendous development in the Central Highlands. The 1980s has seen a downtum in mining and agriculture. The Govemment has tried to compensate for that by accentuating tourism. It is interesting to note that 40 per cent of all the major tourism projects under way at present are taking place in Queensland. The Budget has provided special funding for research into recreational fishing. I am aware also of the prawn-farming research work being done in the Bribie Island region. The Govemment has a commitment to technology. It realises that there is not much chance of making a success of the old-style secondary industries. The honourable member for Warwick (Mr Booth) spoke about that. The future Ues with the introduction of new technology. The Govemment is ensuring that funds are made available for that purpose. I mention also that the Govemment has directed considerable energy towards making trade contacts with China. It would appear that that will pay dividends. Mr Davis: Years ago they didn't want to talk with China. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I would rather live for today, thank you. I wish to compare the action taken by this State Govemment, through its Budget, in attempting to stimulate the private sector with the actions of a Socialist Govemment and the strategy it would adopt. Socialist Govemments like to intmde into the various activities of a society. The Federal Govemment is a good example of this. It has intmded into health and employment. I make particular mention of employment, because the Queensland Govemment is trying to assist with apprenticeships and create profitability in order that the private sector can employ people. The altematives under a SociaUst Govemment are CEP and CES. The Priority One phone-in was just so much razzamatazz and propaganda. It was revealed that it cost $100 for every phone caU that was received from the young people in AustraUa. I was alarmed to discover that the cost of providing jobs through CES amounted to $23,000 per job placement. This is unbelievably inefficient. The Federal Govemment claims that in three years it has provided 600 000 new jobs. Two comments can be made about that statement. I note that the Confederation of Industry asked who provided those jobs, because the majority of them went into the private sector. I refer also to the definition of "employment". We can talk about "jobs" and we can talk about "employment". A "job" is considered to be a fiiU-time job of 35 to 40 hours a week, but the term "employment", as defined by the ACTU and the ILO, means that as long as a person has some kind of work to do for two or three hours a week, it is considered to be employment. I am told that many of these 600 000 employment opportunities are in fact only very short in terms of employment during the week. I cite some examples of what private enterprise has achieved under the framework laid down by successive National Party Govemments in Queensland. I wiU list some of the projects completed in 1985, as follows: the Kidston Gold Mine, $138m and one of 924 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) the top earners in Australia; the Mica Creek Power Station, $50m; the Stradbroke mineral sands operation, $26m; natural gas liquids recovery plant in the Wallumbilla area near Roma, $ 12.4m; the Wivenhoe Dam—a marvellous world-class engineering achievement— $i62m. The list of other projects that are committed or finalised goes on and on. It includes the kaolin plant at Weipa, $45m; the softwood sawmill near Maryborough, $ 14.4m; the steel rolling mUl at Brisbane, $40m, and so on. Mr Veivers: What about gates at the Wivenhoe Dam? Mr LITTLEPROUD: They will go there. There have always been problems. Those who dare finally succeed. I refer to this so-called deficit. "Deficit" denotes to me an excess of expenditure over eamings, and that definition is not appropriate when referring to the State Budget. I draw an analogy between the State Budget and a family budget. In the famUy budget, a family home is established after a long-term loan over 25 or 30 years. In addition there are the day-to-day living expenses to be met by the weekly wages. It is quite possible that families who live in this way, as the majority of families in Queensland do, by ensuring that their food, health expenses and repayments on their housing loan are met, are solvent from week to week and are stiU saving a bit of money and putting it away in their savings account or their cheque account. As I have said, at the same time they have a debt over their head for 20 or 30 years while they buy their house. The important thing is that in an investment such as that, the loan is matched by an asset, which is the house. In years gone by the asset, the house, was accming in value faster than the loan was being repaid. It was a pretty good situation. But that is not quite the same situation throughout Australia now. The Queensland economy is in a situation similar to that of the famUy. Naturally Queensland has loans that have to be repaid, but in every case those loans are matched by assets. This is what I would call pmdent economic planning. Queensland has bortowed money for the development within the State of an infrastmcture that will pay for itself and will have a value in years to come. This is the nature of the Queensland borrowings. The electrification of the railways to the coal-fields in central Queensland and the constmction of the cultural centre on the south bank of the Brisbane River are good examples. In contrast, poor economic planning occurs when one takes out loans and uses those loans on expendables. In a household budget, it would involve taking out a loan to buy food, to make interest payments, to pay for health cover or to buy clothing and other items that wear out and cannot be redeemed. Bomowings in the national Budget are used to service expendables. That is the key point. In contrast, Queensland's bortowings are matched by assets. That is to be commended. EarUer, comment was made about the size of State bortowings. Opposition members criticised Queensland's debt per head of population and said that it was the highest in Australia. Having spoken to Mr Hielscher, I do not beUeve that statement. I have been informed by him that the Queensland Govemment uses about 5 per cent of Govemment receipts to service its bortowings. Let me put that into context and make a comparison. I understand that the national figure is about 10 per cent. Local authorities often use about 30 per cent of rates to repay loans. I remind honourable members that the Queensland Govemment uses only 5 per cent of its revenue for that purpose. It is not uncommon for between 25 and 40 per cent of weekly eamings to be used to service loans on a family home. The fact that the Queensland Govemment uses only 5 per cent of its receipts to service its loans shows that this State is in good shape and that the Queensland Govemment is managing the Queensland economy extremely well. It demolishes the claim made by the ALP that Queensland is being mismanaged. Prior to the luncheon recess, the member for Bundaberg spoke at length about the Queensland economy. He chose to use three economic indicators in a very precarious way to distort the tme picture. Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 925

I shall refer to some figures provided by the Department of Employment and Industrial Affairs, for which the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs (Mr Lester) is responsible. He refemed to dwelling unit approvals. The figures to which I refer are expressed as a percentage of the Australian total. In the 12 months to April 1986, Queensland's new dwelling units accounted for 19.6 per cent of aU new dweUings in Australia. It must be bome in mind that Queensland has only 16.2 per cent of Australia's population. Total dwelling commencements for the 12 months to March 1986 accounted for 20 per cent of all dwelling commencements in Australia. Non-building constmction commencements accounted for 20.2 per cent of the Australian total. RetaU sales of motor vehicles represented 16.2 per cent of the Australian total. That shows that Queensland is performing at its expected level. Private fixed capital expediture was 16.7 per cent of the Australian total. When one uses more than two or three selective indicators, one obtains a much better indication that things are not too bad in Queensland. Mr Davis: Don't forget the unemployment figures. Mr LITTLEPROUD: That is one of the selective indicators used by the honourable member for Bundaberg. I will match that with other statistics, which show that in the last 10 years Queensland has created 28 per cent of all new jobs in Australia. Although that is a very good figure, the honourable member for Bundaberg did not use it. In the 12 months ended December 1985, Queensland created 28 per cent of all new jobs. In the last 10 years, Queensland has created approximately 30 per cent of all new jobs. The honourable member for Bundaberg used a selective indicator; I have provided a wider coverage that destroys the honourable member's argument. I tum now to education. For a number of years the Queensland education system has been most progressive and very innovative. It would be tme to say that, in the implementation of computer technology, Queensland's education system is the leader in Australia and among the best in the world. Queensland has developed its own computer software. Yesterday, at Mineral House I saw how Q-Net is helping to transmit education services via sateUite to remote parts of Queensland. At present, a pilot scheme is being undertaken with the School of the Air at Cloncurry. Those projects are innovative and show that Queensland is leading the world. It has been acknowledged in Queensland, throughout Australia and in other parts of the world that Queensland is doing extremely well. About 12 months ago, the regional director of education in the south-western region of Queensland spent 12 months in England studying the use of computers in schools. Upon his retum to Australia, he reported that the achievements in Queensland were comparable with what was happening in England, and possibly more advanced, especiaUy in regard to software. The manufacturers of software in Queensland have both the expertise in teaching techniques and the technology required to assemble the software. However, the combination of those techniques is not always found within Queensland's manufacturing industry. Claims have been made that Queensland schoolchUdren do not perform very well. That claim is not cortect, because in standardised tests that are undertaken throughout Australia of the attainment of students at various levels in basic subjects Queensland schoolchildren rate equally or better than those in other States. The president of the Queensland Teachers Union, Miss Kelly, recently was quoted in the newspapers as saying that Queensland's education system was badly in need of an additional $130m. I believe that the more that is spent on a particular sector, the better it wiU be. That view may be regarded as simplistic by some commentators on public utilities. However, quality must be kept at a high level and industry must be cost efficient. I believe the Department of Education has kept the quality of its education high and is also being cost efficient. Not as much money is expended per head on the education of students in Queensland when compared to the other States. However, why 926 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) should an equal amount of money be expended on each student when the same results can still be achieved? I congratulate the Minister and his department on the achievements that are being made throughout the Queensland education system. I recently attended project days, musical presentations and other activities at schools. Those visits gave me a good indication of the quality of the young people and teachers in Queensland. I commend the achievements of the Department of Education and am pleased to note that the Budget provides for a grant of $444 per student per annum in the primary sphere and $714 per student per annum in the secondary sphere. Provision has been made within the Budget for increases in textbook aUowances of approximately 11.7 per cent. The allowances paid to students in remote areas of Queensland will be increased by approximately 7 per cent. $4m will be expended in providing new typewriters and business equipment for secondary schools. Temporary groundsmen are also to be employed at small schools. The small schools within my electorate have been asking for temporary groundsmen for quite some time. In the past a flying gang operated. That gang moved from school to school and cleaned up the various schoolgrounds. However, a problem was created in that those workmen did not visit schools often enough. I believe that the temporary groundsmen will provide a much better service. In addition 442 new teachers have been provided in the Budget. I tum now to the personal indebtedness of so many of my constituents and other Queenslanders. I am sure all honourable members would agree that there is a tremendous demand for financial assistance throughout the Queensland community. Tremendous problems are being created by high interest rates and lack of income. Those problems relate both to business people and the man on the land. The people who are paying off debts are the ones in the most trouble. The ratio of debts to assets has deteriorated tremendously. Land values in my electorate have dropped by approximately 30 per cent in the last 12 months. A person on a $500,000 property could well have a debt in excess of $200,000 hanging over his head. That is not an uncommon situation. A recent survey of 400 farmers undertaken by the Queensland Graingrowers Association revealed that the average debt of grain-growers was $200,000. Mr Kruger: Do you think the Valuer-General will take that into account the next time he values properties? Mr LITTLEPROUD: I am sure that those figures wiU be taken into account, otherwise the grain-growers will be in serious trouble. Mr Kruger: Property values have been well in excess of viabUity. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I was speaking with the Surveyor-General approximately two weeks ago in relation to this matter and he stated that he was very much aware of the situation. Now that valuations will be made at yearly intervals, better adjustments wiU be able to be made. Mr Kruger: We are a bit behind in the short term. Mr LITTLEPROUD: Yes, but the department will catch up. Retuming to the ratio of assets to debts, that farmer to whom I refemed earlier— the person on a $500,000 property with a debt of $200,000—had a ratio of assets to debts of 5 to 2. With a 30 per cent drop, the value of his property has probably dropped to something like $300,000, if he can find a buyer, but his debt of $200,000 remains the same. The ratio of assets to debts is reduced to 3 to 2. His viability is reduced tremendously. The recommended level should be around 5 to 1. I take notice of Sir Leslie Price, who made a comment on this subject about 18 months ago, and people I have spoken Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 927 to in the Agricultural Bank. However, some farmers have a ratio of 3 to 2, which is unbelievably difficult to cope with. Add to that the high interest rates of around 20 per cent, and the debt doubles every five years. On top of that there is the problem of low commodity prices. That makes the property's viabUity even more doubtftil. The retums on properties barely cover the cost of production. What little farmers have left is supposed to service the debts and try to pay the interest. That is a real problem. Thousands of people in the country are in that position and are looking for some sort of reconstmction and relief The QIDC, despite aU its good intentions, does not have the amount of money necessary to help all the people. The private banks have a big role to play in seeing people through. In modem society, people are very interdependent. They depend on each other. If everyone is going down, everyone has a role to play and a sacrifice to make. Even the Prime Minister acknowledged that. In relation to private banks, a suggestion was made that the bank manager of the future wiU in fact also be a farm manager. I do not find that a very attractive proposition. The banking world has done extremely well in the last 10 or 20 years, whUe other sectors of the economy have not done as well. The time has come for the private banks to reassess their role, if there is to be a future for Queensland and AustraUa. The private banks wiU have to be very careful how they attack the problem of people being indebted to them and play their role by giving people terms such that, when things get better, they will be able to recover their assets and not be indebted to the banks for the rest of their lives. It is a very difficult problem. The State Budget is a very responsible Budget. The Govemment has tried to maintain Govemment expenditure and keep down the growth of the public service but, above aU else, it has tried to give some compensating relief to the private sector so that people can have money left in their own pockets to service their own debts. Mr FOURAS (South Brisbane) (4.42 p.m.): I am pleased to take part in this debate. I will raise four major topics. The first topic will be a discussion of intemal operational audits and how more should have been done to provide efficient administration of the State; but, because of the secretive nature of the Govemment and its lack of accountabUity, I will prove quite conclusively that that would be a waste of time. The second topic wiU be Expo 88. Then I will talk about the problems of living in a multicultural society and the lack of resources support in Queensland for ethnic groups. Finally, I wiU raise the issue of compulsory third-party insurance and suggest where the Govemment ought to be going and how it is being ripped off by FAI. In the last decade, efficiency audits have been increasingly accepted as a means of improving the performance of the public sector in AustraUa. Although traditional auditing has been concemed with detecting iUegal and imegular financial practices, efficiency audits seek to assess the economy within which resources have been employed. Queensland addressed the issue of efficiency audits in drawing up the new Financial Administration Audit Act in 1977. The authors of the Act saw efficiency audits as being the same as their prescription of intemal operational audits. They would aim at ensuring economy and efficiency, the effective management of resources, and obtaining the best value for money expended. There was no disagreement about the value or need for the concept of efficiency auditing; but, rather, the question was, "Who is best fitted to carry out such an evaluation and to report to ParUament?" This was resolved by the new Financial Administration and Audit Act. A central tenet of the Act is the concept of the accountable officer, who is in effect usually the permanent head of the department or agency. Under the Act, the accountable officer is supposed to manage appropriations efficiently, to avoid waste and extravagance and to ensure reasonable value for moneys expended. The accountable officer's annual reports to Parliament are assessed by the Auditor-General, thus ensuring in theory that ParUament retains control of pubUc moneys. 928 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

Of course, the two episodes of the CaUaghan affair demonstrate that that has not worked effectively. For an accountable officer to carry out his prescribed fiinctions, it is envisaged that that would require an intemal operational audit organisation which would regularly monitor performance and report to that officer. That procedure was prescribed by the provisions of the Financial Administration and Audit Act. It is left to the accountable officer to decide whether or not his department needs an operational audit unit. The fiinctions of the unit are outlined in the provisions of the Act. The unit should provide confidential, independent and impartial advice to management as to whether activities are managed and controUed efficiently and economicaUy. Its independence derives from its abiUty to have direct access to any officer in the department or documentation of that department that is consistent with the area that is being reviewed. The operational audit unit reports only to the accountable officer. It takes its orders directly from the accountable officer and it cannot initiate any investigations without prior approval from the accountable officer. Of course, this is the problem with the efficiency audits that are conducted in Queensland. In addition to the departmental intemal operational audit, a special internal operational audit service has been estabUshed in the Treasury Department. As I have already stressed, intemal operational audits are very much under the control of the accountable officer. The investigations and the fate of the report of the unit depend on the decision of that officer. There is no evidence to suggest that the Auditor-General has attempted to follow up intemal operational reports or make pubUc their findings.Thu s Parliament is not specificaUy informed of the outcome of the efficiency audit process that has been carried out by the intemal operational audit units. Parliament's abUity to monitor public sector performance in Queensland is fiirther limited by its lack of parliamentary financial committees and the executive stranglehold over parliamentary powers. Of course, this has all been weU documented. The effect is that there is very little extemal pressure to reform areas of poor administration. Clearly, Queensland's version of efficiency audits, with its emphasis on intemal mechanisms, is in keeping with the characteristics of limited extemal review. The approach adopted in Queensland to efficiency audits raises a number of issues that cannot be easUy resolved because of the totally intemal—hence secretive—nature of the whole process. Serious doubt must be cast over whether the intemal operational audit unit can be as independent as officers from the Auditor-General's Department, as is clearly suggested in official Queensland Govemment information on this subject. Operational auditors are public servants. Their careers are obviously based on normal public service considerations; hence they are likely to follow the directions given by the accountable officer and will not attempt to investigate areas that coiUd be embarrassing for senior management or Ministers. Moreover, as I have previously suggested, the accountable officer determines what areas wiU be investigated and what wiU happen to the final reports. In addition, the internalised nature of operational auditing in Queensland and the lack of any formal link to either other Govemment agencies or extemal bodies such as the Auditor-General's Department have important implications. In practice, it means that very little pressure can be applied to the accountable officer or to the Govemment for the implementation of recommendations made in the report. It also means that serious debate cannot even take place in departments or in the public fomm. Impetus for action must come from the accountable officer or the relevant Minister. Everybody else is being kept in the dark. Unless Ministers have a genuine interest in public sector reform or are under some pressure from the public over a specific issue, they wiU not meddle in administrative matters. The cmx of the issue is that the Queensland Govemment and its parliamentary procedures are designed to minimise extemal criticism over the conduct of Govemment affairs, in particular the operations of the State bureaucracy. Because the operational audit reports are not made public, there can hardly be any media opposition or public demand for action. This point cannot be over-emphasised. It amounts to a system devoid of efficiency and a system in which the Govemment has an operational audit unit Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 929 reporting only if the authorising or accountable officer wants its findings to be made public. The point that must be made is that the findings are never made pubUc if the authorising officer does not want that to happen; it never does happen, with the result that no action is taken. I can provide the Committee with an example of what I have been referring to. When the operational audit unit carried out a review of the Welfare Services portfolio in 1982, the results were hardly inspiring in the category of cash transfers to non- Govemment organisaitions. The report was not discussed widely in the department and, along with several other operational reports that had been carried out in the Welfare Services portfolio, it was not mentioned in the department's annual report. The report pointed out the following defects: a lack of clear objectives and goals of the department and its components; a lack of goals for funding schemes; and a lack of accountabiUty for funds that had been aUocated. That is another instance of a lack of accountabiUty. The CaUaghan affair is another example. Poor information was provided to assess the impact of funding aUocations. Limited evaluation mechanisms were in place and, as I have endeavoured to point out, the report reflected that the whole thing was a shambles. What did the authorising officer do about it? He did nothing. As well as making specific recommendations to overcome these deficiencies, the report stressed the need for corporate planning to be introduced to the portfoUo responsibiUties. None of the report's recommendations have been implemented. Moreover, although the report stressed the need for the then proposed division of youth to be located within the Department of Children's Services, in 1983 the Govemment established the unit in the Chief Office of the Department of Welfare Services. Naturally, the failure of one report cannot be taken as a bench-mark for all operational audit investigations. However, this particular report on youth grants illustrates how intemal reports can come and go without even allowing Parliament, the general public, or even the department itself, to be aware that problems existed in this area and that altematives did exist. It is a classic case of secretiveness and the stupid way in which this Govemment is functioning. If one looks at the Commonwealth auditing system, it will be seen that efficiency audit reports are tabled in Federal Parliament where they often become a focus for further investigation by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and, more particularly, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. Thus, the traditional role of the Auditor-General as an extemal independent body, free to report his findings to Parliament and hence the public, remains intact. In making its reports pubUc, the Commonwealth process reflects the long-held practice in Westminster democracies that Govemments can be pressured to take appropriate action, not by overt demands but by virtue of public exposure of problem areas by independent agencies. If the Govemment is going to be fair dinkum about making the intemal auditing processes work and fair dinkum about efficiency, I urge it to make it mandatory that those reports be tabled in Parliament and debated. That should be done. The second matter I intend to speak about is Expo 88. When the Budget papers were delivered to honourable members, on the back of the glossy cover appeared the words "World Expo '88—Brisbane". Aljove those words was a glossy picture. That is an indication of how this Govemment is using Expo as a propaganda exercise. Like all members on this side of the Chamber, I want Expo 88 to be a success. It deserves to be a success for the people of Brisbane and the people of Queensland. Expo 88 is part of the celebrations for the 1988 bicentenary. I am afraid that this Govemment has not got a clue about how to go about making it succeed. Because of the National Party's approach and the typical way in which it is mnning the show, I have serious reservations about Expo's efficient management. The Expo authority has been filled with National Party cronies. It is a typical example of the National Party's cargo-cult or phantom project mentality.

72407—32 930 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) When I look out my office window I see the very big plastic circus tents sitting on the Expo site, obviously before their time. It would make one think that a mammoth circus is coming to town. Obviously those stmctures have been erected prematurely as an election gimmick. It is a classic example of what was done in the old days—the bread-and-circuses political syndrome. The peasants are fed bread, then they are given the odd circus so that they can be conned into whatever is wanted. In the 1980s I hope that the Queensland public are much more enlightened than that. In my opinion, Joh and his Ministers have dined out long enough on Expo 88. Unfomnately, Queenslanders will be left to pick up the tab. Any Treasury officer with any nous realises that Expo 88 will lose at least $100m. There is no doubt at all that it must lose at least that amount. I believe that most Treasury officers would be teUing the Govemment that it would be lucky if it got out of it with such a loss. According to the Budget papers, the net debt in bomowings as at 30 June 1986 was $ 138.2m. It wiU rise to something like $200m. The authority is bortowing large amounts of money up front, at a time when such amounts are not Govemment guaranteed and interest rates are very high. It was never predicted that interest rates would reach their present level. The cost of interest rates to the Expo authority will be absolutely astronomical. Secondly, because of overdevelopment of office blocks in the city, the resale of the Expo land will not reach anywhere near expectations. So the land will cost a lot more than was first thought, what was expected from its resale will not be achieved, and therefore that aspect of Expo must definitely be under budget. Approximately 8.2 million people—some 45 000 Queenslanders a day every day for six months—are expected to attend Expo. Somebody arrived at that figure because 60 000 people went to the opening of the Commonwealth Games. That is an absolute joke. I believe that the Govemment will be lucky if 3 million to 4 miUion people attend Expo. On the basis of an admission charge of $15 to $20 a head, the shortfall wiU be $80m. I believe that Expo 88 is a cheap-skate Expo that is not attracting world-wide interest. It will be an absolute failure. Certainly it will create jobs. If 40 ha of Brisbane is bulldozed and on that space something is built that in tum wiU be bulldozed, certainly that will create employment. The worst aspect of Expo is that the people of Brisbane will have nothing to show for it afterwards. When the last bit of dust has settled and when the last bit of tinsel has been thrown away, Brisbane will be left with nothing of any lasting benefit—other than a speculators' paradise! The only ones who will benefit from Expo—heaven forbid that this Govemment wUl still be in power—are the cronies of this Govemment, those who sit beside it and help it along a la Philippines, those who will make a killing on the real estate. There is no way in the world that the Govemment would not agree now to a $100m deficit. Of course, it will be much more than that. I am saying these things in what will possibly be my last speech in this Chamber. I am sure that my words will be vindicated. I wish to say a little about ethnic affairs. As the first Greek-bom member to be elected to any Australian Parliament, I should in this, my valedictory speech, briefly place before this Chamber my views on multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a policy of the integration of newcomers with, rather than assimilation into, the Australian community. A multicultural policy requires that, in the intitial years of settlement, migrants, as well as being taught English, should be informed and entertained in their mother tongues and due account should be taken of, and respect shown for, the behaviours, customs and beliefs which have socialised them in their country of origin. Multiculturalism posits a certain concept of what it means to be an Australian. It believes that migrants and their children, and their children's children will best be Australians by sharing and taking pride in the local, specifically Australian, tradition while at the same time retaining a secondary loyalty to, and strong interest in, the country from which they came. Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 931 Multiculturalism thus sees an AustraUa united through AustraUan nationaUsm, but pluralistic because its people have come from, and retained links with, not one overseas nation and/or culture, but a great many. One of multiculturalism's worst enemies is the migrant who denies his immigrant origin or claims that he has succeeded without any of the support now being offered to newcomers. Immigrants clearly wish to be able to speak, and teach their chUdren, their own language, to have adequate interpreters in hospitals and Government departments and to pursue their own cultural interests. Unfortunately the Queensland Govemment has fallen very far short of this. It is an assimilationist Govemment, one that did not accept interpreters when the Commonwealth Govemment offered them to the State at a 75 per cent subsidy. The Queensland Govemment preferred to aUow the janitor, the little daughter and the shop-keeper to walk into our hospitals and give that interpreter service. The Govemment's reason for that is: "You can't tmst the Feds because they'll take the subsidy away." A similar thing happened with language programs. All other States with a component of immigrants mn community language courses at their schools. They believe that community languages are a way of breaking down discrimination and prejudice, that they help to retain pride in foreign cultures and that they help to make this a multicultural and enriched society. Again, the Queensland Govemment refuses to have community languages taught in its schools. I beUeve that the Queensland Govemment is assimUationist. It reaUy believes that migrants such as me came here to build a new, bigger and greater Brittania in the southem hemisphere. We will not ever become new Uttle Britons. In fact, we will never become new little Australians; we will become part of a pluralist society. The Govemment ought to recognise that. The value of personal identity, the enrichment made possible by communal diversity and the right to equal opportunity are the basic themes used to justify Governments' support for ethnic media and specific migrant-settlement, educational and cultural programs. I fought for ethnic radio to be introduced here. At that time the member for Merthyr (Don Lane) claimed it was a commie plot. He went before the commission hearing and said, "They are nothing more than a mob of coms trying to use it for propaganda purposes." That was his view on a much needed service. It is about time that members opposite stopped mouthing that they believe in a multicultural society. They should be tmthful and come out and say that they are assimilationists. Everything Govemment members say and do has nothing to do with the concept of multiculturalism. The sort of multiculturalism that we should be seeking should be more than a shopping list of Govemment services and favours. Multiculturalism must therefore also require that community attitudes go deeper than a willingness to eat an occasional souvlaki or appreciate a Zorba dance. Notions of "them" and "us" must not be allowed to remain in the Australian culture. A real multicultural strategy must seek out and identify that which unites people. It must not be allowed to be perceived as highlighting that which divides us. If multiculturalism is to be relevant to the needs of Australian society, including its migrant component, it must be urgently concemed with equality, justice and faimess, as well as with tolerance and understanding. If such an agenda were pursued, we could sustain a richly diverse, tolerant and vibrant society. I tum to compulsory third-party insurance. From a purely financial viewpoint, statutory no-fault compensation has the attribute of vesting the control of both the inflow and outflow of funds in the same authority, that is, the legislature. I support the principle of no-fault insurance. Such a system ou^t to be introduced. The attribute that I have referted to contrasts sharply with the assessment of damages at present by the independent judiciary and the determination of premiums by an insurance commissioner or a premiums committee that is subject to ministerial involvement. From the victim's point of view, common law liability allied with compulsory third- party insurance requires for its application that the injury be caused by negligence. It is widely accepted that about two-thirds of traffic accident victims qualify and one-third do not qualify. Consequently, the abolition of common law liability and the substitution 932 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) of statutory no-fault compensation would spread the available funds amongst all the victims without delay and without any need to resort to lawyers or law courts. The sectional interests of the legal fraternity have caused it to be vocal in its opposition to a no-fault system replacing common law liability. The legal profession has always argued that, although no-fault compensation has some advantages, it should be introduced as an addition to and not a substitution for common law liability. There is no way in the world that such a system could be afforded. Victoria has proven that by its $ 1,000m debt. Undoubtedly there are problems associated with the abolition of common law liability and the substitution of a no-fault system. I cite as an example the interstate implications when common law liability exists in one State and no-fault compensation exists in another State. Another problem is involved in training sufficient staff and maintaining the skills to handle claims promptly and satisfactorily. There is also a need for workable machinery for review of and appeal against the initial rulings by officials. As victims who now qualify for invalid pensions or other social service benefits may be provided for by a no-fault scheme the burden would shift from the Commonwealth Govemment to the State's motorists. As Victoria and Tasmania have found, the Commonwealth Govemment is not willing to make up that deficit. If the Govemment is fair dinkum, it would introduce a no-fault insurance scheme. However, the Federal Govemment should subsidise the States by paying the Medicare and social security savings effected by the scheme. At the moment it is not doing that. That is one of the major factors holding back a no-fault insurance policy. A no-fault insurance policy must be implemented. Pensioners are now paying more than $200 to put on the road a little four-cylinder car that they drive occasionally, for a Sunday outing. Very soon pensioners will be prohibited from using their cars. They will have to sell them. It is inevitable that that will happen. The abolition of common law liability and the substitution of no-fault compensation is inevitable. Ideally, it should be undertaken simultaneously by all the other States. In Queensland, Suncorp would be the ideal administrator of such a scheme. If a no-fault compensation system were introduced, the shares of FAI would plummet. I will deal with that in the latter part of my speech. FAI is ripping off the Queensland motorist to an extraordinary extent. It is a scandal. That is why I have chosen to speak about it in my last speech in this Chamber. It is about time the Govemment realised that it is being ripped off by a con man—one of Dr Edelsten's friends; a person who was trained by Dr Edelsten. I refer to Larry Adler. FAI is ripping people off to such an extent that it is a major scandal. Before dealing with that any further, I want to make a few more points about a no-fault scheme. A no-fault scheme meets medical, hospital and other expenses directly, as they are incurred, and pays sustenance to the victim by periodic payments—payments for as long as the victim remains incapacitated. One of the consequences is that the victim never handles a lump sum. On the one hand, he cannot blow the lot and then qualify for a social service pension, as often happens. On the other hand, the genuine trier cannot buy a home or a business or otherwise set himelf up with his diminished capacity, as one would Uke to think often happens. One hundred per cent of the no-fault scheme goes to or for the benefit of the victim. No money goes to lawyers. No money is spent on very expensive litigation. There are no windfalls for the surviving spouse, child or, for that matter, mthless hangers-on during the victim's lifetime. An incapacitated victim cannot exhaust his compensation. It continues as long as he lives and remains incapacitated. However, it must also be said that the administrative costs of making periodic payments and checking entitlements are high. Any argument about taking away a victim's established common law rights may well be regarded as emotional rather than logical. The so-called rights depend on a Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 933 court's judgment or an out-of-court settlement in anticipation of a court's deciding that a motorist was guUty of negligence in an accident that caused bodUy injury to the plaintiff. Contributory negligence may also be involved, leading to a reduced amount. Many judgments and settlements depend on hair-Une decisions. The substitution of no- fault compensation would provide compensation to all victims, whereas now full compensation is given to some victims only. It is not a matter of taking away a right, but of substituting one right for another. Any argument about relieving a guilty motorist from the consequences of his guilt is blatant nonsense. In almost 100 per cent of cases, the guilty motorist pays not one cent of his victim's damages and legal costs, or even of his own legal costs. That comes out of a fund. In civil cases guilt consists of a failure to notice something, a faUure adequately to react to what was noticed, or other human ertor, as opposed to deUberately criminal or wantonly careless behaviour. Where guilt does consist of a breach of road traffic laws, or even of the criminal law, the abolition of common law liability leaves untouched any prosecution conviction and punishment of the offending motorist. The reality is that common law liability arising out of a road traffic accident has become purely a matter of how much money a road traffic victim can obtain from a fiind made up of compulsory contributions by motorists, albeit with the more pressing matter of how long can that fund continue to pay out more than it receives. I believe it is about time Australia had no-fault compensation. In 1985, 25 American States had some form of no-fault compensation linked, in some States, with no restrictions on common law liability, whereas in others there is a virtual exclusion of common law liability. In 1971, the Govemment of the Canadian Province of Quebec appointed a committee to inquire into vehicle insurance. In 1974 the committee recommended that a total no-fault scheme, along the lines of the New Zealand scheme, be introduced. It was finally introduced in 1978. That scheme is now operating remarkably well, and at a surplus. I conclude on the subject of what is happening with FAI Insurances Ltd and Larry Adler. I have stated in this Chamber many times how selective FAI Insurances Ltd is. I seek leave to have three tables incorporated in Hansard, two of which illustrate motor­ cycle insurance in South Australia and the third of which illustrates compulsory third- party insurance on various categories of motor cycles in Queensland covered by Suncorp and FAI. Leave granted. Table 1 Motorcycle Third Party Insurance South Australia Accumulated Volumes and Costs During 4-Year Period, 1st July, 1981 to 30th June, 1985 No. of Total Cost Cost per 1984/85 Premium as registrations Minus unit premiums a % of the over the 4- Investment registration cost years Income generated

$ $ $ City ('000) 0-50CC 2,248 86 38 34 89% 50-250CC 50,980 9,143 179 85 47% >250cc 12,067 8,001 663 275 41% Rural O-SOcc 2,478 4 2 16 800% 50-250CC 56,016 4,296 77 30 39% >250cc 22,325 6,361 128 45% 285 934 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

Table 2 Motorcycle Third Party Insurance South Australia Results for 1984/85 Financial Year Cost ner ^°^^^ Volume „L* premium as "*^" %ofumtcost $ City 0-50cc 687 70 49% 50-250CC 11,830 137 62% >250cc 2,941 837 33% Rural O-SOcc 793 N/A 50-250CC 13,931 64 47% >250cc 6,885 446 29% Table 3 Compulsory Third Party— Motor Cycles Queensland Class Premiums No. of Policies Suncorp FAI 8B (lOOcc or less) $ 13 19 259 3 8C (Rural Motor Cycles) $43 6 618 12 8D (100cc-250cc) $174 27 135 9 8E (More than 250cc) $182 40171 74 Total 93 183 98

Mr FOURAS: In Queensland there are 93 183 insurance policies held by Suncorp, formerly the SGIO, covering motor cycles. What number do honourable members think FAI covers? A miserable 98! I do not suggest that FAI is not being selective. A survey carried out on motor-cycle third-party insurance in South Australia indicates quite clearly for the four-year period from 1981 to 1985 that the losses incumed on motor cycles in excess of 250cc amounted to $8.2m. In all other sizes of motor cycles the losses incumed amounted to $6.8m. In a period of four years, the South Australian insurance office lost a total of $ 15m on motor cycles. It is suggested that for city areas the real cost per unit of registration should be $663. Suncorp insures approximately 40 000 motor cycles in the category greater than 250cc. If the cost is $663 per unit of registration, the total being lost by Suncorp is $16m. Larry Adler is not a mug. He is a typical bloke and lays the odds like a very smart bookie. The Queensland public are the mug punters. They tum up every week and get fleeced. Every time they pay their third-party insurance to the Main Roads Department— that department collected over $100m this year—the collection of his premiums does not cost Larry Adler one cent. He talks about having half the cost stmcture of any other insurer in Australia. No wonder! FAI shares, which were 34c for a 50c share in 1974, are now $7 for a 10c share. If in 1974 a person invested $10,000, he would now be a miUionaire. Half of Larry Adler's business is compulsory third-party insurance. Yester­ day's Courier-Mail reported that FAI Insurances Ltd had a record profit and gave its share-holders a 1-for-10 bonus. In the last financial year, that company made a profit in excess of $ 100m. It paid $30m, in tax. Premium growth increased by 80 per cent. It conducts half its business in Queensland. It does deals with new-car salesmen. It receives the best part of the insurance business. On 25 September 1985, I asked for statistics about the underwriting performance of FAI and its investment retums. The Insurance Commissioner should have that information before he decides that an increase in insurance premiums is wamanted. I was told that the statistics sought by me were not held by the Queensland Insurance Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 935 Commissioner. The Insurance Commissioner has no statistics on Larry Adler's retum on investments and what he pays out. There is no information on underwriting losses and profits or investment retums. It is no wonder that last financial year the retum on each 10c FAI share was 72.7c. The retum on a 10c share is 72.7c. Larry Adler is ripping off the Queensland public. I make a plea for the introduction of a no-fault insurance system. The moment that such a system is introduced, there is no way in the world that Larry Adler could stay in the market. As soon as a no-fault insurance system and periodical payment of third-party claims are introduced, Larry Adler will have to go. I believe that the introduction of a system of no-fault insurance is inevitable. The introduction of such a system is the only way to keep cars on the road. People ought to sell their shares in FAI fairly quickly, because Larry Adler is ripping off the people. He is increasing his share of the profits and touting for business in the market-place. He takes the business that he wants. He leaves the dregs or whatever is left to Suncorp, which was formerly the SGIO. He is laughing all the way to the bank. It is no wonder that he was well taught by persons such as Dr Edelsten. It is no wonder that Larry Adler is in the hands of the National Party. The Govemment's failure to act on what Larry Adler has been doing is a major scandal. I urge Govemment members, on their retum to their party-room, to say, "Enough is enough. The motorists in this State have been ripped off enough over the years. He has made enough killings. Let us get him out of the system." It is scandalous that Queenslanders have been allowed to be ripped off. Because of high compulsory third-party insurance premiums pensioners can no longer afford to keep their cars on the road. The Insurance Commissioner sees only the profit results of Suncorp; he does not see the profit results of FAI. That is a major scandal that should be addressed. Time expired. Mr COOPER (Roma) (5.12 p.m.): I heard the member for South Brisbane say that he was making his last speech in this Chamber and that third-party insurance premiums were to be the subject on which he went out. Firstly, I acknowledge the honourable member for South Brisbane. I do not believe he has made his last speech in this Chamber. If he has made his last speech, we will miss him. It is a pity that he will leave this Chamber as a result of a factional dispute. The subject of compulsory third-party insurance will exercise the minds of all political parties. It is an issue that will definitely need to be addressed. It is obvious that it cannot continue as it is at present. That is the extent to which I agree with the honourable member. He referted to FAI and Larry Adler. I dissociate myself from those remarks. I commend the Budget. It was sound and responsible. Above aU, it was honest. In the light of national circumstances, that is commendable. It is not easy for any State Govemment to keep control of its own economy while the national economy is spinning so wildly out of control. A Budget surplus of $216,000 is commendable. It is doubtfiil whether any other State will be able to keep its Budget in the black. The only other State that has brought down its Budget recently is South Australia. That State did not attract any adverse publicity. On the contrary, it attracted some form of faint praise when it produced a Budget with a $7.3m deficit. Queensland's performance with a surplus has been denigrated not only by Opposition members but also by sections of the media. I would like to see more balanced reporting, not only in the interests of fair play but also in reporting the tme picture so that businesses and individuals can at least respond realistically. Queensland is still the leader in most economic activities, although over the last 10 years there has been a downtum from an extraordinarily high boom in infrastmcture and developmental operations in the mining industry. I can produce figures that show 936 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) that Queensland is now a record producer in both the coal industry and primary industries. Commodity prices are being kept to a minimum, and Queensland will always rely on primary productivity. Tourism has been one of the bright spots for Queensland and Australia. The Federal Govemment should be concentrating on those bright spots and not just on doom and gloom. One of the highUghts of the Budget is the emphasis that it places on the education system throughout Queensland. Even the remote areas of Queensland are included. Q- Net has been introduced through the use of sateUite technology. The School of the Air is a world first. I am delighted to see the interest that is being shown by students in the School of the Air. The traU-blazing that will be created by the introduction of Q-Net is to be commended, and I congratulate the Govemment on its support for and promotion of Q-Net. In relation to education, the Budget demonstrates the commitment of the Govemment both towards assisting those people in the remote areas of Queensland and providing a balanced representation in general. Several records have been created by the State Budget. One record that has been mentioned often is that there wUl be no new taxes. The tax paid per capita in Queensland remains the lowest of that in aU States. Pay-roll tax exemptions and pensioner electricity concessions are the highest of those in aU States. A pemsal of the amounts received by the other States shows that the Federal Govemment short-changed Queensland by an amount of $362m during 1985-86. The extent of those shortfaUs should be publicised by responsible sections of the media. However, if the media does not feel that it can be patriotic, it should at least show a little less prejudice towards Queensland. I wiU now quote some significant figures in relation to Federal Govemment underfunding, duplication and mismanagement. The figures have been provided to me by officers of the Treasury Department, who have researched and documented aU the examples of Federal Govemment underfunding. The figures I shaU quote are in addition to a revenue shortfall of $310m that Queensland suffered as a result of changes to the formula of the Grants Commission in 1982. Queensland is underfimded by $42m in relation to tertiary education. If that amount of $42m was made available to Queensland, 5 000 positions would be created for students within Queensland. Queensland is underfimded by $21m in housing assistance. If that amount was made available, an additional 1 600 people would be housed each year in Queensland. Queensland is also underfunded by $4.8m in relation to Aboriginal housing grants, and by $30m in relation to the bicentennial road program. I tum now to Medicare funding. Queenslanders receive $32 per head of population, whereas people in Victoria and New South Wales receive $60 per head of population, and those in South Australia receive $81 per head. In relation to hospitals, if Queensland had received the same funding as other States, it would have received an additional $8 8m for this financial year. However, Queensland received only 13.3 per cent of the total general purpose grants, which is well below the Australian average of 16.6 per cent. That amounts to a total of $23m in underfunding per year. The total amount of underfiinding, therefore, is $362m. As far as Federal Govemment dupUcation and mismanagement are concemed— and in particular duplication of services that do not serve any usefiil purpose but use up a large amount of funding—there was an increase of 28.8 per cent in Commonwealth outiays to pay interest on the Commonwealth's public debt. That compares with the budgeted increase of 18.9 per cent. Last year, there was a massive blow-out of $825m beyond the Federal budgeted deficit. Honourable members have seen an escalation in the cost of the new Parliament House in Canberta from $220m to a figure approaching $1 billion. There has been an Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 937 annual expenditure of $1.4 billion to employ 16 000 Commonwealth public servants to police red tape. There has been the expenditure of $50m a year to employ 2 000 people in the Commonwealth Department of Education, but none of them actually do any teaching. Honourable members will see that there was an expenditure of $ 100m a year to employ 4 500 people in the Commonwealth Department of Health, but none of them actually provide any direct health service to patients. There has been a revenue loss of $3 billion a year through tax avoidance, which could easUy be solved by the introduction of a single-rate tax poUcy. There has been an overpayment of $ 124m by the Commonwealth Department of Social Security. Those are some fairly devastating and shocking examples of inefficiency and duplication that could be done without. The Leader of the Opposition's response to the State Budget was one of the most unoriginal pieces of rhetoric ever delivered by an Opposition Leader in this Chamber. It contained no vision, no initiatives and no strategy. It was a tired rework of a speech that he actually gave to the Economic Society foUowing the Federal Budget. At that meeting, he was supposed to have talked up the much-maligned Federal Budget. In fact, the Economic Society heard him talk down the Queensland economy. That is a display of loyalty! If people went to the meeting to leam about the Federal Budget, they would have been horribly disillusioned. In a similar way, this Assembly was surprised at the lack of an altemative Budget from the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition would have been unable to produce an altemative Budget without the compulsory Labor taxes on petrol and tobacco and a financial institutions duty. Labor Govemments are tax-gatherers, and the Labor Party in Queensland is exactly the same as its counterparts in other States—a tax-supporter and tax-gatherer. A closer examination of the speech proves the unoriginaUty of the Leader of the Opposition's speech-writers. They have uplifted sections, phrases and views from political commentators—without acknowledgement of the source. It is clear that the Labor Party in this State is completely bereft of economic poUcies and has no answer to the National Party State Govemment's Budget. If the Opposition had an altemative Budget, the Leader of the Opposition would not have had to waste time with scurrilous mistmths and innuendo. The Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party have a hang-up about the so- called deficit. The Leader of the Opposition, who is not a bad bloke on a number of occasions, cites a figure without understanding what he is saying. He mumbles about Queensland's not having an accounting system similar to that of other States, but it is quite clear that he does not really know what he is talking about. If honourable members look at the figure of $1,153m that has been quoted, they will see that it comes from the Government Financial Estimates, Australia, 1985/86, an ABS catalogue, released on 22 April 1986. The explanatory notes contain a section that refers to the interpretation of "Forward Estimates" and says that there are "several important reservations to be made about the use of Forward Estimates". Furthermore, there is a section on comparisons of State deficits. For the benefit of honourable members, I will read it. It states— "Comparison of State budget deficits 21. As well as the qualifications made in paragraphs 5 to 10 conceming the interpretation of the forward estimates presented in this publication, it should also be noted that comparison of budget deficits between States, or over time, can be significantly affected by funding arrangements for capital acquisitions, for example: There has been considerable variation between States, and over time, in the use made of financial leasing and similar artangements to acquire use but not ownership of capital assets. The short-mn effect of financial leasing, in terms of the figures presented in this publication, is to reduce outlay and therefore the recorded deficit, in comparison with outright purchase. 938 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) On the other hand, leasing arrangements may increase deficits in subsequent years because lease payments are included in the cument outlay of general govemment enterprise or as an offset to the income of trading enterprises. In recent years, the Queensland govemment has entered into special agreements with private sector enterprises to cover financing and loan servicing relating to the constmction of railway and port facilities solely or mainly used by the enterprises concemed. As a result a substantial amount of capital expenditure on new fixed assets by the budget sector has been financed by security deposits received from the private sector, which are classified in this publication as deficit financingbecaus e they are repayable. However, a major feature of these agreements are provisions for minimum shipping tonnage requirements and the determination of freight rates and other charges, to be paid by the enterprises concemed, which are designed to ensure that sufficient funds are available to allow the Queensland govemment to service and repay these deposits." It is a case of user pays and the payments are guaranteed. In the first instance, it is very clear that members of the Australian Labor Party are unable to distinguish an asset from a debt. In the second instance, a closer inspection of the Queensland Govemment's financial Estimates and financing transactions shows that between 1984-85 and 1985-86 there was an increase of $600m from $541m to $1,153m. Further examination shows that capital outlay increased from $ 1,427m to $2,122m, which is an increase of $600m in the same year. The increase is in the Special Major Capital Works Program. Approximately $200m is accounted for by raUway electrification and the balance was made up of expenditure on roads, the Gateway Bridge, education facilities, hospitals and public buildings. This is the Special Major Works Program that the Australian Labor Party has referted to as a furphy. It is the very program that supplied thousands of man-hours of employment for Queenslanders and contributed to making Queensland the leading State in Australia in employment growth rate over the last financial year. Queensland's employment growth rate was 4.9 per cent last year and should be compared to a national average of 4.5 per cent. Mr Borbidge: The honourable member for Chatsworth might like to explain Airlie Beach. Mr COOPER: Perhaps he would. The so-called deficit exists only in the minds of the Opposition. If members of the Opposition were not kept so busy being negative, and if they were to open their eyes, they would see that the railway electrification schemes are working effectively, as are the new hospitals, new ports and new schools, all of which are examples of the work of this Govemment throu^out the State. To further confuse the issue for the Opposition, I will mention some figuresderive d from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. These are the latest statistics, having been released on 31 July 1986. They indicate that the figure for total pubUc debt servicing from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for an 11-month period till July 1986 amounted to $230,421,000, which represents $90 per head of population. That is nothing like the figure that has been quoted by the Opposition. Members of the Opposition have also referted to the provision of services in Queensland. I shall show the way in which the Hawke Labor Govemment treats Queensland. By way of specific-purpose payments in the category of recument purposes, in spite of the fact that Queensland has 16.2 per cent of the nation's population, the universities receive 14.4 per cent; colleges of technical and further education receive 13.5 per cent; Medicare amounts to 7.8 per cent; nurse education receives 8.5 per cent; home and community care receives 12.7 per cent; children's services receives 4 per cent; and famUy support services receives 11.4 per cent. Those percentages reflect the share received by Queensland from the Federal Govemment. Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 939 In terms of tertiary education, Queensland has faUen to last position of aU the States since the Federal Govemment took over funding in the education sphere. Last year the average per capita grants to the other States amounted to $151, compared to $ 134 in Queensland. To bring Queensland up to a level of similar funding on the basis of a per capita ratio, an extra $42m would have to be provided for tertiary education. The provision of those fiinds would create another 5 000 tertiary education places. The Opposition has mentioned the matter of bankmptcy. The Labor Party has really lifted its game of misinformation to an art-form, particularly in relation to bankmptcies. Unfortunately, for the financial year ended June 1986 Queensland's bankmptcies rose by 22.4 per cent. In Victoria the increase was 45 per cent, in South Australia it was 29 per cent and in New South Wales it was 25 per cent. Queensland does not really have the highest recorded number of bankmpts for the financial year. In fact, it has the second-lowest. It makes me very sad each time that I hear the knockers of Queensland's economy trying to make political capital out of the misfortunes of others. A careful research of bankruptcy statistics will show that bankmptcies do occur in other categories apart from business—in family instances and so on. People should not be using those figures for political advantage. The only really tme record of the number of bankruptcies can be obtained by physically monitoring recordings in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. I will conclude by saying that the Queensland Budget is commendable, particularly for its responsible attitude and its very realistic attitude. It was also extremely refreshing in its honesty, particularly when it is compared with the Federal version of duplicity, deceit and mismanagement. The Federal Budget is certainly very transparent now, especially after it has been seen as a sleight of hand. The Federal Budget has failed to come to grips with the fundamental changes that everyone was awaiting. The opportunity was there for it to do something. The nation cried out for it. Mr McPhie: But they let us down. Mr COOPER: Of course they let the people down. What concems this Govemment is not just the present national debt, but the national debt many, many years down the track. It will certainly be a financial burden for our children. Unless Govemments of all political colours have the political principle to adopt the changes that will be necessary, the nation will continue along that track. I am thankful that in this instance and under these circumstances the Queensland Govemment was able to bring down a Budget that was very responsible and very honest in the light of the circumstances. I most certainly congratulate the Premier and Treasurer on his presentation of the Budget. Mr PALASZCZUK (Archerfield) (5.32 p.m.): I am pleased to speak in this debate and support my leader and next Premier, Mr Warburton, in his response to the Govemment's Budget forecasts. I concur totally with his comments and I am sure that my contribution will support the points that he brought out so forcefully. The Govemment members all delivered the same diatribe that had been dished out to them by the Premier and Treasurer and his Ministers. Mr Prest: They have all got the same script-writers. Mr PALASZCZUK: That is exactiy right. The honourable member for Roma (Mr Cooper) said that the speech deUvered by the Leader of Opposition displayed no vision, no strategy and no initiatives. Unfortu­ nately, they were the same words that the Leader of the Opposition used in his response to the Premier's Budget. As a matter of fact, the Budget was not designed at all to tackle Queensland's serious economic problems. For many, many years National Party members have heaped scom on the Labor Party in Australia. I would like to put the record straight. The Australian Labor Party is the oldest political party in Australia. Unlike Govemment members, members of the 940 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

Labor Party are proud of their heritage and have never changed the Labor Party's name. Let me give some history of the present National Party. It was formerly the Country Party. It wanted to broaden its base so it abandoned its traditions, took up with the mining companies and decided to move to thd city. So a change of name was needed. Hence the name changed from Country Party to National Party. Mr Alison: When does Mr Hawke get rid of the flag? Mr PALASZCZUK: The good old Country Party of the old days Mr Mackenroth: It is not the same party that he first joined, is it? Mr PALASZCZUK: No, it is not the same party. As a matter of fact, I remember being told by the old-timers of this Assembly that the adage used for the Country Party members when they came to this Chamber was: smeU the gum leaves and feel the branches. Today it is a party of wimps and shrimps. I will now consider the name "National Party". Is it sheer coincidence that President P. O. Botha leads a National Govemment in South Africia that gaols journalists without trial for teUing things as they are. Mr Robert Muldoon, who incidentally is currently appearing in The Rocky Horror Picture Show, led a heavy-handed National Party Govemment in New Zealand. Mr Simpson interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: Obviously the member for Cooroora does not like what he is hearing. The military Govemment in Taiwan, which refuses to be a signatory to intemational laws in most fields, calls its Govemment "National". Even Adolf Hitler headed a Govemment which he called "National". Some people shortened it to "Nazi". The Queensland Govemment was quick to impose a state of emergency during a visit of South African footballers. The treatment of the SEQEB workers is a classic example of this Government in action. The best of all was, however, this Govemment's action when pensioners came to Parliament House on a very hot, steamy, summery Queensland day and were locked out of the building and its precincts. They were refused entry to the Assembly to watch the debate on pensioner rebates. They were denied access to Parliament House. Again and again this Chamber hears from the Premier how he follows the West­ minster system. Mr Milliner: That just shows how much guts they have; they were frightened of the pensioners. Mr PALASZCZUK: Exactly right! I remind the Premier that the comer-stone of the Westminster system is the right of the citizen to have access to the Parliament and his elected representatives. The present National Party Cabinet in Queensland is by far the wealthiest Cabinet in Australia. It is also by far the most elderly. The present National Party Cabinet does not take into account formal training for ministerial posts, rather it prefers TV images and deft footwork by ministerial aspirants. Where else would one find a former poUce officer administering trains? Where else would one find a former civil engineer in charge of hospitals and medicines? Where else would one find a former car-wrecker adminstering mines and energy? Incidentally, his wrecking yard at the northem entrance to the Gold Coast is the latest in theme parks in Queensland. Queensland also has an earth-moving farmer administering high finance and Treasury matters. That is a sad indictment of Queensland. I would not like to win this Cabinet in a raffle. As my leader has aptly pointed out in his contribution to this debate, the statement that Queensland is a low-tax State is simply not tme. The Premier and Treasurer keeps claiming that Queensland has no new taxes. That might be partly tme, but it is just Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 941 playing with words. As any reader of the Government Gazette knows, the Govemment does not miss the people of this State with its charges. I am sure the coal-mining companies would agree with that. Granted, some of the increases in charges are about 80c, but some range from $2 to $3. Mr Hamill: They are sUenced. Mr PALASZCZUK: Yes. They are stunned by the substantiality of charges. Mr Borbidge: Be in the House this evening and I will give you the comparisons. Mr PALASZCZUK: I ask the honourable member to wait a moment. I will get to him shortly. All of these increases add up. I think it is called taxation by stealth. The Govemment works on the principle that the people will not notice these increases. It seems to believe in the adage: look after the pennies and the pounds—or in this case the dollars—will look after themselves. Tme to form, day-in and day-out, the Premier keeps on with his Canbema-bashing. Everything good and wholesome is the result of the actions of his Govemment; all the nasties come from Canbema! In moving round the community—including National Party electorates—I get the feeling that the electorate has at long last woken up to that load of mbbish. One hears a great deal about the overseas debt. Australia is living beyond its means. This nation is borrowing too much and importing goods that are just not needed. The Queensland Govemment has assisted in increasing the overseas debt. It has bortowed hundreds of millions of dollars for power stations that are not needed. Those power stations were constmcted to service all the phantom projects that never saw the light of day but are so beloved by the Premier. There always seems to be a Minister overseas artanging a loan. Of course, when the amounts involved are added to the national debt, it is all the fault of the Federal Govemment. Typical National Party double standards! Mr Vaughan: $837m for the overseas debt of the Queensland Electricity Commission alone. Mr PALASZCZUK: $837m! And this Govemment blames the Federal Govemment for the overseas debt. What rot! One only has to consider the Premier's private aircraft fleet, which is made up entirely of imported aircraft. The ministerial car fleet consists mostly of imported cars. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Booth): Order! The honourable member for Archerfield will address the Chair. Mr PALASZCZUK: Certainly, Mr Booth. I have been provoked. As I said, most of the ministerial cars are imported—Jaguars, Mercedes Benzes, Rovers and Volvos. In contrast, the ministerial car of every Minister in every other State—and in the Federal Govemment—is a Ford LTD, which is assembled in Brisbane. The Ministers of the Queensland Government do not want Ford LTDs. So much for supporting the industrial base in Queensland! Mr Davis: What about the Holdens that are assembled at Acacia Ridge? Mr PALASZCZUK: That is another example. Mr Davis: I drive a Gemini. Mr PALASZCZUK: Of course. I drive a Ford Falcon. 942 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) I draw the attention of honourable members to the television commercials showing the Minister for Transport (Mr Lane) extolling the virtues of his train. The Minister for Transport lives less than a kilometre from both Albion and Bowen Hills railway stations. Mr Davis: I never see him on trains. Mr PALASZCZUK: No. Of course, the honourable member for Brisbane Central, as a former Opposition spokesman on transport has been "shadowing" the Minister for some time and he knows what he is talking about. Mr Hamill: I bet that, unlike Mr Davis, he does not help pensioners up the stairs at railway stations. Mr PALASZCZUK: Of course not. With respect to the Minister, I would suggest that on these beautiful, fine, crisp spring momings he abandon his ministerial car, take a leisurely walk to the station and travel on his much-loved trains. The Budget promises 281 police officers, 550 nurses and 442 teachers. The estimated cost of that is about $20m. Mr Davis: Three police stations in the Deputy Premier's electorate. Mr PALASZCZUK: Three police stations are to be built in the Deputy Premier's electorate. That is marvellous. Based on the present 82 electorates, the figures work out at 6.7 nurses per electorate, 5.3 teachers per electorate Mr Gunn: I spend more in your electorate on the Police Academy than in any other electorate in Queensland. Mr PALASZCZUK: I am proud of the PoUce Academy. The only reason why the Ivan Harrison extension was built was that my representations were so good and forceful. WhUe I am on the subject of police—the Budget allows for 3.4 additonal police per electorate. I am certain that an extra 3.4 police in my electorate wiU not help combat the break-and-entry and other crimes that are so rampant in the community. I am pleased that the Minister for Police (Mr Gunn) is in the Chamber. I am also pleased that he has discovered the "non-existent" and illegal gambling casinos in Fortitude Valley and has ordered the police to close them down. Unfortunately, the owners of those casinos beat him to the punch and shut their doors. I wonder whether they were forewamed. Mr Davis: A slur on my electorate. Mr PALASZCZUK: The honourable member for Brisbane Central is glad that those casinos are gone. The Minister and his police officers were unaware of their existence. Honourable members will recall that for years my predecessor in the seat of Archerfield, the late Kev Hooper, hammered away at the existence of those casinos. He gave the addresses of those "phantom" casinos and the names and addresses of their owners and operators. Time and time again in this Chamber he was told he was wrong, wrong, wrong. How many times have honourable members heard the same statement coming from Ministers, that the Opposition is wrong, wrong, wrong? The Opposition is not wrong, wrong, wrong; it is right. Mr Innes: You do not understand about marketing forces. Mr PALASZCZUK: I understand. How many times did the local TV stations cover stories on these places? In one celebrated interview with Channel 7, Kev Hooper and the reporter found betting and gambling slips outside the back door of one of these "non-existent" casinos. Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 943

Mr Davis: Right above Bubbles Bathhouse. Mr PALASZCZUK: Yes. Still the Govemment was not convinced. As a matter of fact, the one above Bubbles Bathhouse in Wickham Street was known to every person in this State who wished to gamble, yet again Kev Hooper was told it was not there. He was told he was wrong, wrong, wrong. It was so "non-existent"—and I am addressing my remarks to the Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for PoUce (Mr Gunn) through the Chair—that the carpet on the stairs had been replaced more times than the Minister has had proverbial hot breakfasts. I am concemed that, if the present Govemment is, by some misfortune, retumed to office, the casinos will be off and mnning again. Another of Kev Hooper's hobby-horses was the massage parlour industry. He described it as the biggest cottage industry in the State. Again he named places and people associated with the prostitution industry, yet time and time again in this Chamber he was told he was wrong, wrong, wrong. He was held up to ridicule by this Govemment. The Liberal Party was just as bad. The honourable member for Yeronga (Mr Lee), who unfortunately is not in the Chamber, could not even see the Golden Hands Massage Parlour that operated openly in Ipswich Road, Moorooka. Mr FitzGerald: You told me they were genuine. Mr Davis: Golden Hands Massage and Sauna. Mr PALASZCZUK: And Sauna; that is right. It was right at the entrance to the railway station, and to keep the honourable member for Yeronga informed, and also possibly the honourable member for Lockyer, who travels along Ipswich Road on his way home, I point out that the Golden Hands Massage Parlour has ceased operating, but the Gentle Touch Massage and Sauna has recently opened further up the road. I understand that the honourable member for Yeronga is out door-knocking for the first time in many years. Mr Hamill: Probably doing it now. Mr PALASZCZUK: Yes. He is affectionately known in the electorate as "bare- knuckles Norm". My good friend John Mickel, the ALP candidate in Yeronga, must have the honourable member for Yeronga very worried. The honourable member for Fassifem (Mr Lingard) must also be very worried, because the honourable member for Yeronga represents him. Mr Lingard: We don't work out of the Federal member's office. Mr PALASZCZUK: I am glad the honourable member for Fassifem has interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Booth): Order! There is far too much noise and there are far too many persistent interjections in the Chamber. Mr PALASZCZUK: It is a strange quirk of fate that in the electorate of Fassifem the ALP has a dairy farmer as its candidate, yet as its member the National Party has a schoolteacher who is resident in the leafy electorate of Yeronga. What double standards! Mr Davis: Where does he live? Mr PALASZCZUK: Anneriey. Mr Davis: Not in his electorate? Mr PALASZCZUK: That is cortect. Retuming to my contribution to this debate—my predecessor Kev Hooper also tried to tell the Govemment of the problems that were in store for the Gold Coast if a 944 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) vice clean-up was not carried out. One only has to read the pages of advertisements in the local papers to see that there are big bikkies to be made in prostitution on the Gold Coast. Things have become so bad that one of the local aldermen is advocating a zoned red-light district. I have raised these matters of vice and gambling to highlight the blatant hypocrisy of the Queensland Govemment on those issues. The Premier, his Ministers and most of the members of the National Party shout their high Christian principles from the roof-tops. Having outlined those issues, including the fact that Queensland has very liberal liquor laws and almost every type of gambling except poker machines, all I can say is that the National Party Govemment practises a very strange brand of Christianity. Mr Alison: Are you the spokesman for vice? Mr PALASZCZUK: I tum now to franchising. An Opposition Member: He hasn't looked at you yet. Mr PALASZCZUK: I have not dealt with the member for Maryborough yet. It is obvious that he knows such a lot about the matter! Perhaps he is the National Party spokesman for vice. Franchising was introduced into Australia from America and it is operating in a big way. However, it has left many people with bumt fingers. The salient point made by American franchising organisations is that a person is in business for himself but not by himself Franchising organisations want yes-men. Honourable members should be interested in comments from a Govemment that proclaims how dear to its heart is the free enterprise system. Franchising is not all it is cracked up to be. I can point out a number of organisations that have recently gone bankrupt. They include JUlys hot dog roadside stands, the Donut King and the much-published Electronic Sales and Rentals. However, I ask honourable members to listen to this classic, which involves an organisation that is called Wendys. Wendys was set up in South Australia by Mr Geoff Davis and Mr Phil Rogers. They are the franchisees for the American parent organisation. Curtently, 60 Wendys franchises operate in Australia. The Queensland State franchisee is Holksham Pty Ltd, whose address is care of Mr George Doniger, Post Office Box 2421, GPO, Brisbane. It is not cheap to enter into one of those operations. I will outline what a person must expect if he decides to take up a Wendys franchise. A franchise of that organisation is required to be registered with the Justice Department. Prospective franchisees are told— "One further point to consider before embarking on a franchise—a potential franchisee must understand that the franchise world is no place for the mgged individualist. For instance, our franchisees are reqiured to make weekly retums and our franchisees may only buy from specified suppliers. To be successful, the franchisee must be able to take directions and be willing and able to change if necessary." I ask the Minister for Justice (Mr Harper) and the aspiring Premier, who is the Minister for Small Business (Mr Ahem) to explain to this Assembly where the attitude by the owners of the Wendys franchise fits into the frequently repeated claims by the National Party Govemment that it supports the small-businessman and the free enterprise system. Surely the actions of the owners of the Wendys franchise must be in clear breach of the Trade Practices Act. I ask the Minister for Justice, as the senior law officer of the Crown in this State, to take some action on those matters. Unfortunately, I do not hold out very much hope for action from him in view of the action taken on the promises contained in his 1983 election pamphlet. It makes very interesting reading. It said that Mr Neville Harper and the Nationals—the tax-reformers and the job-creators—promised to abolish stamp duty for first-home-buyers,provid e extra funds for roads (the bulk of which, of course, would be provided by the Federal Govemment); provide extra assistance to local authorities; and provide adequate staff for public hospitals. On my calculations, the electorate of Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 945

Aubum will receive an additional 2.1 nurses from this year's State Budget. They were all hollow promises; so I do not expect much action to be taken on the rackets in franchising operations. Queensland has no parliamentary public accounts committee to oversee the expend­ iture by its 1 052 quangos. I understand that the budget for those quangos is equal to or greater than the State Govemment Budget. Many of those organisations are a respository for former Cabinet Ministers who have retired on high superannuation pay­ outs. Queensland has a smaU manufacturing base. How often in recent years have honourable members witnessed the take-over of firms, the closure of plants and manufacturing processes that have been taken south? I ask honourable members when next they are in supermarkets to take note of the origins of the most basic items. I am sure that honourable members will be staggered to learn that in excess of 90 per cent of those items are manufactured south of the border. Queensland has the lowest average male weekly wage of any State. It is 8 per cent below the national average. Queensland also has the lowest weekly eamings for females. That figure is 10 per cent below the national average. Mr Borbidge: Sugar-farmers are not taking much notice. Mr PALASZCZUK: If the honourable member for Surfers Paradise is so concemed about the sugar-farmers, why does he not push for the establishment of an industrial base in Queensland that will manufacture sugar products? Even the sugar that is consumed within this Parliament House is packaged in the southem States. Queensland has the highest rate of industrial disputes, 23 per cent above the national average. Queensland also had the highest drop in approvals for new homes during 1986. The list is endless. Fewer cars are sold within Queensland. Fewer telephones are connected. The figures that I am referring to have been provided by the Govemment Statistician. The figures do not lie. However, the Premier and Treasurer tells us what a good economy Queensland has, what a great economic manager he is and what excellent shape Queensland is in. Something is wrong somewhere. With great respect to the Premier, I have some reservations about the statements that he has made. In the past, the Premier has vowed that Sunday bar trading, various forms of sinful gambling and the establishment of gambling-houses was unchristian and would proceed only over his dead body. Queensland has virtually unlimited Sunday bar trading, a huge TAB network and multimillion-dollar—mainly overseas-owned—casinos. They are aU monuments to the Premier's amazing flexibility and the National Party's definition of Christian standards. Sitting suspended from 5.57 to 7.15 p.m. Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (7.15 p.m.): I plan to take part in the Budget debate for a short time only. Mr Fouras: Thank God. Mr ELLIOTT: That is an unkind comment from the short-lived member for South Brisbane. The interesting thing about the Budget is that once again the Queensland Govemment, via the Treasurer and Under Treasurer, has brought down a balanced Budget, which is by stark contrast Mr Davis: All State Budgets are balanced. Mr ELLIOTT: That is wrong. Mr Borbidge: South Australia last week, $7.3m. Mr ELLIOTT: Last week. South Australia brought down a Budget that was $7.3m in deficit. 946 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

My colleague from Surfers Paradise is quite comect. It is by stark contrast to the honourable member for Brisbane Central's Federal counterparts. The Federal Government is bringing this nation virtually to its knees. If it does not come to grips with the problem, the people in small businesses, on farms and in business generally will find the going absolutely impossible. From personal experience, I know that no-one can hack the sort of interest rates that have been inflicted upon Australians over the last year or so. At the time, I would have supported the idea to float the Australian dollar; but, regrettably, the doUar has not been tmly floated at all. The Federal Govemment is in there trying to prop the dollar up. The Reserve Bank is in there trying to prop the dollar up. Mr Davis: Would you prefer to see the old scheme when the doUar was mnning over? Mr ELLIOTT: No. That is not comect. The honourable member for Brisbane Central is not listening to me. What I am saying is that, if the Govemment is going to float the dollar, then float the thing. Do not let us have a Claytons float. There should be a float of the dollar in tme terms and it should be aUowed to find its own level. Mr Fouras: Don't you think it has found its level? Mr ELLIOTT: No, it has not found its own level. It has been propped up by the Reserve Bank, particularly over the last few weeks since the Federal Budget. The Federal Govemment has been trying to pick the dollar up and keep it up. Why have interest rates gone back up? They were dropping, although not to manageable levels, but at least they were dropping. Now, they have gone back up to almost 20 per cent. The honourable member for South Brisbane has a number of small businesses in his area. He would know that none of those small businesses can possibly survive with interest rates at that level. I call on the Federal Govemment to either let the dollar float or fix the rate at 60c and stick with it. The Federal Govemment's policy on interest rates will break every man, woman and child in Australia. Not only wiU it push all the small businesses out of business and push any farmer who has bought a farm in the last few years and has a debt over his head out of business, it will push every family in his electorate out of their homes. The Federal ALP will be effectively put out of office. It will be decimated. Mr Prest: Channel 0 said you fellows will be out of office. Mr ELLIOTT: Absolute mbbish! I will have a casket ticket with the honourable member any time he likes that the end result of these interest rates will be to put so many people out of their homes and so many businesses out of business that the ALP in Queensland will, if it does not stand up and be counted, be reduced to the cricket team that it was when I first entered this place in 1974. I have not heard one member of the Opposition say something constmctive or criticise his Federal counterparts about the mess they are making, particularly as far as interest rates are concemed. All I can say to members of the Opposition is that if they are not aware of the problem they have obviously not visited the mortgage belts in Sydney and Melboume. They should go to the outer suburbs of this city or cities such as Rockhampton and see for themselves how young people are trying to cope with the task of buying homes under the strain of the policies of the Federal Govemment. It is absolutely essential that members of the Opposition stand up and be counted. It is interesting to note that Queensland is still the low-tax State. It has imposed no taxes on petrol or tobacco. Unlike the Federal Govemment, the Queensland Govemment has no institutionalised form of imposing levies, which is to the etemal credit of the Treasurer. I express my concem about the primary industries sector. Today, Queensland's mral producers are faced with a disastrous situation. It is absolutely essential to reduce Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 947 interest rates on bomowings. If no reduction is achieved, primary producers will not be able to continue to supply farm products to the people of this nation. Australians love their food; and if a person eats, he is involved in agriculture—even the member for Brisbane Central. Mr Prest: He came from the land. Mr ELLIOTT: He should know better then. The honourable member for Brisbane Central should also know better than to support the policies of a Govemment that is putting every Hoey Davis and original settler off the land. The honourable member is betraying his own forbears by supporting the policies of the Federal Labor Govemment, and he should hang his head in shame. He should ask "Aunt Glad" about it, because she knows exactly what the situation is. It is unbelievable that members of the Australian Labor Party do not reaUse what they are doing. They seem to have no perception of the problems that are being caused by the Federal Govemment. Members of the Opposition seem to think that the problems that beset primary producers are some kind of joke, and it is about time that they came to grips with the situation. Approximately 30 per cent or more of primary producers wiU be forced to leave their farms in the next 12 to 18 months if something is not done about interest rates on borrowings. The situation is very serious. Mr Davis: Have you got any loans? Are you paying high interest rates? Mr ELLIOTT: Of course I am paying high interest rates. Anyone who has bortowed is paying high interest rates. Mr Davis: Are you also claiming the interest rates as taxation deductions? Mr ELLIOTT: Of course I am, but I have a second income and that is the only reason that I pay income tax. The honourable member could take my electorate as an example. He could ask any grain-farmer whether or not he will obtain an income during the next 12 months. I will guarantee the honourable member that the answer will be "No." The situation confronting primary producers is an absolute disaster. I pay tribute to the Treasury Department and the Treasurer for what the Queensland Govemment has been able to do for the sugar industry. During the protracted difficulties encountered by people involved in the industry, it was the Queensland Govemment that came to the party. The Federal Govemment had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to provide assistance. My colleague the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology (Mr Ahem), the former Minister for Primary Industries, was involved in the early stages of formulating the package deal that has now been concluded by the present Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Tumer). The attitude adopted by the Federal Govemment was the most disgraceful exhibition I have ever witnessed. The Federal Goverment was not prepared to do anything for the sugar industry until it was shamed into providing assistance. Coming from a sugar area, Mr Row, you would know the value of the program that is being carried out today. That program needs to be carried through into the cotton and grain areas, because the problems that you have experienced in the last 18 months or so are now about to occur in other industries. At the moment the cotton industry is in trouble. It will have a lot of problems. A lot of people in the grain industry in this State have not actually received the lowest of prices yet. When the winter crop comes on in November and December—particularly in December—and when the money starts flowing in from the retums from those crops, grain-growers, and particularly barley- growers, will find themselves in a very, very difficult situation. When the summer crops such as sorghum and oil seeds are ready to be harvested, the problem will be worse and the whole thing will compound. The wheat industry agreement works on an average of the last price last year together with the export price. On a graph the price will go down, down, and down over a three-year period until such time as the world market picks up. 948 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) Over the next two or three years there will be a lower price. That will be an absolute disaster for all the growers. One of the other problems that affects primary industries is the long distances over which its products have to be carried. Queensland has longer road distances to cover than any of the other States. Victoria could fit into one comer of Queensland. Great areas of Westem Australia are not even inhabited. By comparison, Queensland is decentralised, with people living throughout most of the State. Those people have to cover long distances. Queensland has been given the same amount in dollar terms by the Federal Govemment as it was last year. That amounts to a drop of $20m in road-funding to this State. Bearing in mind the state of Queensland's roads, that is an absolute unmitigated disaster. Over the years the Federal Govemment has wound down fiindingfo r Queensland's roads. The Federal Govemment continues to take more money than ever through taxation and fuel excise from tax-payers. That is unbelievable. The Federal Govemment is not giving any of it back to the poor old motorist. To his etemal credit, the member for Brisbane Central (Mr Davis) has at least been prepared to stand up for the motorist. He said that the motorist was a milking cow. For years and years I have heard him stand up in this Chamber and talk about the motorist being a mUking cow. Mr Milliner: He was known as Brian the motorist's friend. Mr ELLIOTT: Yes, I would say that could be right. He could be seen as the motorist's friend. The only trouble is that he will not stand up against his colleagues in Canberra. Apart from that, he could probably be forgiven. A tremendous increase in road-funding is needed if in fact Queensland is to catch up to the standard of roads other States enjoy. CounciUors in all of the shires in my area have told me that their shires are getting further and fiirther behind. They are concemed about the direct funding from the Commonwealth and also the funding that they receive from this Govemment. Obviously with the way the economy is in mral areas, no shire would want to put up its rates at the moment. The shires would be absolutely paranoid about doing so, and they could not be blamed for that. I tum now to the topic of education. Two important programs that have been on the drawing-board are to be implemented. I refer to the supply of microcomputers and business and office equipment to secondary schools. An Opposition Member interjected. Mr ELLIOTT: No, I have not. When the recession in the grain industry has ended and I start to make some more money, I will install a computer. It will be the first thing I do. Those programs are a step in the right direction. Many members of Parliament have pushed for them over the years. As I have stated, they will be of real importance in getting kids schooled in the understanding and use hf computers and other office equipment. With the rapid change in technology, including facsimile machines, photocopiers and various other innovations, it is very important that our children are au fait with the upgrading of this sort of technology. If they are to go out into the market-place, where they will be either involved in their own business or work for others, obviously that sort of experience at school will stand them in good stead. I congratulate the Minister for Education on his sound initiative with this office equipment. I am sure all members join with me in that. Something that concems me in relation to financinggenerall y is that the Queensland Industry Development Corporation will take over on behalf of the State Govemment the natural disaster organisation, the Rural Adjustment Scheme—RAS, as we all call it—the Soil Conservation Assistance Scheme, the Farm Water Supplies Assistance Scheme, the Young Farmer Establishment Scheme and the Rural Housing Scheme. One Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 949 wonders how the corporation will successfully wear all of those hats. I suggest to the Minister concemed that the corporation wiU find that quite difficult. Expertise in business or banking management does not necessarily transfer easUy to the operations of the old Agricultural Bank in mral areas. The fiinding of the QIDC needs to be carefully considered because, if the Minister is not careful, some real problems will arise there. Although some $50m has already been allocated for the QIDC, that is not a third of what will be needed. I shall touch on the tourist industry because, as has been demonstrated over the last few years, its potential is unlimited. Mr Borbidge: Hear, hear! Mr ELLIOTT: I know my colleague the member for Surfers Paradise is very much involved in this scene. He knows it well and understands it. Mr Milliner: You have got to give the Federal Govemment a bit of credit there. Mr ELLIOTT: I give full marks to John Brown and the Hogan commercials. Apart from that I would not give the Federal Govemment anything. I admit that John Brown has done an outstanding job Mr Simpson: It was Hogan. Mr ELLIOTT: Yes, Hogan has done an outstanding job. It is very important to understand how successful that campaign has been. What needs to be understood initially, however, is that the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation offered up front $ 100,000 for an overaU scheme long before those commercials ever got off the ground. The Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation had the initiative. It was interested and it was doing work on these sorts of things long before that commercial was ever thought of Mr Milliner: Still, you have got to give him credit. Mr ELLIOTT: I give credit. The Hogan commercials have been an outstanding success. Anyone who is not big enough to admit that is totally devoid of moral responsibility for public comments. An interesting fact is that the Budget allocates an additional $ 15.04m for the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. That will be a tremendous benefit. This year the corporation will spend approximately $21.7m overaU. If that figure was doubled, even better results would flow. With a view to getting a retum, this is the best money that the State Govemment can spend. It will produce jobs. Queensland has increased by 37 per cent its share of the overseas tourists coming into this country. That is real money. Of course, that produces jobs for young people. Mr Borbidge: Forty per cent of all the new tourist projects are in Queensland. Mr ELLIOTT: That is cortect. That is a statistic that is well worth whUe considering. I congratulate the Jondaryan Woolshed Association. It has done a tremendous amount of work, which is really starting to pay off. Unlike most organisations, which have a profit motive, that association does work for the community. It is a community asset. It belongs to the people of that district. The voluntary labour involved in that association is unbelievable. Honourable members would not credit the amount of work that people do for that association. This year, more than 20 000 people visited the Jondaryan Woolshed during the 10-day period of the Heritage Festival. Mr Davis interjected. Mr ELLIOTT: Slide Week is next week. If the honourable member for Brisbane Central reminds me, I wiU send him an invitation. 950 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) The Jondaryan Woolshed Association should be commended in the highest possible terms for what it has done. It is preserving our heritage. Many people in the community appreciate that. Before I conclude, I want to commend one particular aspect of the Budget, that is, the special allocation of $100,000 to enable arts bodies to tour country areas. Mr Davis: Not enough. Mr ELLIOTT: The honourable member for Brisbane Central always says something like that. He is always knocking. That is his trouble. He is a little bit too negative. Apart from that, he is not a bad fellow. A special program will take culture to the outback. It is a very worthwhile exercise. I support the Budget. Mr BRADDY (Rockhampton) (7.36 p.m.): Recently, honourable members witnessed the spectacle of the Govemment producing another edition of glossy pages and pictures. An earlier version of that was the Mannix report, which was compiled by an organisation that was set up by the Govemment with no real intention of having it carry out a proper role in society. This year's set of Budget documents is the same. When one reads the Budget documents, one finds that they consist mostly of boasts about what has been done in the past. Page after page details so-caUed events, money spent and expenditure incumed for the curtent financial year. The Queensland Govemment has become so engrossed in its own propaganda that it is no longer capable of producing a valid set of Budget documents. What it produces is, as I say, glossy pictures on glossy pages that have little bearing on reality. The Queensland Govemment is so unfair, so unjust and so dishonest that it cannot even give credit where credit is due. Opposition members are sick and tired of listening to the constant denigration by Govemment members of the Commonwealth Govemment. I repeat that this Govemment refiises to give credit where it is due. The Queensland Govemment is so dishonest that it continually fails to pay proper respect. I am sure that next Saturday the people of Rockhampton will not be impressed by one of the latest episodes in this Govemment's history of lack of respect and poor behaviour. I refer to the opening of the TAFE college that will occur on Saturday aftemoon in Rockhampton, when a college on which the Commonwealth Govemment expended something of the order of $9m on capital works and equipment wiU be opened. It is a very fine building. I have visited it on several occasions. Every cent that was spent on building that college was provided by the Commonwealth Govemment. On Wednesday of last week I received a cryptic note informing me that the college building was being opened. I asked whether that was an official invitation. I was told that it was not, that the official invitation was on its way. As the local member, I was simply being paid the courtesy of being informed. I appreciated being so informed, even though the invitation came only 10 days before the building was opened. I then discovered that the Federal member had not been informed of the opening of the building and that he had not been invited. I was informed by several people that it was the intention of the Queensland Govemment not to have anybody from the Federal Govemment participating in the opening of the building, despite the fact that all the moneys expended on it had been provided by the Federal Govemment. Mr Davis: How petty! Mr BRADDY: How petty can this Govemment become? I have been in this Chamber for 18 months and have heard the continual whinging and tales of woe coming from the Govemment members in a childish diatribe about how the Commonwealth Government never does anything for Queensland. Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 951

Mr Milliner: What about the Minister for Transport stacking on an act when he didn't get an invitation to the handing-over of the buses the other day? Mr BRADDY: It is amazing how the Queensland Govemment can carry on about itself; but the first that the Federal member knew about the opening of the TAFE coUege was when I communicated with him. I made further inquiries to see how childish the Queensland Govemment is and how far it would go. I should have realised how childish it can be, because the building is being opened not just by a Minister of the National Party Govemment, but by the Premier. Everyone knows that, when it comes to childishness and refiising to pay proper regard to what the Commonwealth Govemment does for Queensland, the Premier is the leader of the Govemment in all respects. I understand that it was on his instmctions that nobody from the Commonwealth Govemment was invited; that nobody from the Labor Party was to be given any official role in the opening. Mr Davis: Did you get an invitation. Mr BRADDY: Yes, I received an invitation. Today I made inquiries and, because I informed Mr Wright of what was happening and he in tum made urgent representations to Senator Ryan in Canberta, at the last minute he has been added to the list of speakers at the opening of the building. His name has been added so late that it will not appear on the official program. On the official program will appear the name of the Premier and the people from the Department of Education who are involved, but no name will appear of any Federal member. Mr Wright will only be there because the Opposition found out about it. This Govemment is so weak, childish and pathetic that it will not own up to the tmth. The fact is that not one cent of the money expended to erect that building was provided by the Queensland Govemment. The reality is even worse. Mr Borbidge: Why aren't you fighting for our just entitlement from the Commonwealth? Mr BRADDY: I am fighting for our just entitlements in Rockhampton and I will tell the honourable member for Surfers Paradise how I am fighting for them. Recently I attended the open day at the building. The college has been operating for some time. I made inquiries as to how matters were progressing and ascertained that, owing to the amount of money that had been spent by the Commonwealth Govemment, the byilding was in good shape. I discovered that, because the Queensland Govemment has failed to provide sufficient expenditure to cater for adequate staff numbers, only one half of the number of staff positions had been filled at the coUege. I was told, "Don't worry about that, Paul. We are much better off here than they are at the Central Highlands college. They are even worse off over there." Although the Queensland Govemment takes every cent it can from the Common­ wealth Govemment, it abuses the Commonwealth Govemment and fails to pay it the courtesy of inviting one of its representatives to attend the opening of a building that was paid for by Commonwealth Govemment funds. The Queensland Govemment did not provide sufficient money in its Budget. The way the constmction of the building was handled by this Govemment was so poor that it was behind schedule. Adequate funds should have been provided in last year's Budget to supply sufficient staff for that TAFE college, but in fact they were not. The building is six months behind schedule and, because the Queensland Govemment will not supply sufficient funds, only one half of the teaching places in the Rockhampton college are occupied. Mr Davis: What more could you expect under pathetic Powell? Mr BRADDY: I point out to the honourable member for Brisbane Central that the members of the Govemment continually preach to Opposition members about doing the right thing. They say that the Labor Party never stands up for Queensland or Australia. 952 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

Tonight I am standing up for Rockhampton and pointing out to the Govemment that the people of Rockhampton are sick and tired of promises. They want a TAFE college that is properly staffed. The college should offer all the courses and facilities that are necessary. The people of Rockhampton wanted a college built on time. However, it was not. Although the constmction of the coUege will be late, they want a college with all the facilities and all the administrative courses that it should have. Reasonable behaviour should be displayed by Govemment members, who say that they are prepared to give people a fair go. What sort of a fair go are they giving the people of Rockhampton when they did not have the gumption to allow a Labor person to stand on the platform to make a speech untU they were embartassed into doing so? They cannot even print a program. The program is only now being printed. It was lodged last week. It is not that people were invited and declined an invitation; the Govemment just did not invite anybody. I suggest that the faUure to issue invitations was done at the deliberate behest of the Premier. He is so lacking in real confidence that he cannot sit on a platform with a Labor member of Parliament and have him stand up and say a few words. If the members of the National Party Govemment believe that they have the abiUty and the power to hold out to the people of Queensland that they belong to a forceful and good Govemment, why are they so frightened at official functions to have representatives of the Labor Party appearing on the same platform? What are they frightened of? Mr Alison: You've got to be joking. Mr BRADDY: I am not joking. The Govemment did it in Bundaberg; it tried to do it in the Central Highlands; and it almost got away with it in Rockhampton. I suggest that Govemment members are so hopelessly lacking in ability that they cannot face up to the fact that they need people from aU walks of Ufe to be represented. Govemment members whinge and complain continually about how they do not get a fair go from the Federal Govemment. Their treatment of the people is unbelievably poor and childish. The people of Rockhampton are not fools. For a long time they have supported members of the Labor Party. They will continue to support Labor Party politicians as long as they see the charade of a Queensland National Party Govemment that mns away from reality. On Saturday I will listen to the self-congratulatory speech that undoubtedly wiU be made by the Premier. He wiU laud the Queensland Govemment, which has spent nothing on that building. The Queensland Govemment has underspent on the staff who are required to supply information on the courses and on the materials in that building. That sort of self-congratulatory nonsense comes from the Premier all the time. Mr Lingard: Why don't you speak out of the front of your mouth instead of the side of it? Mr BRADDY: If I was invited as the member for Rockhampton, as the proper course would be from a Govemment that had any gumption at all, I would be more than happy to do it out of the front of my mouth. Mr Alison: Would you like to move a vote of thanks to the Premier? Mr BRADDY: I would be quite happy to move the appropriate vote of thanks to the Govemment that had erected the building. If that were done, there would be significantly more reference to the Federal Govemment than the Govemment to which the member for Maryborough belongs. The Queensland Govemment would probably receive a mention or two about supplying only 20 staff instead of 40. If I were invited to speak, those are the matters that would be mentioned. I would be more than happy to do that if I were given the opportunity. In reality, everyone knows that at such functions people are not overly party political and are happy to exchange reasonable courtesies. The National Party expects to be paid Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 953 proper courtesies. The Minister for Transport squealed long and loud when he said that he was ignored by the Brisbane City CouncU. Didn't he beUow! Throughout Queensland the Govemment has shown that it is incapable of being courteous. It is so engrossed in its own propaganda and glossy magazines that it does not really know what is going on. I suggest that Govemment members go to Rockhampton and inspect the college in an endeavour to ascertain how many more students could be catered for in the courses avaUable at that college if proper funding was provided. That is one aspect that was left to the State Govemment, and it has been handled hopelessly. The State Govemment is also weU-known for its failure in many areas to adequately cater for the affairs of those people by whom it claims to be elected—and for whom it claims to care. A letter dated 28 August 1986 was recently received by Opposition members from the RetaU Traders and Shopkeepers Association of Queensland. Mr Borbidge: I take it that it was from Mr McCuUough. Mr BRADDY: The letter was from Mr McCuUough, and it enclosed a copy of a letter dated 2 May 1986 and a copy of a letter dated 6 June 1986 from the Minister for Industry, SmaU Business and Technology (Mr Ahem) in reply. The letter came from an organisation from which the National Party would certainly expect significant support. The letter stated that although the association had personaUy lobbied a number of Ministers, as weU as the Premier and Sir Robert Sparkes, it had failed to receive any satisfaction in relation to its problems. The problems, of course, related mainly to the proliferation of shopping centres in Queensland. The only National Party member from whom any worthwhile promises came was the Minister for Industry, SmaU Business and Technology. The Minister, in his letter dated 6 June 1986, stated that he had agreed to estabUsh a working party. Mr McCuUough wrote a letter of reply to the Minister in which he said that he would be very happy to be involved in a working party. In fact, he accepted the invitation to become a member of the working party. No further notification has been received by Mr McCuUough from the Minister. The manager of the Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association concluded his letter by saying— "We have had enough. Daily retailers throughout Queensland are asking what the Govemment is doing about our problems. The answer of course, in real terms, is nought. Please feel free to use any of the attached, or this letter, in any way you deem appropriate." Indeed, the association is beginning to realise that the National Party and the Govemment are aU talk, because in the letter from the Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association it stated— "The National Party, on retum to govemment, wiU set up a special town planning body with the power to coordinate a statewide poUcy and approach to planning to ensure that regional development prevails and the proliferation of major shopping centres is curbed." That letter was written before the last election. The association was implying in that letter that the Govemment has been all talk. The letter that was attached to it was sent to all National Party parliamentarians. I am informed that 60 per cent of the letters were replied to. Some of those replies supported the stance taken by the association. However most honourable members simply acknowledged the letter, and a few felt that it was unwartanted. The State Govemment has put itself into a position of being incapable of fulfiUing its promises. It believes its own propaganda and it produces its own glossy material; but that is as far as it goes. 954 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

The Govemment likes to present itself as the champion of small business and people who will go out into the community, work for it and get it re-elected. The good news for the National Party is that several thousand members of the Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association do not see any joy in re-electing a National Party Govemment. Mr Alison: They don't think much of the fringe benefits tax, either. Mr BRADDY: All I can say is that on 22 August 1986, following the Federal Budget, a letter was written encouraging the Labor Opposition in Queensland. Obviously, the authors believe that more will be gained by supporting the Australian Labor Party than by supporting a National Party Govemment that has failed to deliver and is hopelessly embroiled in its own arguments about this particular matter. In a letter to the Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association, the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology (Mr Ahem) said— "It appears as if the fairly recent change to the town planning legislation requiring an economic impact statement has been ineffective in restraining shopping centre developments." That is certainly accurate. All honourable members have been aware of that for a long time. It goes on— "The existing town planning provisions relating to shopping centres need reviewing to see if changes to the legislation can be made which would be workable and have the desired effect of controlling the growth of shopping centres. The need to carry out such a review quickly has been recognised. It was considered that a body of the type suggested in your letter would not be the best way to proceed. I have been instmcted to ask you if your organisation would nominate a representative to a small working party. This party would be required to advise the Minister for Local Govemment as soon as possible on the changes to existing town planning legislation needed to ensure better control over the location of new shopping centres. I await your advice in relation to this matter." As the association manager said, the association immediately accepted the invitation. The urgency of the invitation in June, however, has not been realised. I suggest that this sort of behaviour is the sort of behaviour that is only too evident in the Budget papers—propaganda, smooth paper, but no delivery. The people of Queensland are sick and tired of the propaganda from this Govemment. They are sick and tired of the nonsense that they occasionally tum to for a chuckle on the Queensland Unlimited program. They are sick and tired of the glossy paper and the glossy promises. They are looking for reality, and they are certainly not getting reality from the National Party Govemment— a Govemment that is so unsure of itself and so insecure that it cannot even face up to the problem of having a Labor Party parUamentarian on the platform with its representative when a building is being opened. Mr Davis: Did you happen to see Channel 0 today where 42 per cent of the people did not like the Premier? Mr BRADDY: Indeed, every poll that comes out is showing an increasing rate of disapproval of the Premier of this State. That is not surprising. Only the other day, I saw one of the National Party members wincing in the House when the Premier again threatened to issue a defamation writ against somebody. The comment came through, "Every time he does that, it costs us another few thousand votes." The Queensland people are sick and tired of threats from this Govemment in relation to behaviour. They know that a proper Govemment can come into this place and argue its case without having to resort to issuing defamation writs against fellow-parliamentarians. Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 955

The defamation writs that have been flowing continually from this Govemment, particularly the Premier, are, as John Howard said, the last resort of a politician who does not know what he is about—the last resort of a poUtician who has not got the gumption to stand up and argue his case. John Howard certainly poured scom on the penchant of the National Party for issuing writs instead of going out into the community or coming into this ParUament and arguing a case with their opponents. Because the Govemment resorts to propaganda, it is not able to argue its case in the appropriate forum. It has to rely on glossy paper and writs, and that is an indication of the degree to which this Govemment has deteriorated. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the honourable member to relate his remarks more directly to the debate. Mr BRADDY: Mr Row, I understood that a member was entitled to canvass any matter that concemed the Parliament. The CHAIRMAN; The Standing Orders provide for relevance in a speech, and I am asking the honourable member to make his speech relevant. Mr BRADDY: Thank you, Mr Row. The relevance of my remarks to the Budget is that the Budget is a financial document that should set out the expenditure engaged in by the Govemment. Honourable members were not provided with very much detaU about financial expenditure in the document, but instead were provided with glossy paper. One of the items of expenditure that was not included was how much money will be spent in the next 12 months on defamation writs. Judging by the rate at which they are being issued, I believe that a considerable portion of funds allocated to the Department of Justice should have been set aside for that particular purpose. There is no doubt that the National Party Govemment is on its last legs. Glossy paper and glossy propaganda in Queensland Unlimited will not sustain a Govemment that cannot face up to its opponents either here in the House or out on the hustings. Members of this Govemment msh off like dingoes to issue writs at the first available opportunity in an attempt to prevent meaningfiil debate taking place in the community. Mr Prest: This Govemment will not even allow debate to take place on the Estimates in the Parliament. Mr BRADDY: Exactly. The Govemment has deserted the hustings throughout the community in an attempt to suppress free speech and in an attempt to avoid debating the issues. In an attempt to suppress free speech, the Govemment resorts to writs at the first available opportunity. I chaUenge members of the Govemment to have enough gumption to check the newspapers tomortow for reports about the opening of the new college of technical and fiirther education in Rockhampton. The Govemment did not have the gumption to invite a Labor member to be present at a ceremony to mark the opening of a college for which a Federal Labor Govemment had provided the funds. It was only at the last minute that the Govemment was forced into it that an invitation was extended. That kind of behaviour displays the despicable lack of courage with which this Govemment will face the people at the next election. Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise) (8.3 p.m.): In supporting the Budget introduced into the Parliament by the Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen), I cannot help but remark on how amazing it is that the Australian Labor Party has one mle that applies to Mr Wran, Mr Hawke and Mr Justice Murphy and another completely different mle and set of standards for the Govemment of Queensland and the Premier and Treasurer of this State. It is the height of hypocrisy for members of the Opposition to stand up in this Parliament and make such pathetic contributions to debates. Mr Davis interjected. 956 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) Mr BORBIDGE: The honourable member for Brisbane Central was complaining earlier about the lack of time provided for debating the estimates in the Budget. When he had the opportunity to debate the Budget and discuss the Estimates, all that the honourable member for Rockhampton could talk about was an invitation that he missed out on. He clearly failed to take advantage of that opportunity. Mr Menzel: All Mr Bums could ask about was a couple of possums. Mr BORBIDGE: As the member for Mulgrave has said, earlier this week honourable members were treated to the spectacle of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asking questions about possums. It is significant that the document presented to this Parliament by the Premier and Treasurer is the most positive Budget that has been presented to any Parliament in Australia. In difficult economic times, the Govemment has realistically and responsibly addressed the needs of the community. I welcome the fact that the Govemment's Budget is again balanced, with a small operating surplus of $216,760 expected. Earlier, the Opposition Whip (Mr Davis) interjected on a Govemment member and said that all State Govemments operate a balanced budget. That is blatantly untme. For the benefit of the honourable member, I draw to his attention that the Budget that was handed down last week by the Premier of South AustraUa expects a deficit of some $7.3m. I suggest that it is about time that this debate had a degree of tmth in it. Mr Clauson: That is a consertive estimate. Mr BORBIDGE: As the honourable member for Redlands has said, no doubt that is a conservative estimate. Significantly, on 27 August, in its editorial. The Courier-Mail, which is not necessarily a fan of the Govemment, described the State Budget as responsible because it had tried to suit the troubled economic times. The editorial also said that despite cuts in funds from Canberta the Budget imposed no new taxes, and even had a sparkle here and there. They are the words of The Courier-Mail's editorial writer. As Govemment members have said, Queensland remains the only State not to have implemented a State petrol tax, a financial institutions tax or a tobacco tax. Despite Commonwealth Govemment cut-backs, the State has increased expenditure in key growth areas and implemented further pay-roll tax reform. The Govemment has maintained a policy of nil growth in the pubUc service administrative staffing artangements, but at the same time has made provision in the Budget for an additional 442 teachers, 281 police and 550 nurses and medical staff. It has been said that that is not enough. Some of the supposed advocates of small govemment in this Parliament—members on the Liberal Party benches—have suggested bigger govemment. I will deal with that later. I welcome the commitment by the Govemment to implement, from the beginning of next year, the most generous electricity subsidy of any State for pensioners. I welcome the boost to tourism expenditure through both the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation and regional tourism bodies. In fact, organisations such as the Gold Coast Visitors and Convention Bureau will be receiving some $70,000 this year, an increase of 100 per cent. That sum should assist it greatiy and help it in the fine work that it is carrying out. Significantly, the Small Business Development Corporation has received a 30 per cent increase in its Budget allocation, which will allow it to expand its very effective support services in the market-place. Mr Innes: How much this year? Mr BORBIDGE: I will deal with the honourable member for Sherwood in a moment. The Govemment has just about had the likes of the honourable member for Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 957

Sherwood. I wiU deal with him a bit later. I am savouring that. The Liberals in this place would be the biggest hypocrites in any Parliament in Australia. Everywhere they go they carry with them the stench of hypocrisy. Significantly, and contrary to what has been asserted by the Govemment's critics, the Budget consolidates Queensland's small govemment, low-tax approach to sound management. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Warburton) and various Labor Party spokesmen have alluded to the fact that taxes have not had to be increased because they have been disguised by high Govemment charges. Such claims are nonsense. The Govemment's political opponents appear to be having some difficulty in differentiating between what is a tax and what is a charge for a service provided. Clearly, a traffic fine or a fee paid for a birth certificate is not a tax. Most charges for particular services that are provided by Govemment departments are determined on a user-pays basis. Sir William Knox: It depends on the cost of the certificate. Mr BORBIDGE: For the benefit of the very former Treasurer, I remind him that Queensland remains a low-tax State even when all State Govemment taxes, charges, fees and fines are taken into account. I can understand the honourable member's sensitivity because he has been misleading the people of this State. I shall now refer to the Australian Bureau of Statistics document Taxation Review Australia 1984-85, catalogue No. 5506, which was released on 7 April 1986 and which I tabled in this Chamber earlier this year. That shows that on a per capita basis, each year Queenslanders pay $539.11 in aU State taxes, charges and fines. That compares with $796.77 in Victoria, which is $257.66 more than in Queensland. In New South Wales the figure is $782.58, which is $253.47 more than in Queensland; in Westem AustraUa, $664.71, which is $125.60 more than in Queensland; and in South Australia, $616.06, which is $76.95 per person more than in Queensland. I challenge the critics of this Budget, who are so active in this Chamber this evening, to find a better document handed down anywhere this year in any Parliament in Australia. The Liberals certainly did not do it in Tasmania, where a constitutional crisis arose when the Legislative Council threatened to block the State Govemment's Budget. Thankfully, at the Premiers Conference the Premier and Treasurer of this State was able to assist the Premier of Tasmania on his Commonwealth aUocation. Queensland supported Tasmania, and I am very pleased that it did. But I make the point that the Liberals in this place should not be so critical. If they wish to criticise this Budget, they should have a look at the economic performance of other State Govemments and have a look at the Budgets—or the mini-Budgets, as the case may be—that are being handed down in other Parliaments around Australia. If they would do that, they would find that much of their criticism is empty. Unlike the Labor Party, the National Party had no need to impose State fuel taxes, surcharges on pay-roll tax—I believe that presently South AustraUa and Queensland are the only States that have not imposed surcharges on pay-roll tax—tobacco taxes and financial institutions taxes. Unlike the Federal Govemment, the Queensland Govemment has rejected new taxation devices such as a capital gains tax or a fringe benefits tax. I wish to deal specifically with Opposition criticism of pay-roll tax levels. I bring to the attention of the Committee that the New South Wales Labor Govemment under Mr Unsworth, who I understand is dining tonight with most members of the Opposition, has promised to extend pay-roll tax to fringe benefits—to extend it even further—so that the New South Wales Govemment can collect from those people who pay pay-roU tax an estimated additional $30m each financial year. The fact remains that prior to the Budget—since the Budget these figures have probably improved considerably—on a per capita basis, Queenslanders were paying less pay-roll tax than people in any other State in Australia. As I mentioned, that will improve further following an increase of some 8 per cent in the exemption level. 958 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

I will now consider pay-roll tax on a per capita basis. In New South Wales, it is $621.36; in Victoria, $577.99; in South Australia, $429.95; in Westem Australia, $446; the AustraUan average, $531.67; and in Queensland, $409.73. In itself, that is an impressive achievement. I see that aU members of the Liberal Party have fled the Chamber, but I shall comment briefly on the great Liberal campaign to abolish pay-roll tax and on that party's new-found concem for the effect that pay-roU tax is having on the expansion of business activity in Queensland. A Liberal Party advertisement in The Courier-Mail of 22 March read— "Payroll tax is a tax on jobs and strangling business in Queensland. The Liberal team want to reduce the number of employers levied for payroll tax which wiU mean 8,000 new jobs for Queenslanders." I now read from a Liberal Party advertisement in The Courier-Mail of 2 May 1986, as follows— "The Liberals would also abolish payroll tax, which had prevented many companies from increasing the number of their employees." How times and attitudes change! The present leader of the Liberal Party (Sir WiUiam Knox) was State Treasurer in 1977, 1978 and 1979. In the State Budget of 30 September 1976 pay-roll tax reform was enunciated, which was effective from 1 January 1977, in introducing those pay-roU tax reforms. Sir William Knox said— "Payroll tax is one of the few major revenue producing forms of taxation open to the States, and must therefore be retained. However, it is desirable to provide reforms where this can be done without unbearable cost to Consolidated Revenue." Those are the words of Sir William Knox when he was introducing the State Budget on 30 September 1976 that introduced pay-roll tax reform. Mr Henderson: Strange how they change their minds when they are in Opposition. Mr BORBIDGE: As my colleague the honourable member for Mount Gravatt says, it is strange how members change their minds when they are in opposition. Mr Kruger: Are you saying they are hypocrites? Mr BORBIDGE: I am. I am saying that members of the Liberal Party are absolute hypocrites. Mr Simpson: If they are not, they are deceiving the public. Mr BORBIDGE: As my coUeague the honourable member for Cooroora says, if one makes a more generous assessment, the members of the Liberal Party are deceiving the public. The honourable member for Stafford (Mr Gygar) alluded to police staffing on the Gold Coast and suggested that some improvement was necessary. As the member for that area, I make the point that, although Govemment members welcome the new­ found support for additional police from the honourable member for Stafford, over the last three years that this National Party Govemment has been in office, more police and more police resources have been made available on the Gold Coast than in any three- year period of a former coalition Govemment when the Liberals controUed the Treasury. For the benefit of the honourable member for Stafford, and any other honourable member who may be interested, I point out that during that three-year period the Gold Coast has received an additional 41 uniformed police, 10 plainclothes police and 8 civilian staff. Major police stations have been upgraded to 24-hour operations in Southport, Surfers Paradise, Broadbeach and Coolangatta. A neighbourhood watch community policing program has been introduced on the Gold Coast on a pilot basis. I express the hope that, depending on the success of that program, it will be extended to other parts of the State. Major upgrading of computer Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 959 and communication equipment in police stations has taken place. I do not know where the honourable member for Stafford was when that was occurring. Another criticism that has been levelled at the Govemment is that the increase in the number of public servants who are involved in key service areas has not reaUy kept pace with population growth. I will reply to that. The latest figures that I have on the percentage increase in staff establishment from 30 June 1981 to December 1985—during which time Queensland's population increased by 8.2 per cent—show the following staff increases: Prisons Department, 18.1 per cent; police officers, 16.9 per cent; police administration, 24.1 per cent; hospital staff, 11.6 per cent; fire brigades permanent staff, 12.8 per cent; State school teachers, 23 per cent and TAFE teachers, 56.1 per cent. Mr Davis: And the prisoner break-out rate, 48 per cent. Mr BORBIDGE: For the benefit of the honourable member for Brisbane Central, I point out that the break-out rate in Queensland gaols is significantly lower than that in other States of Australia. The figures that I have outlined indicate that the State Govemment's maintenance of essential services on a sound and efficient basis more than matches the population growth. It is about time that that fact was acknowledged by some of this Govemment's political critics. For the benefit of the Opposition Whip (Mr Davis), I indicate that I mentioned earlier that the South Australian Budget has been handed down. It has a deficit of approximately $7.3m. If one compares what has happened in that State—despite the significantly better funding artangements that it has with the Commonwealth Govem­ ment—with Queensland's Budget, one realises that any criticism the Opposition may like to level is certainly very, very hollow. Speaking of hollow things—one of the things that Mr Bannon had going for him was the old hollow log theory that is so popular with Labor Govemments. An article in The Australian Financial Review dated 29 August 1986 stated— "From a 'hollow log' called the South Australian Govemment Financing Authority (SAFA), he has puUed out a rabbit which boosted its contributions to State revenue from $34.7m to $164m." One cannot help wondering what is going to happen when the hollow log is really hoUow. Mr Simpson: You know what he tried? He tried to put on that super capital gains tax in the State, the Robin Hood tax. Mr BORBIDGE: That is right. The South Australian Labor Party was even experimenting with a Robin Hood tax. The Queensland Govemment need make no apologies for its management of the State's finances. In his Budget Speech the Premier detaUed a number of key economic indicators that reveal once and for all that the conspiracy to undermine public confidence in this State's economy is a massive and deceitfiil fraud. Occasions will always arise when some statistical barometers are unsatisfactory. Most key indicators confirm that Queensland is doing at least as well as any other State in the Commonwealth, despite the disastrous policies being inflicted upon this nation by the Hawke/Keating/ACTU alliance. I will now tum to the problems experienced by the shop-keeper, the farmer or the businessman and the things that are inhibiting their capacity to grow and prosper. Firstly, high interest rates, which are a Federal Govemment responsibility; secondly, a highly regulated labour market and the joke that is the Arbitration Commission, predominantly a Federal Govemment responsibility; thirdly, excessive record taxation that is being imposed upon Australians by the Govemment in Canbema; and, fourthly, the low value of the Australian dollar. They are the four main reasons why this country finds itself in 960 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) the plight that it is in today. These are all areas of administration that are predominantly the sole responsibility of the Commonwealth Govemment. The figures tabled in the Budget Speech illustrate that Queensland's population growth, interstate migration, labour force growth and employment growth figures are all above the national average. The Brisbane CPI increase is the lowest of all the State capitals and Queensland's exports and the building and constmction industry are performing better than the average of aU the other States. Queensland's tourist investment continues to lead Australia. No doubt during the course of this debate honourable members from the Liberal Party will maintain that things would be going better if it was occupying the Treasury benches. That is the kind of comment that can be expected from the honourable member for Sherwood (Mr Innes), and other Liberal members who may join in this debate. I remind this Chamber that the Liberals were holding the Treasury portfolio when they walked out of the Govemment. Two former Liberal Treasurers, Sir Llew Edwards and the honourable member for Nundah (Sir William Knox) were removed as leaders of the Liberal Party and Treasurers of the Govemment of Queensland by those same people who now comprise the bulk of the parliamentary representation of the Liberal Party. Those people have no credibility. They pompously comment and criticise when they themselves reneged on their responsibiUties to the people of Queensland, and walked out of Govemment. The Hawke Labor Govemment is the highest taxing Govemment in AustraUa's history. The Queensland Govemment has consolidated this State's hard-won reputation for the lowest possible levels of taxation and provides adequate Govemment services. I make the point that members of the Labor Party should be the last people on earth to be criticising the economic policies of the Bjelke-Petersen Govemment in this Chamber. Looking at the figures, overseas bortowings have more than doubled in the three and a half years that the Federal Labor Govemment has been in power. In the period from Federation untU 1983, Australia's total bomowings grossed $37 biUion. Since 1983 that figure has climbed by $52 biUion to $89 billion and continues to cUmb steadily. The bottom line is that the average family in AustraUa is now $27 a week worse off than when Hawke came to power. Of course, the fringe benefits tax has not bitten yet; nor has the capital gains tax and all the other nasties that have been invented by the Federal Govemment along the way. In the few minutes remaining to me, I again refer to the terrible waste of tax-payers' money by Labor Govemments at Federal and State levels. I refer to the winter 1986 publication of the Institute of Public Affairs Review. Opposition Members interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: I can understand the sensitivity of Opposition members. Despite public accounts committees and everything else, money has been thrown around. Money has been ripped off the Australian tax-payer and he has been defrauded. Let me refer to some of the little "battlers" who have been assisted by Labor in Government federally and in other States. Mr FitzGerald: Norm Gallagher was convicted today. Mr BORBIDGE: I noticed that. $700,000 went to the Peasants of the Ainslie CoUective Housing (POACH), Women into Collective Housing (WITCH) and other "needy" Canbema groups. $749,677 in "arts" grants was provided to three Trades and Labour Councils, including a grant to maintain a "story-teller-in-the-community"; $52,000 to the Victorian Builders Labourers Federation to maintain Mr Henderson: Norm's mob. Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 961

Mr BORBIDGE: Yes, to Norm's mob, to maintain its "mural artist-in-residence"; $35,631 to the Union of Australian Women (a supporter of communist activities), to research its own history, and another grant to buy plastic shopping bags "advertising" peace; $20,000 to a group of Administrative and Clerical Officers Association members to write a play depicting the "highs and lows of Ufe in the Department of Social Security". How wonderfiil that was! Those payments were undoubtedly supported by the honourable member for Brisbane Central, who used to rig baUots in the TWU. That would be entirely consistent with his phUosophy. It is interesting that those bodies not only utiUse pubUc funds by receiving direct grants; but they use the influence that Govemment patronage gives them to press for fiirther Govemment expenditure on their agendas, which, in tum, leads to bigger bureaucracy and bigger Govemment. Some of those groups are almost totally funded by the tax-payer. For example, the AustraUan Federation of Consumer Organisations is more than 99 per cent ftinded by the tax-payer. It cannot raise $1,000 from its own membership. Its own membership peters out at $900. The $47,750 Australia (Arts) Council Grant to FILEF, the Australian affiliate of the Italian Communist Party, and its $1.3m in grants so far to trade unions are further examples. Other grants can be less obvious. I am sure that the honourable member for Brisbane Central is getting so excited that he will enjoy this. A grant of $ 1.2m was made to the Employee Participation Industrial Democracy Programme and $1.2m to a group caUed BINGO, which is the Bilateral Non-Govemment Organisation Co-Operation Programme. I do not know the reason for the existence of that organisation. Much of the $6.2m in ethnic affairs grants was made to trade unions and "community" groups. A restrained estimate of $ 12.43m in grants this year by the Australia Council alone suggests that at least 5 per cent has gone to trade unions and other "community groups" for "arts" projects, including support for "artists-in-residence" and "storytellers-in- community". What is the Federal Parliamentary's Joint Committee of PubUc Accounts saying about those organisations. Do honourable members opposite support those payments? Mr Simpson: It will be even worse when Halfpenny gets into the Senate. Mr BORBIDGE: As my friend from Cooroora said, it will be worse when Halfpenny knocks off Button and appears as No. 1 on the Victorian Senate ticket. At a conservative estimate, 40 per cent of the Intemational Year of Peace grants are going to trade unions and funny groups. For example, $126,500 has so far gone to People for Nuclear Disarmament, Movement Against Uranium Mining and associated radical women's groups. At least 2.2 per cent—that is $ 1.46m—of the $66.3m annual legal aid allocation goes to "community" legal centres, many of which are actively involved in politics. This year the Victorian Consumer Affairs Department granted $500,000 to consumerist groups. One of the main beneficiaries was the AMWU-backed Consumer Credit Legal Service, which has received both legal aid and other public funding. The sum of $157,837 was made available in one grant to one State Trades and Labor Council for one program, namely, the Trade Union Art and Working Life Program. How wonderful! The sum of $160,000 was provided last year by the Victorian Govemment for the Australian Greek Media Co-operative to produce a Greek/English newspaper entitled New Directions. Some of the objectives of that newspaper include the production of materials by and for the Labor movement. That was established with the close co­ operation of a Victorian Labor member of ParUament. I tum now to the Australian Bicentennial Authority, which is disposing of vast quantities of tax-payers' money—$200m—to fund various projects that will mark the bicentennial celebrations in 1988. The iwogram of the authority has been attacked because

72407—33 962 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) of its heavy weighting in favour of left-wing causes. The former chief executive of the authority, Mr David Armstrong, was quoted in The Age on 17 May 1986 as saying— "I breathed a sigh of relief when the ALP won the election because I had put in place basicaUy a Labor Party orientated bicentennial program." What a disgrace! What a scandal! How often do honourable members hear about the millions and mUlions of tax­ payers' dollars that are being wasted by these mates of the Labor Party and their trade union hacks? More than $lm is being spent by the Bicentennial Authority in celebrating the trade unions' contributions to the development of modem AustraUa. That is a disgrace. Mr Davis: At least they are audited. Mr BORBIDGE: I am pleased to hear the honourable member for Brisbane Central interjecting. I take it that he is proud of that expenditure and supports that nonsense. I also take it that all Opposition members support it. That is an example of the treatment and accountability that the people of Queensland could expect if the Labor Party, by some chance, were ever able to occupy the Treasury benches of this Parliament. It shows the Labor Party's standards, hypocrisy and accountability. Mr DAVIS: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for Surfers Paradise pointed to me before and asked me whether I support the expenditure of that sum. I do support proper auditing, and that is the reason why the honourable member was able to mention that to the Committee—unlike the auditing that is carried out by the Queensland Govemment. Mr BORBIDGE: The rather inane point of order taken by the honourable member for Brisbane Central shows how sensitive Opposition members are to the incredible waste, extravangance and handing-around of public fiinds to their mates and trade union hacks in every State in which the ALP occupies the Treasury benches. That does not happen in Queensland. I believe that all Queenslanders can be proud of the Budget. It sets the pace for continued economic prosperity and growth for this State. I support it. Mr INNES (Sherwood) (8.33 p.m.): At some time or another aU honourable members say something that is cortect. The attack made by the honourable member for Surfers Paradise upon the excesses of the crazy and irrational spending that has been conducted under the CEP scheme in particular, is perfectly vaUd and justified. Mr Palaszczuk: You are knocking the CEP scheme? Mr INNES: I am certainly knocking some of the purposes for which it Mr Palaszczuk: You are either knocking it or you aren't. Mr INNES: That is an inane, stupid and facile argument. The honourable member is either for or against it. The honourable member for Archerfield is a direct descendant of the union movement—scabs on this side, workers on that side; all in one bag, all in the other bag. He does not want to worry about shades of argument. He just wants to tie it up with a little label and throw it to one side. Mr Palaszczuk: You have not answered the question. Mr INNES: The honourable member for Archerfield heard the answer to the question. The whole philosophy behind the scheme can be doubted. However, some of the spending is more meritorious than other expenditure. The instances cited by the honourable member for Surfers Paradise are clearly rational. I am a dry. I have no qualms or shame about it. However, the reality is that the sorts of expenditure that the honourable member for Surfers Paradise (Mr Borbidge) Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 963 read from the IPA review was revealed, dragged out, pulled out by Senate Estimates Committees, by the committees of the House of Representatives and by the inquiry and accounting procedures that were available in that House. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that those illustrations demonstrate that the forms of Parliament do not work. On the contrary, it is the work of people like Liberal Senator Warwick Rarer, Michael Cobb from the National Party and other members of the coalition in the Federal House that has dragged out and revealed these crazy extravagances, those destmctive uses of hard- eamed tax-payers' money. If it is a toss-up between ensuring that the average worker in Australia keeps hold of the dollars that he cams or seeing them frittered away on senseless, destructive Australia-undermining schemes of those of the type read out by the honourable member for Surfers Paradise, I come down in favour of the tax-payer, the worker, keeping his eamings every time. Mr Davis: Every member of Parliament got it from the Arts Council. Mr INNES: I do not know what the honourable member for Brisbane Central received, but I do not recaU receiving anything from the Arts CouncU. That is another piece of accountability that I am not familiar with. One has to reflect at times on what this Assembly is all about. This is almost the end of this ParUament. I do not think that it is letting any secrets out of the bag, nor saying anything that any observer of Parliament would not say, that this has been one of the most unpleasant, vindictive, and bitchy ParUaments that has ever existed. Certainly in the eight years that I have been here—and I have spoken to people who have been here far longer than I have—it has been a Parliament without humour, without candour, and without humanity towards fellow members of Parliament. It has been conducted at a consistent level of pettiness and personal denigration—ignore the argument, go for the person every time. It is a tragic reflection on the parliamentary process. Mr FitzGerald: You must have listened to Gygar's speech. Mr INNES: Perhaps the honourable member for Lockyer (Mr FitzGerald) is one of those members who believes that the Bible finishes at the end of the Old Testament. He never got round to the Christianity bit—compassion, tolerance—his is the reUgion of, "My God's a jealous God; there is no other God but I." Yes, we can have religion in all forms. The reality is that there is too much attacking the person, too much ignoring the argument and too much reading from prepared scripts. Members reading Erskine May will find that the reason why prepared scripts are abhorred in Parliament is that they take away the spontaneity of Parliament, the inquiry, the readiness of Parliament to deal with issues on their merits. Mr FitzGerald: When did you last see me use a prepared speech? Mr INNES: The honourable member for Lockyer has not seen me use a prepared speech. As to him, I suppose that there is a down side to every risk; perhaps the honourable member's speeches show the down side. Every system has its strengths and weaknesses. I point to a very strong contrast in the styles of certain members. Mr FitzGerald: You are not talking about getting personal now, are you? Mr INNES: No. I will give an illustration. The honourable member for Warwick (Mr Booth) conducts his debates on issues. He takes strong differences with members on the other side of the Chamber and he does it without any personal rancour. The honourable member for Rockhampton (Mr Braddy) made a speech tonight. I am totally opposed to his politics, but I find him an amiable and decent person. When he speaks about the lack of courtesy and the lack of graces about certain pubUc events in this State, he is perfectiy right. If the Labor Party did it or the Liberal Party did it, he would be perfectly justified in condemning it. 964 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

The constmction of the Wivenhoe Dam was a major public works exercise. Constmction commenced when a coalition Govemment was in power, and it wiU be paid for by the rate-payers of Brisbane and the surtounding shires. A Labor city councU was in office when constmction commenced. A third of the Wivenhoe Dam project represents the flood mitigation component. Although my electorate was the worst-affected area in Brisbane during the flood, neither I nor any other non-National Party member representing a Brisbane electorate received an invitation to the opening of the Wivenhoe Dam. In spite of the fact that the Lord Mayor represented the majority of the users and the majority of the rate-payers, when she arrived, she was not even shown a place to park or given a place on the dais. That is a lack of courtesy and grace. It is symboUc of some of the problems that beset this House and some of the problems that beset the Govemment. Until Government and ParUament are put back onto a decent basis of mutual respect, things will go very wrong with accountabiUty in this State and there wiU continue to be a lack of respect for reasonable criticism directed at the Govemment. Mr Henderson: What was wrong with what happened to Sallyanne? Mr INNES: It was wrong not to give an invitation to aU members of this House to the ceremony marking completion of a massive project in public works; it was wrong not to include the Lord Mayor of Brisbane among those on the official dais; and it was wrong for two out of the three Ministers to ignore her presence. The person who acknowledged the presence of the Lord Mayor was the old larrikin, the Minister for Local Govemment (Mr Hinze) who, in spite of aU the criticism that is launched by the Opposition against him and all of the peccadiUoes he is involved in, such as his conflicts of interest, at least had the courtesy and was a big enough man to do the right thing on a formal and public occasion. That is why that Minister enjoys some respect from members of all parties in this House and from the pubUc. Mr Henderson: Why didn't SaUyanne invite Roy Harvey to the opening of the Boondall Entertainment Centre? Mr INNES: She did. Mr Henderson: Is that why he had to buy his own ticket? Is that right? Mr INNES: No. He was invited to the first pubUc occasion of the BoondaU Entertainment Centre, and I hope that that will continue in the fiiture. In tuming our attention to faimess Mr FitzGerald: And you are talking about not getting involved in personalities— my God! Mr INNES: I am using illustrations as gently as possible in this exercise, and the honourable member for Lockyer knows damed well that what I am saying is right. AU this stops an honest examination of the overwhelming matter of total concem to the Australian public, that is, the present economic predicament that we in Australia— particularly in Queensland—find ourselves in, as pointed out by the honourable member for Surfers Paradise (Mr Borbidge). Australia's public sector consumes 46 per cent of the nation's total expenditure. The pubic sector requires allocations of revenue that have been taken from the majority of the people of Australia to such an extent that they debilitate incentive. The level of taxation is so great that incentive is destroyed. The demand by the public sector for funds is so great that interest rates are increased. Those matters affect the lives of all Australians. It is pointless to say to the Federal Government only that it should reduce interest rates. The Queensland Govemment should examine the part its public expenditure plays in the total indebtedness of the nation. National indebtedness is contributed to by the private sector, the local govemment sector, the State Govemment sector and the Federal sector. AU sectors must bear the responsibility of understanding the problem. The problem has to be addressed with honesty. It must be realised that all of the sectors I have mentioned contribute to the national debt and must therefore bear the responsibiUty for pegging back the growth of Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 965 the pubUc sector. If pubUc sector growth can be reversed, taxes can be reduced and incentive restored. I have mentioned previously in the House that one of the most encouraging national trends is that the National Farmers Federation, whose members had held a traditionally protectionist viewpoint—along with the manufacturing sector—has adopted a macro- view and is pursuing poUcies that will restore market forces and reduce tariff protec­ tionism. I believe it is doing so to get the country back onto an honest basis of economic affairs that will allow Govemments to reverse the trend of high taxation and do something about incentive. The States can perform a very important role by participating in the reversal of the trend. To ascertain the facts, the Govemment need do no more than consult the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as the honourable member for Surfers Paradise (Mr Borbidge) mentioned. The Govemment must take on board that there is a participatory role for the States to play in shouldering responsibility for reversing the trends. For the sake of argument, if aU duplication between the State and Federal levels could be abolished, less than 5 per cent of the work-force would be removed. If the Federal Govemment retained its defence forces fiinction in Queensland, the figure would be a little less than 5 per cent. It would be fair to say that in Queensland 3 per cent of the people who are dependent on the Federal sector for employment would no longer be required. If the State Govemment employment-bearing sector and the local govemment sector are looked at, one finds that 20 per cent of the jobs in Queensland are funded from State Govemment and local govemment funds. So the figure goes from one in four to one in five, even if the duplication of Federal fiinctions is eUminated. The Budget papers can be looked at to determine the revenue component that comes from the money that the Federal Govemment has collected in income tax. What is the sum? Tax-sharing grants provide more than $2.1 billion. With financial assistance and special assistance probably about $2.5 biUion is coming from the Commonwealth back to the States by way of income tax retums. The income tax that is taken by the Federal Govemment comes back to the States in massive dollops. It comes back because of the original agreement that the Federal Govemment would collect tax on behalf of the States and then give it back to the States. The simple theorem that I am putting forward is this: The Federal Govemment cannot simply be told that because it is the central authority it therefore has the responsibUity for income tax and also the responsibility for the entire AustraUan debt. It does not. That debt comprises a number of constituent parts. The tax is raised on behalf of the States as weU as on behalf of the Federal Government. To be honest about the exercise and demand that the Federal Govemment pegs back its functions and the size of the public sector. State fiinctions have to be looked at as well. Retuming to the subject of State functions, it is not inconsistent to say that in some areas there should be growth, more growth than in other areas. A reassessment of priorities is required. I would put the preservation of law and order, the maintenance of health and the provision of education before a whole variety of other functions. Roads, and to some extent some aspects of raU, will also be important. If the history of this State is looked at to see the sorts of services that Govemments have traditionally provided, the priorities that are elementary to the maintenance of any reasonable Govemment infrastmcture wiU be seen. But the State Govemment has become involved in almost as many frills and as many stupidities as has the Federal Govemment. If there is disappointment about the State Budget, it is because it is clearly an election Budget. It is not a Budget that lives up to the rhetoric that both the National Party and the Liberal Party proclaim as part of their platforms and their contemporary view of the problems of this nation. It is because there is no real hurt; it is because there is no real peg back; and because there is no real control, that it is disappointing. Robin Gray's name has been mentioned tonight. Robin Gray has come to grips in a very fierce way with the problem of the size of Govemment. Just for the record, in 966 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) terms of low taxes, on the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures available before 4 September 1986, State taxes and charges per capita in Queensland amounted to $535 and in Tasmania they amounted to $516, which is $19 less than Queensland. There is then a logical question to be asked, which the member for Surfers Paradise refiised to ask, but which has to be asked. If one compares those figures against the figures for eamings—obviously if a person cams thousands of dollars more he can pay a few hundred dollars more tax—one finds that in Tasmania the average annual eamings of males is $20,290 and in Queensland it is $19,255. So Mr Gray, who himself is coming to grips in a fierce way with the size of his own bureaucracy, has lower State Govemment taxes and charges and presides over higher male weekly eamings. Mr FitzGerald: What is the cost of living in each State? Wouldn't that have an influence? Mr INNES: Obviously the cost of living wiU have relevance in setting the size of the income, but it also obviously has relevance to the amount of taxes and charges. There cannot be one without the other. Sure, the higher the cost of living, the higher the average weekly eamings are likely to be; but as well a higher tax component is likely. So let the Committee not be blinded by this Pavlovian dialogue of "WTiatever he says is wrong" and by simply picking out single statistics. I wish to address the problems that are facing this nation and see where the State Budget fits into the whole exercise. The reaUties are that the Queensland Govemment has not come to grips with the problem of the size of govemment. When the Budget is being debated, it is legitimate to tum to items in which there has been imesponsibiUty or excessive spending or to raise a question about the spending. I do not raise questions as to the bulk of the education, health or police spending. I am interested in ascertaining where the State might save some millions of doUars or trying to find some evidence that a system is wrong, which might indicate that other systems are wrong and require checking or scmtiny. To make the point, it is totally proper to deal with the issue of the Queensland Day Committee. In September 1985, the then Auditor-General presented his report on the Treasurer's Annual Statement. He made some comment about the Financial Administration and Audit Act and the system of accountability. He pointed out that each department has an accountable officer who is an authorised employee. He also said— "The authorization of an employee, however, cannot be taken to reUeve an accountable officer or, for that matter, his Minister, of the responsibiUty with respect to the duty to which the delegation relates. He must establish and maintain proper intemal controls to ensure that responsibilities are being properly discharged. These controls must be designed"— listen to this carefully— "to prevent irtegularities, waste, inefficiencies and failure to observe adopted poUcies and prescribed requirements." According to the document dealing with the Queensland Day Committee, it was only a month after that that the Auditor-General found himself in the position of having to initiate full inquiries into the Queensland Day Committee. What was the previous history? The previous history showed that there had been in each of the three previous years a significant overspending of that budget. If I might go back to 1984-85—the Auditor-General's document shows that the Queensland Day Committee had been appropriated $100,000 and had spent $110,570. Its budget blew out by 10 per cent. Notwithstanding that it blew out by 10 per cent, the provision for the foUowing year, 1985-86, was set at $108,000, an increase of only 8 per cent. The financial retum for that year shows that the spending of that committee blew out to $123,000, in other words, a blow-out of 15, 16 or 17 per cent. So for two years in a row—the two years that happened to be the two before the Auditor-General made those comments—that committee's budget blew out by from 10 to 17 per cent. Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 967 One would have thought that that sort of blow-out would raise questions, at least on the part of the accountable officer in the department and of the Minister. The Minister should have been saying about that account, "Hold up. What is this? Why is there regularly on this account a blow-out of from 10 to 17 per cent?" The Minister should have been asking questions. He should have been taking the steps that the Auditor- General says involve, from the Minister down—in this case, from the Premier down— the establishment and maintenance of proper procedures designed to prevent irtegularities, waste, inefficiencies and failure to observe adopted policies and prescribed requirements. It has been found in a dramatic way that things were very far wrong with the Queensland Day Committee. I am saying that the signs were there in the accounts. From comments contained in documents there is reason to believe that major problems have been experienced with the Queensland Film Corporation. As somebody who has tried to read the reports of the Queensland Film Corporation, I am not at all surprised. Before the issue ever broke, I certainly said to a couple of honourable members, "There is something strange about these figures.The y do not jell. They do not add up." The reports contained many stark, dramatic black-and-white photographs, a couple of pages of narrative and the most mdimentary and difficult-to-understand figures that honourable members have ever seen. Therefore, there is reason to believe that the established audit procedures in this State are not working. It has been discovered that those audit procedures are being abused sufficiently to involve criminality. There is a very good reason for saying that this Govemment should establish the sort of procedures that led to the revelation of the scandals in the Federal sphere involving Juni Morosi and CEP funding for the Italian branch of the Communist Party. That was dragged out by members of aU-party Estimates committees. People were summoned to appear before those committees. Do honourable members know how the Morosi affair and the Italian Communist Party affair got out? It got out because coalition members of Estimates committees, using the rights that those committees have, summoned public servants before the Parliament and demanded answers that the public servants could not give. The public servants had to go away and get those answers, and that is how the scandal was revealed. That is why there should be accountability. It has been proven that accountability is needed. It has been proven that the audit procedures evaluate not the worth of the spending but only the docket system behind the spending and, one assumes—in the case of Mrs CaUaghan—the fraudulent documentation. That is why there should be committees of accountability to ask the questions that reveal the full extent of the problems. How many other problems are there in Queensland? I do not for one moment condemn every part of this Budget or indeed the major parts of the Budget that relate to the necessary moneys to mn vital Govemment functions. However, for obvious reasons, I concentrate on the areas in relation to which the public are entitled to demand some scmtiny to determine whether the Govemment is getting value for money. I finish this parliamentary term almost as I started it, because the accounts of the Govemment still contain a figure relating to Suttons Foundry. Just before the last election, the Govemment flew alone on a mission that no free-enterprise Govemment should have embraced, and no Govemment should ever embrace. It took a decision on cheap, short-term political grounds to bail out Suttons Foundry, which was in terrible financial trouble. One foundry was in Ipswich and the other in Curmmbin. The foundry in Curmmbin had just been bought, even though the company was in a parlous financial position and in no position to mn it. The Govemment's action in that one exercise involved the expenditure of more money than had been allocated over three years to the development of all small businesses in this State. Only in this year is the aUocation for small business roughly as large as the amount that was lost in six short months by this Govemment in that exercise. 968 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

I remind honourable members that early in 1983 Suttons Foundry, which was in desperate financial trouble, appUed to the Queensland Govemment—then a coalition Govemment—for assistance. The state of the foundry was examined by public servants, who recommended against giving it assistance and the Govemment went along with the public servants' advice. In the panic before the last election, after the break-up of the coalition when it was thought that there might be a few votes at Curmmbin or Ipswich to be gained or lost, $ 1.25m worth of shares in the foundry were bought by the Queensland Govemment— $ 1.25m worth of shares bought by a free enterprise Govemment in a company that was going to the waU, a company that the public servants said was going to the waU and a company that, within six months, went to the waU. The Govemment not only bought shares worth $ 1.25m but also gave guarantees of $ 1.75m. The guarantees have been recovered and paid out, leaving the paper for the shares that cost $ 1.25m. The receiver has failed to retum his report. I would not mind hazarding a guess that report will not be retumed until after the next State election. The tmth is that scrip is worthless. The tax-payers of Queensland wiU receive nothing back on the $ 1.25m investment—an amount that is more than the entire expenditure on small business over a three-year period. Mr Davis: Don't forget Evans Deakin. Mr INNES: Evans Deakin, yes. There was a coaUtion Govemment at the time. I can recaU speaking against a proposal to doctor up the special le^slation in Queensland to protect Evans Deakin from take-over. The principle was wrong. Sir William Knox: We didn't bail Evans Deakin out. Mr INNES: Tme, but the reality is that the difference between the price paid for the shares is an exercise that a free enterprise Govemment should never have been involved in and today's market value represents a $5.5m loss to the tax-payer of Queensland. Is the Queensland Govemment helping its friends? Free enterprise says, "You don't help friends when the market is distorted." In the Sutton's case, the Queensland Govemment did not provide any assistance to the other efficient foundries in Queensland. It bolstered up an inefficient foundry, but one with a large market. The Queensland Govemment did not help Evans Deakin, which has not stopped rationaUsing its operations. A question was asked about the sale of the Castlemaine Perkins shares. The philosophy in the purchase of the Evans Deakin shares was very different from the philosophy in the sale of the Castlemaine Perkins shares. In one instance the shares were bou^t in order to protect a Queensland-based company, and in the other instance the shares in a Queensland company were sold. It certainly has the appearance of being inconsistent. Sir William Knox: Transactions took place in Sydney and lost the State $8m in stamp duty. $8m in stamp duty went down the drain. Mr INNES: If this Chamber is to talk free enterprise, smaU govemment or low taxes, let it be about that business. That does not mean that priority is not given to certain expenditure that has to be made or that a call cannot be made for more police officers. It does mean that the crazy expenditure of the type I have instanced can be questioned, as can the loss suffered by the tax-payer on schemes or exercises that should never have been countenanced by any party sticking to a free enterprise philosophy. Mr SIMPSON (Cooroora) (9.3 p.m.): I support the 1986 Budget of the Queensland Govemment. I have been present for a number of Budget debates, and on every occasion the Opposition knocks the Budget, tells everyone that it wiU not work and says that it will be the Govemment's last Budget. Queensland has never been in a more prosperous period than it has been over the last 10 to 20 years. I was somewhat concemed during the mn-up to the Budget, when Supply 4 September 1986 969 world commodity prices were so depressed and Queensland was suffering from another Labor Govemment in Canberra that has not only treated it badly but also caused people to become very unhappy with each other, and even depressed, through not being encouraged to be productive and to get on with the job. Unfortunately, it is hard to teU which comes first. Is it the bad management of the Labor Party? Some people cite ACTU/Solo and Bourke's store as examples of how the Labor Party manages a business. Is it that incompetence that causes the Labor Party to mn Australia's economy so badly or is it some deeper philosophy? It hates the capitalist system and it has an overwhelming desire for it not to work. Many people consider that the Labor Party is trying to bring down the capitaUst system by not allowing it to work, thereby mining Australia with mismanagement. Every Friday, about $400m is paid to buy bonds to prop up the Australian dollar. High interest rates are set to save Australia's face in world terms at the expense of the Australian dollar. There must be a better way of mnning Australia. All investment and encouragement to expand and be productive in Australia has virtually been brought to a standstiU. Growth is occurring in only a few areas, one of which, fortunately for Queensland, is tourism. -Queensland is getting the lion's share of Australia's tourism. About 44 per cent of investment in the tourist industry in Australia is made in Queensland. That reflects the increasing number of tourists who are coming to Australia, and the number of tourists who are using Queensland as their prime destination. Next year the Australian tourism industry will suffer because the other States are to adopt a two-semester school system similar to that in Queensland. All AustraUan school holidays wiU fall at the same time, which wiU cause a great shortage of beds and apply pressure on proprietors to increase tariffs to offset the lower tariffs during the rest of the year. I hope that that move is resisted. Queensland has gone a long way towards evening out the peaks and troughs in the tourist industry, providing a more competitive basis and encouraging more people to take advantage of their leisure-time. Foreign eamings are derived from overseas tourists. AustraUa benefits from the inflow of overseas currency. Where would Australia be if Queensland did not exist? If Queensland's contribution in dollar terms over the last few years was taken out of the economy of Australia, the situation would be disastrous. One must overcome the mismanagement of the Federal Govemment and try to increase productivity. That is one way of solving the unemployment problem. Interest rates must be reduced so that people are encouraged to invest in new industries that will create new jobs. Industries that have potential markets should be encouraged. That brings me back to tourism. The fuU potential of the tourist industry has not been tapped. The Queensland Govemment is concentrating its meagre resources on doing that, and I commend the Treasurer for what he has done. The Treasurer in his Budget has given incentive to the local regional tourist boards to develop the industry further. The Federal Govemment's tourist promotion program involving Paul Hogan is an excellent one. The initial hiccups were overcome. I was in America at the time when the first advertisement involving Paul Hogan appeared on television. Everyone wanted information on Australia. However, the publication of the relevant material was a month behind the presentation of the television advertisement. That problem has now been overcome and the program has been a winner. Ninety- nine per cent of the success of the program can be attributed to the fact that Paul Hogan is such an intelligent person and is a good drawcard in seUing Australia. The Queensland Govemment has shown the incentive to introduce that tourism program for Queensland in overseas tourist centres that have been set up in Los Angeles and Tokyo. However, the Queensland Govemment has been criticised by the Federal Govemment for showing that incentive and has been told, "Get out of it. That is only for the Australian Government." 970 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

All Australians should be involved in the tourist industry. Even someone on a farm in the west who supplies a product, or a small-business person in the suburbs, can help the tourist industry. We are all part of the tourist industry. A store-keeper cannot tell when a tourist will come through his door. The whole secret of the success of the tourist industry, especially the overseas market, is to "Smile a tourist many happy retums"— "Smile a tourist many happy retums". I repeated that because, although it is bad grammar, it makes good sense. The whole idea is to serve tourists and to be as polite and as helpful to them as they are to us when we travel overseas, so that they will retum to Australia. Mr Davis: Who paid for your trip overseas? Mr SIMPSON: I paid every cent of the cost of my overseas travel. I did that on two occasions in an endeavour to further my knowledge and experience of the tourist industry, especially for my own electorate of Cooroora, which covers the area between Nambour and Noosa. Many honourable members still do not understand the magnitude of the intemational tourist market. Approximately 500 million to 600 million people are intemational tourists. Of that number, Australia receives fewer than 2 per cent. If that figurecoul d be doubled, Australia's unemployment problems would be solved. The tertiary industries that flow from tourism would be kept mnning. Australia should push its resources. I mentioned high interest rates and how the high taxation burden should be lessened. It should not be lessened in the manner in which the Hawke Govemment is doing it— by increasing taxation and adding the fringe benefits tax and anything else that it can think of, such as the 30 per cent tax on superannuation and the increase in the Medicare levy, from 1 per cent to l'/4 per cent. The Hawke Govemment now intends to impose a tax upon a tax. It intends to tax everyone with fringe benefits. That tax will be included in income tax. In addition, the Medicare levy wiU be imposed. That is an example of the Government's socialist way of mismanaging or ruining the economy of a capitalist country. If honourable members were to read Hawke's Boyer Lecture they would realise that the Prime Minister is a socialist who is trying to min the Australian economy. There is a great need for taxes to be reduced within Australia. Govemment members believe in small govemment. We now have the mns on the board. I do not intend repeating the excellent contributions that have been made by Govemment members. I hope that people reading Hansard and those reporting the proceedings weigh up the arguments and the facts and figures presented in this debate. No fair-minded person can come to any other conclusion than that the Govemment has done a first-rate job under very difficult conditions not only on the intemational scene but also in the face of being short-changed and badly treated by the Federal Govemment. The only way to obtain smaller Govemment is to reduce the intake of taxation. That is what the Queensland Govemment has to do. It has to reduce the tax to provide greater incentive to people to be productive. However, the major area of that taxation is at the Federal level, and the Govemment does not have a direct say in Federal poUcies or tax-setting. Hopefully, at the next election the socialists will be removed. Unfortunately, Mr Howard still has a few albatrosses round his neck, in the form of fringe benefits tax and other taxes, but I hope that he forgets about them. They will not help people who are looking to elect an altemative Govemment. The people no longer want Hawke; they want a retum to productivity. I am delighted that there is provision in the Budget for the realignment of the railway line on a better grade between Eumundi and Cooroy. This is a major contribution towards making the railways more profitable. The railways are a splendid example of how efficiency in govemment can be improved. More departments should be investigated by private consultants in an endeavour to cut costs. $7m has been spent in Cooroora on that railway line. $1.2m has been spent on the new court house at Noosa Heads. Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 971

The bypass at Nambour has been commenced. $20m has been allocated for extensions to the Nambour Hospital, and a large portion of that sum is allocated in this Budget. Those projects are tremendous. So are the Brisbane Transit Centre at Roma Street and the Toowong development. I lopk forward to the fulfilment of my dream of electrification of the railway lines in Queensland and, in time, from Brisbane to Adelaide. By 1988, electric trains will take one and a half hours from Brisbane to Nambour. I look forward to travelling on those trains to Expo, which will be another major tourist attraction in this State. This moming, with the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr Wharton), I inspected the tremendous development beside Expo—the Queensland Cultural Centre, the art gallery and the museum. This development will cost $26m to $28m and will be another tremendous drawcard for tourists, which will be of great benefit to Brisbane. Many overseas and interstate tourists will visit that centre. It is part of what will ultimately be a $160m to $170m complex that will satisfy the cultural needs of the people of this State and nation. It is with much pleasure that I support the Budget. I hope that people wUl read the arguments from both sides of the Chamber and come to the only conclusion they can, that is, that in the light of the difficulties inflicted upon the State by the Commonwealth and intemationally this is a tremendous Budget. Mr PRICE (Mount Isa) (9.19 p.m.): Surely one of the principal roles of Govemment is to wisely use its revenue to improve the quality of life in this great State. The Budget is the collation of revenue sources to be used for the betterment of the citizens of the State. It has to be financially responsible and socially responsive and it must encourage strong economic growth. Ttte Govemment has to be even-handed, distributing without prejudice just the cortect kmount of monetary incentive to encourage or rekindle. It must weigh up the options and accept its restraints, its parameters, and live within its means. As well, tempering policy with good sense, the Government must not collect revenue indiscriminately and overtly destroy incentive, merely to favour the few. Above all, every citizen should benefit. This Govemment has failed on all counts. It has been financially irtesponsible in that it has failed to provide a climate for economic progress. It has stifled the citizens of Queensland in their efforts to improve their quality of life. This Govemment, through its pork-bartelling, is guilty of the worst kind of discrimination. It has used the power of the purse to hammer home its political policies, to the detriment of this State. Its method of weighing up options is to impose its harsh policies on the weak and the strong without compassion. Because it imposes upon Queenslanders the highest per capita public debt ratio in the nation, it belies its own rhetoric of living within its means. The Govemment's tax-collecting indiscriminately burdens the few to bolster its poor economic performance. The colourless set of accounts presented by the Govemment as the Budget is neither good sense nor sound reasoning. Central to its policy is an attempt to build a natural constituency that is funded by one industry—the mining industry. The Govemment fails to understand that one cannot distribute eggs when one has killed the goose. The Budget has not only killed the goose, it has plucked and stuffed it as weU. A good deal has been said in recent weeks about the Federal Govemment's Budget, particularly about the now-famous fringe benefits tax. I have cause to question the good sense of mining industry leaders who have made much of such an equitable tax. MIM Holdings has issued statements that condemn the Federal Govemment for the imposition of a $ 5m Australia-wide burden on the company. The tale of woe reverberated throughout the financial world, with the result that investors were convinced that, because of the imposition of the fringe benefits tax, the company was close to extinction. As a result, its shares suffered a considerable decline in value. Losses occasioned in that way far outweighed the $5m attributable to FBT. 972 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

Throughout the whole episode, feeble cries were directed at this State Govemment, which has raped that company annually to the tune of $150m in rail freights alone. Profit to the State from that Uttle gesture would be in the vicinity of $75m and thus must be labelled a tax. I instance as a measure of that imposition the cost of comparable road freight, which would be half the figure I have mentioned. Nevertheless, this State retains a monopoly that is the only one of its kind in a raUway system in AustraUa. Competition is a non-existent element. Mr Lee: Is that tme? Mr PRICE: It is tme. To have goods transported, one must use the State's raUway system. At the opening of ParUament in 1983, the Govemor of Queensland was very concemed about the imposts that he feared would affect the competitiveness of the State's mining industry. He appealed to the Government for a review of its policy. Treasury has been so avaricious that it has dismissed this concem, and has berated mining industry leaders who have dared to question its priorities. That has happened to such an extent that I detect a tum away from the National Party by the mining companies and a tum towards the Liberal Party. They wiU never leam. Mr Lee: There are more Hansard staff Ustening to the debate than there are members in the Chamber. Mr PRICE: I know that. I do not know whether I would describe it as fortunate, but I notice that the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Gunn) has entered the Chamber to listen to me. He was not present for most of the debate, but it is good to see him here now. I think it is only proper that he should not miss out on hearing the best speech. Mining industry leaders never leam. Even if the Liberal Party were given the chance, it would not change a single thing. Its irrelevance wiU be highUghted in the next election when few of its parliamentary representatives will survive. The rail freight charges exacted from mining companies in this State are grossly excessive. As proponents of free enterprise and competitiveness, the Govemment could be expected to impose charges on a cost-plus basis; the plus factor being the normal rate of retum. In this State rail freights are nothing less than a super tax. How can mining companies be expected to retain money to put back into new ventures? How can mining companies be expected to obtain money to create jobs by investing in new mining ventures? I challenge the Govemment to nominate one, two or more new mining ventures that have been attempted in this State in the last two years. If one does exist, I am sure that it has stagnated through fear of an end to this Govemment's present moratorium on increases in rail freights. There is simply no money for new mines. Why are the mines of this State subjected to such imposts? Recent figures show that Queensland has become the nation's largest exporting State. If no new ground is broken, how will that momentum be maintained? The reserves of ore in present mines are finite. Queensland's exports must fall if there are no more new mines, no exploration and no incentive to invest. Recently MIM recorded a profit of $31m. That constituted a retum of 1.9 per cent on assets employed. Mr Lee: You will get 16'/2 per cent on the money market. Mr PRICE: That is right. On the money market I6V2 per cent can be obtained. Only a mug would put his money in mining in this State. If a person wants to become a capitalist, how can he be expected to invest his money for a retum of that size? To gain that profit MIM had to pay out $150m in rail freight. Halving the rail freight would have given them a $100m profit. MIM's proven enterprise could have been put to work on reinvestment and what it knows best—mining. Jobs and exports Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 973 could then have been created and better retums obtained. At present stagnation and uncompetitiveness exist in Queensland. The whole principle of rail freights is wrong. The recentiy introduced fiinge benefits tax was a nuisance and a $5m annoyance to MIM. Rail freights are a tax on doing business. Th6 Govemment is attacking competitiveness. This Govemment said it supports industry yet its rail freights attack industry. This Govemment says that it supports industry—and mining is its largest industry. If this Govemment was sincere, it would put its money where its mouth is. No other industry in this State even comes close to the mining industry. Tourism certainly cannot match it, no matter how much rhetoric is heard on that subject in this debate. Agriculture is a poor second. Will this Govemment do anything? Queensland is the laughing-stock of the mining world, with competing countries deriding its raU freights. It can also be added that for some time there has not been an increase and that the Govemment may weU continue its moratorium on increases in rail freight charges. Not only does the mining industry want that moratorium but it also wants cut-backs. It needs them. This Govemment's record is not good. It is frightening. With indexed charges, increases are likely to begin again at any time. The industry sits on a time bomb. By comparison the fringe benefits tax is nothing. This Govemment aids and abets an unfair advantage to mining's overseas competitors. Mining companies are supposed to compete with others overseas. Therefore, this Govemment is in the business of competing. It is the Govemment's fault if Queensland loses in world competition. What is this Govem­ ment doing to help mining companies compete with countries such as Chile, South Africa and countries in South America that only require the income from their mines to create foreign exchange and get themselves out of debt? What practical support is this Govemment giving Queensland's largest industry? This Govemment points to devaluation as giving Australian companies the com­ petitive edge. All of the competing countries themselves are experiencing ciurency devaluation. Forty per cent devaluation is relatively stable. Many of Australia's com­ petitors are facing massive devaluations of hundreds of percentage points. The whole issue of rail freights must again be reviewed. This Govemment does not support its own mining industry. It denies the mining industry the flexibilityi t needs to capture markets on the world scene. The Govemment paralyses mining companies in negotiation. How can Queensland's mining companies compete when they are faced with a charge of 6.4c per tonne kilometre while companies in South Africa pay only 1.6c and companies in Canada pay 2c? Who knows what sales Queensland has already lost? Who will ever know what mining projects were lost to other countries? Those developments have gone to other countries where rail freights are lower. The fact that no new projects are opening up in Queensland and that exploration is dropping is a good indication that development of coal mines is occurring in other countries, not in Queensland. World production and demand is increasing, but Queensland is not sharing in the rewards of that growth. Obviously, that is because Queensland mines cannot compete. This Government boasts of its low-tax profile, but can do so only because of mining royalties and rail freights. By 1990, the Queensland Govemment hopes to raise 25 per cent of its revenue in this manner from existing mines, which wiU be forced to process richer and richer ore in a scorched-earth poUcy, a policy that depletes reserves with a finite capacity from a finite number of mines far too quickly. It is an irtesponsible policy costing Queensland mUlions of doUars in lost revenue. At one time, because Queensland's coal mines were close to the coast, they had an advantage. Now Queensland has the world's highest raU freight rates and is no longer competitive. An example is the Mount Isa mine, which is 9(X) km from the coast. If the Government maintains a monopoly on mineral cartage, it should bear a share of the loss that is imposed on mining. Because of rail freight rates, some mines are now actually mnning at a loss. The Govemment is risking the closure of those mines, with a subsequent 974 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) loss in revenue to the State. Holding a monopoly carries a responsibility to share in losses as well as profits. The ALP would scrap the present system of rail freight rates and consult with the mining industry to establish a formula for the payment of rail freights in times when overwhelming evidence suggests that excessive rail tax is hindering development—like now! In the Budget the Govemment claims to have absorbed increases in fuel costs of approximately $6m. On its past record, the Government will look for reimbursement from the miners. In the light of all that I have mentioned here, I caution the Govemment to exercise common sense. I move from rail freight rates to other Govemment non-expenditure. Only a Govemment fearful of the impact of its own policies would implement a no-action Budget. I would go so far as to say that the Queensland Govemment has no policies. With ad hoc decisions and bandaid repairs, everything is "seat-of-the-pants flying". The Govemment is very good at feeling the pulse of the electorate, at trying instant democracy and at using electronic assessments to aid analysis to determine what people are thinking. I am personally convinced that that is what occurred with the Lindeman Island affair and it is to that I attribute the success of Sir Robert Sparkes in his encounter with the Premier. It is the Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen) who makes the mnning on issues and determines policies on-the-go, while Sir Robert Sparkes, sometimes days later when the feelings of the electorate are determined by telephone polling, makes the final decision. That is all right on topical issues, but it makes for a Govemment of uncertainty, knee-jerk reactions and irtelevant involvement. I wish to express my disappointment, and the disappointment of the Mount Isa Bicentennial Community Committee at the recent decision by the Queensland Govemment to refuse an application for further capital funding for bicentennial projects. That decision means that the major Mount Isa bicentennial project, which was the John Campbell Miles Centre on the comer of Miles and Marian Streets wiU, because of the lack of Govemment funding, not now go ahead. That project, which met all the guide-Unes as set down by the bicentennial authority, was to have been buUt by combined funding from the Govemment, the local authority and private sponsorship. The request to the State Govemment was for a grant of $300,000. That has now been officially rejected. The decision by the Queensland Govemment means that the city of Mount Isa will receive a total of only $57,700 for capital works to mark the bicentennial year. This comprises $27,400 from the Federal Govemment and $30,300 from the State Govemment. From that total of $57,700, the Mount Isa Bicentennial Community Committee has already allocated $15,000 to the National Tmst's project to rebuild a band rotunda, which leaves only $42,700 for other works. When one considers not the millions of dollars but the billions of dollars that the mineral field of Mount Isa has provided for Govemments in this country over the past 50 years, and that it will continue to generate further income for Govemments over the next 50 years, it is apparent that the city of Mount Isa has been treated unfairly by the State Govemment in respect to bicentennial funding. Over the past 10 years, the State Govemment has received $243m in royalties alone from the mining operation in Mount Isa. Add to that the $495m in raU freights paid by the mining company to the Govemment over that same period, and it is found that over 10 years, $738m has been paid to the Queensland Govemment. And the city of Mount Isa asks for a paltry $300,000! It is interesting to note that the town of Cloncurry will receive $200,000 from the Queensland Govemment for its bicentennial project. Good luck to it. The city of Mount Isa will receive a miserly $30,300 from the same Govemment. It is interesting also to note that the Queensland Govemment's funding of bicentennial projects is less than $7 per head of population, whereas the New South Wales Govemment has committed in excess of $14 per head of population for capital works in that State to mark the bicentenary. Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 975 I know that Govemments are saying, "We have to tighten our belts during the bad economic times." However, there does not seem to be any sign of belt-tightening when one travels to the south-east comer of this State. It is apparent to all that it is much easier to cut Govemment spending in the areas in which the minority of people Uve rather than in major population centres. The 1986-87 Budget has allocated $684,000 to the Royal Flying Doctor Service. The Queensland Govemment continues its dismal record of contributing the lowest percentage of funding of any State towards the cost of running the Royal Flying Doctor Service. The Queensland Govemment consistently gets its priorities wrong and refuses to fund the Royal Hying Doctor Service at a realistic level. The service is essential to the people of outback Queensland. The State Govemment should be providing greater financial aid to support that service. The Queensland Govemment is not above perpetrating and spreading mmours, mixed with its anti-Canberta invective, to undermine these worthwhile institutions. Until recently, both the Premier and the Minister for Northem Development and Community Services (Mr Katter) were claiming that the Federal Govemment was considering withdrawing its financing of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. In fact, the proposed artangements mean that there will be an increase in Federal funding for the Queensland service. However, that is entirely dependent on the Queensland Govemment coming to the party. As the Premier pointed out, in the last financial year the Queensland Royal Flying Doctor Service treated almost 23 000 patients. As the Minister for Northem Development and Community Services pointed out, Queensland's remote towns, cattle stations, mining camps and the Aboriginal and Islander reserves all rely on the Royal Flying Doctor Service. What neither of those gentlemen pointed out is that the Queensland Govemment provides a lower percentage of funding for the operating costs of the Royal Flying Doctor Service than any other State Govemment in Australia. In the last financial year, the Federal Govemment provided more than 40 per cent of the operating costs of that service, in contrast to this State's support of less than 30 per cent. The Federal Govemment's contribution of more than $1,336,000 to the Queensland Royal Flying Doctor Service was in addition to a capital grant of $467,000, which was allocated to the Queensland service to purchase a new plane. The Commonwealth is prepared to increase its share of fiinding for the operating costs of the service to 45 per cent, but only if that is matched by the State Govemment. A review undertaken by the States and the Commonwealth of existing funding arrangements found that the Royal Flying Doctor Service is a part of the overaU State health system and that State Govemments should play a greater role in determining the priorities and expenditures of the service in their States. If the Federal Govemment is prepared to provide 45 per cent of the operating costs of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, it is only reasonable that the Queensland Govemment should put its money where its mouth is and do the same. I tum to the Budget allocation of $684,000. Last year, the Queensland Royal Flying Doctor Service received $754,000. This year, it was expecting a 7 per cent increase to $807,000, in line with other budgetary increases. The Federal Budget increased funding to the Royal Flying Doctor Service from $6.437m to $7.1m, an overaU increase of 10 per cent. From those figures I can assume that Queensland did not receive less than it did last year, yet this Govemment sees fit not only to lessen the Service's allocation, but also to further push the service-funding into oblivion. It is this Govemment that is reneging on the country areas, lowering the priority of the health of the country people and withdrawing its financial support for the RFDS. I suggest that this Govemment is winding down the Royal Flying Doctor Service. It is 976 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement) strangling it by reducing its capabilities. The Govemment is containing the RFDS network by failing to adequately fund its services. For example, is this Govemment really considering aerial ambulances to replace the Royal Flying Doctor Service? Is the shortage of funds attributable to the advent of Q-Net and telemedicine? Does it see the end of the flying doctor? Is this country witnessing the slow demise of an Australian legend? Perhaps I attribute too much to the thinking processes of the Govemment members. This Govemment is showing its real priorities when it attacks the flying doctor in this manner. I refer to the Department of Community Services. This is pertinent to my electorate where there is a large Aboriginal population. The Budget papers declare that the department is responsible for the implementation of Government policy and initiatives with regard to Aboriginal and Islander communities in Queensland, including the provision of financial assistance to the communities. The department has two primary fiinctions: firstly, the management of Aboriginal and Islander communities; and secondly, assistance to the Aboriginal and Islander people in regional centres. The Minister for Northem Development and Community Services (Mr Katter) is probably on the way out because the new Govemment would dismiss him as a potential candidate for a Ministry. I would Uke the new Minister, whoever he is, to take note of the constmctive criticisms I am making of the region I represent. In the heart of the city of Mount Isa lies what could be described nowadays as a town camp. For as long as I can remember Aborigines have been living in the town camp, which is virtuaUy on an island in the river-bed above the flood levels. Aboriginal famUies have squatted in the bed of the Leichhardt River. The poUcy of this Govemment is to integrate these famiUes into modem suburbia. The Govemment has to have a picture in its mind of exactly what is occurring in this region and how the Aborigines live. The mission stations are beginning to break up as the inhabitants move away from the centres to retum to their traditional lands and live in the way their forefathers lived. That is the way they choose to Uve. Others are attracted to the cities, and Mount Isa gets a high percentage of these people. The people who come to the cities slowly leam the ways of the white people and integrate into the society. Mount Isa is an excellent place for that integration to occur, and nobody seems to mind the natural way that is being achieved, rather than by the forced immediate integration policy laid down by this Govemment. Many years ago the Mount Isa City Council could see that immediate integration was not working. Honourable members in this Chamber wiU aU remember the stories of these people being put into suburbia, houses being bumt down and the Aborigines stating that they did not have anywhere to warm their hands. The Aborigines were unable to live in the traditional way in which they were reared. They came into the city and camped in the river-bed. Immediately families were placed into modem suburbia and all kinds of racial strife occumed. There were virtual wars between neighbours and eventually houses were bumt down and the people were moved on. That conflict arose because the cultures were so diverse that, in its raw state, integration would not work. The Queensland Govemment continued its policy. Years ago, in coalition under Mr Katter's predecessors, it was probably worse. What may work in Brisbane has no chance of working in a city such as Mount Isa. Both the mine and the city fathers saw that it was not working. They got together, received a Federal grant, sewered a region, put in some mining cottages that, as far as MIM was concemed, were obsolete and created a settlement of half-way houses. People were placed into those little cottages and members of the staff of the Mount Isa City Council were used to educate them in the use of facilities of a modem house. That system worked amazingly well. It worked so well that families that moved on into suburbia had a very high success rate. The Mount Isa City Council could not continue to fund the project. In the early '70s the project was costing a quarter of a million dollars a year. As welfare was the province of the State Govemment, it should Supply (Financial Statement) 4 September 1986 977 have been a State Govemment expenditure. Eventually the State Govemment agreed to take over the site and the Mount Isa City Council moved out. The State Govemment continued on its hard line with its immediate integration policy. Consequently, since that time very little money, if any, has been spent on that region in Mount Isa called Yallambee. Today, the size of Yallambee has been reduced to four or five cottages. Gradually, the Queensland Govemment has taken the opportunity to destroy the cottages and place no more people in the area. It is the wish of those people, and it has been shown to be the wish of the Mount Isa City Council and the Mount Isa Chamber of Commerce, that they be allowed to choose exactly where they want to live. They have chosen to stay in that area. They do not want to move. They have discovered that, once they get into suburbia, they cannot cope. The black people do not want to go into white suburbia until they can cope. Of course, the white people do not want them in suburbia for those very same reasons: because they cannot cope, because they start arguments and because they face racial strife. The Queensland Govemment is intransigent. It insists on integrating those people into white society as quickly as possible but at the State Govemment's pace, not at the black people's pace. Today, Yallambee is in very real danger of being obUterated. That danger is now coming to a head. With the support of the people of Mount Isa, I believe that within the next three to four weeks something will occur that will put pressure on the State Govemment to change its position on Yallambee. On more than one occasion the Minister for Northern Development and Community Services (Mr Katter) has promised to fund Yallambee. The promise of funding was made not only to the people of Yallambee but also to the Mount Isa City Council and to city-leaders. However, in practice the Minister is not doing that at all; he is refusing to allocate money to allow the continuation of what he would classify as a black ghetto around the city of Mount Isa. If he is talking about black ghettos, perhaps he should look at some of the Aboriginal settlements in other parts of the State for which he has had responsibility for the last few years. An Opposition Member: He mightn't have found them yet. Mr PRICE: Perhaps he has not. Although I can cite a number of examples, I do not have time to go through them. The Govemment refuses to administer and it refiises to act, thereby allowing the economy of the State to stagnate. It blames anybody but itself for its problems. It then has the audacity to boast of its non-action by publishing documentary evidence of its bungling. Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for PoUce) (9.49 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions. However, once again I have to say how disappointed I was at the lack of imagination shown by members of the Opposition in the debate. They failed to come to grips with the reality of this State Budget. Having found that they could not fault its logic, they resorted to the same hoary old arguments that have been trotted out time after time. They talked about the deficit. It is obvious that they did not read or hear the Budget Speech delivered by the Honourable the Premier and Treasurer. I repeat those parts of the Premier's Budget Speech that I believe are relevant. The Premier stated that the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Loan Fund are balanced; that the Tmst and Special Funds are in substantial surplus; and that the position is very sound indeed. The figures are there in black and white for aU honourable members to see. I thank the honourable member for Surfers Paradise for drawing the attention of the Committee to the South Australian Budget deficit of $7.3m. What a contrast that Budget is to the Queensland Budget. This Govemment has every right to be proud of its financialmanagemen t and its critical balanced-Budget objective. Because it is a leader in sound budgeting, the Govemment has a good record.

72408—34 978 4 September 1986 Supply (Financial Statement)

The Financial Administration and Audit Act was the first piece of legislation of its kind. As Opposition members would be aware, that Act has been the blueprint for legislation in almost every other State. The record of the Government has been further enhanced by vanguard legislation on accountabUity for statutory bodies. The State Govemment has led the field in fostering accountability. Opposition members should note the mess that New South Wales is in. Opppsition members often speak about the good deal that Queensland has received from the Federal Govemment. That is a joke! How can the Opposition possibly claim that Queensland receives a good deal from Canbema when Queenslanders receive $30.30 per capita for Medicare yet South AustraUa receives $85.56 per capita? Two of the many examples of the raw deal that Queensland receives from the Federal Govemment are to be found in the housing and tertiary fiinding sectors. It is amazing that the Govemment's low-taxation record should be challenjged by Opposition members in such a simpUstic way. If Opposition members were tmly objective, they would look at what their Labor counterparts are doing in other States. For example, in Victoria the revenue received from petrol taxes has increased by almost 160 per cent in the last four years. I remind honourable members that Queensland does not have a petrol tax. The increase in land taxation revenue in New South Wales has been almost 90 per cent in the last four years. The increase in revenue received from the tobacco tax in South ifiustralia has been almost 175 per cent in four years. I also remind honourable members that Queensland does not have a tobacco tax. In South AustraUa, which has an area of only half that of Queensland, the Govemment takes approximately $100m from its tax-payers in petrol, tobacco and gas taxes alone. Queensland has none of those taxes. I do not know how people living in those States can survive. The number of people flockingt o Queensland suggests that the southem States are experiencing grave difficulties. The Opposition has again put forward program budgeting as the be-all and end-aU for budgeting. Opposition members should consult their counterparts in the southem States as to how they view program budgeting. Opposition members have mshed into what they claim to be the marvellous concept of program budgeting and are now choking on the weight of paper that is being generated. If Opposition members are really interested in finding out what program budgeting is all about, they should consiUt the Burke Govemment of Westem Australia. That Govemment dropped the program with almost indecent haste when it realised what was involved, despite the fact that it was party policy. There is no substitute for good decision-making. That is the comer-stone of this Govemment. The Queensland Govemment does not need program budgeting to make its decisions for it. It is incredible that constant reference is made to reports by the Grants Commission that show that Queensland has a low per capita expenditure on its functions. Surely being efficient and doing things more cost-effectively is what Govemments are all about. To suggest that the Govemment should be criticised for spending less is plain nonsense. On the other hand, the Govemment should be applauded for providing the same or better levels of service at a lower cost. Why should the Govemment expect the tax­ payers of Queensland to pay more unnecessary tax? Why should the Govemment become inefficient simply to bring its per capita expenditure up to the level of the inefficient States such as New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia? I could speak at length about the lack of understanding that has been displayed by Opposition members. What else could be expected from the Opposition? What a motley crew they are! The fact remains that the 1986-87 State Budget is positive and responsible, and it has been recognised as such by all thinking Queenslanders. In this regard, I include the Govemment members who have listened, understood and supported the Budget so well. I commend it for the contribution that it will make to the benefit of all Queenslanders. Item (Contingencies—His Excellency the Govemor) agreed to. Progress reported. Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act Amendment Bill 4 September 1986 979

CRIMINAL LAW (REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS) ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Bumett—Leader of the House), by leave, without notice: On behalf of the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General, who will be here shortly, I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to amend the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 in certain particulars." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Wharton, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Bumett—Leader of the House): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (9.58 p.m.): I desire to place on record my appreciation of the efforts of the members of my parliamentary committee, the Parliamentary Counsel and the officers of the Justice Department, including the Solicitor-General and Crown Law officers, in bringing to firuition the very desirable social benefits that are set out in this legislation. From time to time, members of the Opposition have criticised the fact that it has been necessary and desirable to amend legislation. I make no apology for the fact that, when a need is identified, legislation is amended. It is the responsibility of the Govemment to ensure that legislation reflects the wishes, the aspirations perhaps, of society generally. For that reason, I have never had any hesitation, nor will I have hesitation, in acknowledging that legislation can be improved as a result of widespread community discussion and widespread community activity in regard to the matters that may be covered by an Act of this Parliament. They are the reasons that the Bill that is presently before the House makes provision for amendments to the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act. The Bill provides for rehabilitation of offenders in certain circumstances so that the stigma of a conviction will not continue to adversely affect their future life­ style after they have met their obligation to society. Generally, an offender who is convicted and ordered to serve any period of imprisonment not greater than 30 months, or who is subjected to a court order of lesser severity, is eligible for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation will automatically occur provided that no further convictions are recorded against the offender. The scheme applies to all members of the community regardless of whether they were convicted as an adult or a juvenile. In the case of an adult, the rehabilitation period is 10 years whereas, in the case of a juvenile, the rehabilitation period is five years. Subject to certain exceptions, the Act not only prohibits the disclosure of convictions after a person has been rehabilitated but also entitles him to deny that he has been convicted. It is considered, however, that in certain instances, a limited disclosure of information is warranted. The Bill before the House proposes that applicants for certain public offices will be required to disclose particulars of their criminal history as are specified and for those particulars to be subject to official scmtiny, notwithstanding that rehabilitation may have otherwise occurted. The information required in some instances will be limited to information considered relevant to the position, such as convictions for offences of a serious nature including sexual offences as well as dmg offences. It is considered that such information should be revealed for the benefit of the community and to ensure that the public interest is properly protected. Accordingly, applicants for the positions of police officers, prison officers. Justices of the Peace and licensees registered under the Casino Control Act will be required to 980 4 September 1986 Criminal Law (RehabUitation of Offenders) Act Amendment Bill disclose all convictions incumed by them in Queensland or elsewhere. Similarly, applicants for the positions of teachers, and associated staff at schools, and officers of the Department of Children's Services (including persons licensed or approved under the Children's Services Act as well as those persons employed on a "fee for service" basis by the department) wiU be required to disclose particulars of their criminal histories that relate to convictions for dmg offences, offences against morality and liberty, assaults on females and like offences whenever or wherever committed by them. In view of certain concems that have been expressed since the initial passage of the legislation, out of an abundance of caution and in order to avoid any difficulties, provision has been made in the Bill to ensure that the police can supply Crown prosecutors and other prosecutors with details of a person's criminal history to assist courts in the sentencing of offenders. These changes will not materially alter or affect the basic thmst of the Act, which entitles offenders generaUy who have undertaken rehabiUtation to otherwise withhold information regarding their criminal histories. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Prest, adjoumed. The House adjoumed at 10.4 p.m.