Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 1988

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Petitions 27 September 1988 739

TUESDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 1988

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. L. W. Powell, Isis) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m.

ASSENT TO BILL Assent to the Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Bill reported by Mr Speaker.

PAPERS PRINTED DURING RECESS Mr SPEAKER: I have to report that the following papers were ordered to be printed and circulated during the recess— Report of the Commissioner of Land Tax 1985-86 Report of the Commissioner of Land Tax 1986-87.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I wish to draw to your attention the presence of, and extend a welcome to, two senators from the State of Alaska in the United States, Senator Kamp and Senator Kelly. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Increase in Number of State School Teachers From Mr Littleproud (33 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take action to increase the number of teachers in State schools in line with agreed class sizes.

Toll-roads on Sunshine Coast From Mr Burns (303 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland wUl take action to ensure that all public roads on the Sunshine Coast are kept free of toll payment.

Introduction of Poker Machines From Mr Simpson (18 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take action to introduce poker machines.

Licensed Sporting Clubs From Mr Simpson (69 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland wUl review the restrictions on trading hours, fund-raising and other activities in licensed sporting clubs. Petitions received. 740 27 September 1988 Days Allotted to Supply

RAILWAY PROPOSAL Ebenezer/Jeebropilly Mines Spur Line Hon. I. J. GIBBS (Albert—Minister for Transport) (10.05 a.m.): I lay on the table plan, section and book of reference for the proposed rail spur to the Ebenezer/Jeebropilly mines, together with the report of the Commissioner for Railways thereon, and I move that the report be printed. Whereupon the documents were laid on the table and the report was ordered to be printed.

PAPERS The foUowing papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Reports— Department of Geographic Information for the year ended 30 June 1988 Report and Financial Statement of the Darling Downs-Moreton Rabbit Board for the year ended 30 June 1987 Port of Brisbane Authority for the year ended 30 June 1988 Department of Local Govemment for the year ended 30 June 1988. The foUowing papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council— Rural Training Schools Act 1965-1984 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 Marine Parks Act 1982-1988 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975-1984 River Improvement Tmst Act 1940-1985 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 Water Act 1926-1987 Harbours Act 1955-1987 The Supreme Court Act of 1921 Regulations under— Expo '88 Act 1984-1987 Builders' Registration and Home-owners' Protection Act 1979-1987 Fauna Conservation Act 1974-1985 Irrigation Act 1922-1986 Reports— Disaster Appeals Tmst Fund Committee for the year ended 30 June 1988 Queensland Law Reform Commission for the year ended 30 June 1988 Seventh Report of the Police Complaints Tribunal Central Queensland Racing Association for the year ended 30 June 1988 Rockhampton Jockey Club for the year ended 30 June 1988.

DAYS ALLOTTED TO SUPPLY Sessional Order Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Nicklin—Leader of the House) (10.08 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That for this session, unless otherwise ordered, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders or the Sessional Orders— (1) Not more than 15 days shall be allotted for consideration of the Estimates, the Statement of Unforeseen Expenditure to be Appropriated, the Vote on Account and the Resolutions of Supply. Ministerial Statement 27 September 1988 741

(2) On the days so aUotted, a single day shall comprise that period from one hour after the commencement of the sitting day or, if on a Tuesday, after a discussion on Matters of Public Interest and until four hours of debate have elapsed; at the discretion of the Leader of the House double days may apply to the debate, in which case each double day shall comprise eight hours debate. A double day shall begin one hour after the commencement of the sitting day or, if on a Tuesday, after a discussion on Matters of Public Interest. Each period of four hours shaU be accounted an aUotted day and each period of eight hours shall be accounted as two allotted days under the provisions of Standing Order No. 307. (3) At the termination of the period so aUowed for each Estimate 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, and all other Estimates for that aUotted day or days, all such questions to be decided without amendment or debate: Provided that, if the discussion of the Estimates of a Minister's department or departments, as the case may be, be concluded before the expiry of the allotted day or days so allowed, the period remaining shall be allocated to the discussion of the Estimates to be next brought before the Committee. (4) That aU other provisions of Standing Order No. 307 shaU, mutatis mutandis, continue to apply." Motion agreed to.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Proposed Rationalisation of Uneconomic Rail Operations Hon. I. J. GIBBS (Albert—Minister for Transport) (10.10 a.m.), by leave: In recent days, proposed changes to rationalise uneconomic rail operations throu^out Queensland have been made public by members of the State Opposition and the trade union movement. I make the point that the proposals were mshed to the media by the ALP and the unions, not by my office or Queensland Railways. This irresponsible action has short-circuited plans to ensure all affected employees were informed of the rationahsation moves personaUy by the department before announcing them publicly. In their haste to grab headlines, the ALP and its union colleagues have misinformed and alarmed the public, including those rail employees they purport to represent. The railway unions make loud noises about the need to be told of proposed changes before they are announced by me or the Commissioner for Railways. But once they are given this courtesy and privilege, they are the first to go screaming to the media. There is no logic or reasoning, just an ill-conceived yeaming to bag the Minister and the Railway Department. This smoke-screen of sensationahsm aims to cloud the real issues. Those issues are: to be commercial, to eliminate gross inefficiencies and to ensure workers are gainfully employed. It is the Government's responsibility to face economic realities. The rationalisation phase is part of Queensland Railways' ongoing program to match its resources with the traffic task at hand. In many cases, services for rail customers will be improved with door-to-door delivery of freight by road transporters and the introduction of faster and more flexible bus services for commuters. Area supervisors and local agents will ensure business is continued at unattended stations which have low levels of freight and passengers. The service will continue but will cost the tax-payers less. No rail employee wUl be sacked as a result of this rationalisation. The Railway Department has made this commitment to its employees and the unions. But it wiU not 742 27 September 1988 Ministerial Statement

have employees not gainfully employed. The public will not accept that, nor will the employees themselves. There is nothing more soul-destroying than having nothing to do at work. The unions should recognise this, but they seem to be more preoccupied with headline-grabbing than looking after the long-term interests of their members. There has been no attempt at secrecy and deception in respect of the rail rationalisation. The Govemment has nothing to hide and has provided all honourable members with all the details. I can assure all honourable members that the Railway Department will continue to review its operations as part of the ongoing rationalisation program which started some five years ago. To date, the Railway Department has enjoyed the co-operation of employees and, for that matter, the union movement. But its good working relationship with the unions will be jeopardised if repeats of this latest charade occur. Everyone must realise that this rationalisation is a necessary process which is being followed by other railway systems. Indeed, the State Rail Authority of New South Wales is expected to eliminate 2 500 jobs a year for at least the next two years. Unfortunately, a decade of Labor mle in New South Wales allowed the railways to accumulate a debt mnning into billions of dollars. Large staff reductions have also occurred in New Zealand Railways, where the work-force was reduced from 22 000 to 12 500—and in the same manner as Queensland— without sackings. Queensland now has the proud record of having the only railway in Australia to consistently record operating profits. This allows Queensland Railways to continue essential services for the public, particularly to remote areas, without an overwhelming burden on the public purse.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Commonwealth Government's Industrial Relations BiU Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs—Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs) (10.15 a.m.), by leave: I rise to inform honourable members of the inadequacies of the Commonwealth Govemment's Industrial Relations Bill, which has been passed by the House of Representatives and is now before the Senate. It is a total sell-out of Queensland. The Bill has been hailed by some ill-informed people as a major reform of the industrial system; but, quite honestly, it is nothing of the sort. Much of it is a scissors- and-paste exercise which does nothing to improve the problems in the present Act. Many of the initiatives are blatantly directed at expanding Federal Govemment power and increasing the influence of trade unions. Obviously, the Federal Govemment wants to centralise power in Canberra and take it away from the States. As I said, the Bill has passed its second reading in the House of Representatives and is now before the Senate. The Bill was originally introduced in 1987, but was dropped by the Labor Govemment when the Prime Minister called an early election. He knew very well that he could not win that election with this type of States' sell-out legislation—legislation that gives all to the unions. The Bill proposes to replace the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with an Industrial Relations Commission, which would also replace several specialist bodies such as the Academic Salaries Tribunal. More importantly, the Federal Bill seeks to override the Queensland Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act in relation to secondary boycotts and Federal trade unions. In other words. Federal trade unions will be able to do as they like, and, if the Federal Govemment has its way, the Queensland Govemment will have very little opportunity to do much about it. The Bill would also allow an expansion of Federal powers to include apprenticeships, occupational health and safety, and areas already covered by State awards, and everyone is well aware of them. Questions Upon Notice 27 September 1988 743

The Bill also caUs for a new minimum membership for registered unions—an attempt to make unions bigger and more threatening. If a union has fewer than 3 000 members, it either has to shape up and get big, or get out. That again goes very much against the better strike record that the Queensland Govemment has been seeking to obtain. Why the Federal Government has been so selective in its implementation of the much-praised Hancock report is beyond comprehension. The Hancock report did well. The Commonwealth has moved to pick the eyes out of it where it helped Canberra. The Queensland Govemment will not tolerate a system that is to be centralised in Melboume, insensitive to State requirements and far more expensive to administer. There is no need for any more Federal intmsion, and the Queensland Govemment will do everything possible to see that decisions affecting Queensland workers are made in Queensland.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1. Teaching of Asian Languages in Queensland Mr STEPHAN asked the Minister for Education, Youth and Sport— With reference to the growth in interest in language training in Queensland— "(1) Which Queensland secondary schools and tertiary institutions are teach­ ing Asian languages and, in each case, what languages are being taught and how many students are studying each language? (2) What is the comparable data for other States?" Mr LITTLEPROUD: (1) Queensland has five higher education institutions and 50 State secondary schools offering Asian languages. The honourable member has also asked which languages are being taught. As the answer is of some length, I seek leave to table it and to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document— 744 27 September 1988 Questions Upon Notice

Table 1: Students Undertaking Asian Languages at Queensland State Secondary Schools, 1988

School Enrolment Based on 1988 Teaching Retum Total Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12

Indonesian: Bundamba 27 0 0 0 0 27 Coolum 0 13 10 0 0 23 Kingston 136 19 20 15 190 Kirwan 111 12 9 6 3 141 Total Indonesian 274 44 39 21 3 381

Chinese: Centenary Heights 50 0 0 0 0 50 MacGregor 64 0 0 0 0 64 Oxley 91 7 13 0 0 111 Total Chinese 205 7 13 0 0 225

Japanese: Benowa 132 64 45 0 0 241 Brisbane 149 86 68 34 17 354 Bumside 57 24 17 8 7 113 Camp Hill 75 33 18 4 8 138 Cavendish Road 77 31 25 10 8 151 Caims 182 61 40 20 6 309 Coombabah 170 130 47 25 0 372 Corinda 105 0 0 0 0 105 Glenmore 0 30 15 4 3 52 Gympie 86 49 22 12 0 169 Heatley 23 0 0 0 0 23 Kawana Waters 58 53 14 0 0 125 Kenmore 174 51 28 12 0 265 Kedron 65 82 26 11 23 207 MacGregor 63 98 92 40 44 337 Malanda 60 29 20 9 0 118 Maroochydore 117 0 0 0 0 117 Merrimac 75 89 28 0 0 192 Miami 156 99 40 17 31 343 Mount Gravatt 57 54 30 18 7 166 Mossman 48 20 6 0 0 74 Nerang 287 116 66 0 0 469 North Rockhampton 0 22 16 6 0 44 Palm Beach- 193 228 105 57 43 626 Curmmbin Redcliffe 103 0 0 0 0 103 Rockhampton 207 30 24 11 0 272 Runcorn 238 73 49 0 0 360 Sandgate District 114 23 29 10 5 181 Southport 100 51 33 30 24 238 Springwood 288 60 32 27 14 421 The Gap 0 22 0 0 0 22 Townsville 172 82 36 33 17 340 Toowoomba 100 48 51 21 20 240 Yeppoon 139 38 22 0 6 205

Total Japanese 3870 1876 1044 419 283 7492

Grand Total 4349 1927 1096 440 286 8098 Questions Upon Notice 27 September 1988 745

Table 2: Students Undertaking Asian Languages at Queensland Non-State Secondary Schools, 1988 School Enrolment Based on 1988 Teaching Retum Total Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Indonesian/Malay: Anglican Church Grammar 18 6 18 42 Brisbane Boys' College 21 0 5 26 St Margaret's School 19 6 0 25 St John's College 8 0 0 8 St Paul's School 11 4 10 25 Total Indonesian/ Malay 77 16 33 126 Japanese: John Paul College 68 34 30 132 Lourdes Hill College 43 24 18 85 Somerville House 51 29 23 103 St Thomas More College 15 2 8 25 Anglican Church Grammar 49 17 3 69 lona College 17 0 0 17 Kooralbyn Intemational 6 15 6 27 The Southport School 31 13 7 51 St Aidens Anglican Giris' 36 11 9 56 St Michael's College 36 0 0 36 Brisbane Girls Grammar 41 19 18 78 Brisbane Boys Grammar 90 24 27 141 St Rita's College 56 10 14 80 De La Salle College 46 0 0 46 Glennie Memorial School 24 6 0 30 Toowoomba Grammar 22 0 0 22 Fairholme College 10 5 I 16 St Mary's Maryborough 1 0 0 1 Marian—St Stanislaus 23 0 0 23 Rockhampton Girls Grammar 19 6 3 28 St Joseph's CBC Rockhampton 2 0 0 2 St Ursula's College 13 8 6 27 Range College 13 0 0 13 Trinity Anglican School 44 8 8 60 Emmaus College 0 10 8 18 Total Japanese 756 241 189 1186 Chinese: The Southport School 14 0 0 14 Brisbane Boys Grammar 58 29 25 112 St Paul's School 7 12 7 26 Total Chinese 79 41 32 215 Grand Total 912 298 254 1464 746 27 September 1988 Questions Upon Notice

TABLE 3: STUDENTS ENROLLED IN ASIAN LANGUAGE UNITS AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN QUEENSLAND, 1988 University of Queensland Japanese 1106 students Chinese 24 students Thai 19 students Korean 14 students Vietnamese 14 students Indonesian 54 students Griffith University Japanese 332 students Chinese 152 students Indonesian 87 students James Cook University of North Queensland Indonesian 45 students Capricomia Institute of Advanced Education Japanese 92 students Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education Indonesian 106 students Mr LITTLEPROUD: (2) Data of the type sought was tabled recently in the House of Representatives by the Federal Labor Minister for Employment, Education and Training. It showed that of all the States and Territories, Queensland had the highest number of students successfully completing a unit of Asian language study in higher education.

2. Retention of Customs Officer on Gold Coast Mr VEIVERS asked the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services— "(1) Is he aware that the customs officer based on the Gold Coast is to be withdrawn because there is no quarantine officer to assist in the provision of this essential service? (2) Because of the proximity of the seaway, will he make representations to the Commonwealth Govemment to retain this customs officer and to provide a quarantine officer for this area to service this thriving intemational tourist region?" Mr NEAL: (1)1 understand that the position of the customs officer at the Gold Coast is under review by the Commonwealth. However, as the area does not have first port of entry status, the officer based at the Gold Coast has not been providing a service in relation to customs clearance of overseas vessels. I understand also that the reason the position is now under review is not in any way related to the fact that there is no quarantine officer based in the area. (2) I am advised that for a quarantine officer to be allocated to the Gold Coast, the harbour must be declared a first port of entry by the Commonwealth. 1 would be prepared to lend my support to any further action by the Gold Coast Waterways Authority to achieve first port of entry status, thus ensuring customs and quarantine services.

3. Bundaberg/Isis Irrigation Scheme Mr SLACK asked the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services— "What is the current situation regarding the present funding of the Bumett/ Bundaberg/Isis Irrigation Scheme?" Mr NEAL: At 30 June 1988, a total of $ 158.8m has been spent on constmction of the Bundaberg-Isis irrigation scheme. Of this amount, the State Govemment has con­ tributed $106.2m and the Commonwealth Govemment $52.6m. At the end of the current financial year, some $36m will still be required to complete the project. Questions Upon Notice 27 September 1988 747

Over recent years Commonwealth funds have been provided as part of the Federal Water Resources Assistance Program and in line with a Commonwealth/State agreement for funding the project. That agreement, which mns until June 1989, requires the State to commit $6m of its funds annually before qualifying for an annual $4m grant from the Commonwealth. When that financial agreement was negotiated some eight years ago, the Common­ wealth Govemment refused to recognise the effects of inflation. As a result, the agreement which was originally intended to complete the project has fallen short of the target. The State Govemment has always recognised the inadequacy of the agreement and over the eight-year period has contributed far more to the project than was necessary to ensure the Commonwealth contribution. As a result, when the present agreement expires at the end of this year, the State will have spent more than $85m, or $37m more than necessary, compared to total Federal funding of only $32m. In addition, in further recognition of the need to complete the project as soon as possible, the State has added a further $5m of State funds for the project this year. This will mean another $llm of State expenditure in 1988-89 compared to $4m from the Commonwealth. As I said, the financial agreement finishes at the end of this financial year. I have asked the Commonwealth to extend the agreement for a further period after June 1989 to ensure that the scheme is completed a soon as possible. I have had a meeting with the Commonwealth Minister, Senator Cook, and the agreement is being reviewed—but he has given no hard commitment to extend until the scheme is completed. Regardless of Senator Cook's decision, I have told local industry-leaders that the State Govemment is committed to finalising the project. In the recent Commonwealth Budget, the Treasurer confirmed a Federal contribution of $4m for the scheme in 1988-89. Rather than representing some additional Commonwealth funding, as recently implied by the Federal member for Hinkler, Mr Courtice, this is no more than what the Commonwealth agreed to contribute under the existing agreement some eight years ago. In the past few weeks we have seen the Federal member for Hinkler making statements which only display his complete ignorance of the real situation. Unbelievably, he has presented normal Commonwealth Budget aUocations as something new and provided early at his initiative. This is complete nonsense and simply confirms Mr Courtice's lack of understanding of even his own Govemment's financial arrangements. The facts are quite simple— • only the State Govemment has committed itself to completing the project as rapidly as possible; and • only this Govemment has committed more funds to the project than actually required under the financial agreement. It is about time Mr Courtice recognised the State's commitment to completing the scheme and the extent of funding already invested. If he compared this with the Commonwealth's far smaller funding and its lack of commitment to completing the project, he might finally realise how silly his comments make him look in the eyes of the community. If he wants to display initiative, he should be encouraging Senator Cook to commit the Federal Government to completing the project jointly with the State as soon as possible.

4» Claude Wharton Weir Mr SLACK asked the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services— "Is he aware of the vibrations coming from the flow of water over the spUlway of the Claude Wharton Weir near Gayndah and, if so, will the problem be rectified?" 748 27 September 1988 Questions Upon Notice

Mr NEAL: I thank the honourable member for Bumett for his question. I am aware that a vibrating noise has occurred at the Claude Wharton Weir near Gayndah during the recent flood overflow. This flow was the first since the weir's completion early in 1987. The noise is disturbing people near the weir and action is being taken by the Water Resources Commission to correct the situation. Until recently, this sort of problem has not arisen on any dam or weir spillway in Queensland. Late last year a similar noise occurred at the Bucca Weir near Bundaberg. Both the Claude Wharton Weir and Bucca Weir have different shaped spillways from previous weirs built in Queensland. Provision has been made on both weirs for the installation of inflatable mbber dams on the crest of the weirs to increase storage capacity at a later date. It appears that this different shaping to accommodate the mbber dam, particularly on the downstream side of the weirs, is the prime cause of the noise problem. It should be stressed that the problem is caused by the vibration of the overflow jet of water and the air mass under the overflow. It is very much like a large organ pipe which is being vibrated by the air and water flow. The weir stmcture is not vibrating and there is no possibility of any damage to or collapse of the stmcture or loss of storage owing to this problem. The Govemment's investigation shows that it is a noise problem only and one which can be solved. Investigations into possible solutions to the problem at Bucca Weir show the phenomenon to be quite complex. Hydraulic model studies at the commission's labo­ ratory, together with literature searches of overseas experience, have suggested that small piers mounted on the crest will be effective in alleviating the problem. These piers will split the overflow and admit more air to the space under the overflow. Design for the piers is now being finalised and they wiU be installed at both the Bucca and Claude Wharton Weirs as soon as possible.

5. Wolffdene Dam Mr McLEAN asked the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services— "With reference to the Govemment's decision to proceed with the Wolffdene Dam proposal and as it would be impossible to proceed with a project of this magnitude without the advice of detailed and proper research obviously updated to the time of the Cabinet decision— (1) What environmental, social and financial evaluation studies have been carried out to discover the effects of this proposal? (2) What are the dates these studies were carried out, including the latest studies which resulted in the final Cabinet decision to proceed? (3) What studies have been made for comparison purposes, on the same issues, of the suggested alternative sites to Wolffdene? (4) Will he make public all these studies in line with his claim that no secrecy surrounds this issue and, if not, what is the reason? (5) How wUl fair market value be established for property owners affected by this project? (6) How many property owners will be affected both in the dam area, buffer zone and road areas and what is the breakdown of numbers of people affected in (a) homes, (b) acreage sizes, and (c) businesses in those areas?" Mr NEAL: I am glad to see that the honourable member for Bulimba recognises that the Govemment would not proceed with planning for Wolffdene dam without a good deal of study. (I to 4) Those studies have been going on since the late 1960s and early 1970s. The investigations have been kept under review and resulted in the recent decision to reaffirm that Wolffdene dam be the next major source of water supply to meet the needs of the Brisbane region in the next century. Questions Upon Notice 27 September 1988 749

As I outUned in some detail in my ministerial statement delivered in this House on Thursday, 25 August this year, the original investigation on the dam was submitted to the Co-ordinator-General by the then Brisbane Water Supply Planning Committee as far back as December 1963. Six years later, in 1969, further investigation of the Wolffdene and Wivenhoe dam sites was undertaken. This resulted in a decision by the Govemment in 1971 to proceed with the constmction of Wivenhoe dam as the best source of future water supply. It was also determined that Wolffdene dam would be the next major storage to be constmcted after Wivenhoe. Since 1971 that situation has remained completely unchanged, and this advice has been freely given to the public by the board, the Water Resources Commission and other Govemment bodies as well as the local authority concemed. That is what the decision is all about—the water needs of the growing population of Brisbane and surrounding areas. As I have told the House before, a report prepared in 1970 by the Department of Local Govemment set out details of investigations of the Wolffdene dam site. That study included the effect on— • relocation of roads, power lines and telephone services; • Beenleigh's water supply; • primary industry; • Tamborine ViUage; • loss of income to local communities; • the dairying industry; and • buildings of historical significance. Some Aboriginal sites were also discovered and reported to the then Department of Aboriginal Affairs. All such sites were above the full supply level. Matters of ecological significance have changed little in the past 20 years, although the social scene has altered. The areas have changed from a farming environment and moved more towards mral residential development. However, even the pace of that change has slowed to a virtual standstill in recent years. It is nearly 17 years since November 1971, when the Govemment made the decision and announced that Wolffdene dam would be the next dam to be constmcted when Wivenhoe was fiilly committed. In the intervening period a great deal of publicity has been given to the proposed dam. It is interesting to note that some of the most vocal protesters now are people who inquired about the dam and who were told that it would proceed in time. Despite that advice, they then decided to chance their luck and proceeded to buy land and build houses. As the honourable member should understand, it is not possible to manufacture dam sites. There are very few significant dam sites in south-east Queensland. All of these have been investigated over the years by the Water Resources Commission and a number of other organisations. Financial studies have been made at various times. It is not realistic to say that other possibilities are available. The simple fact is that there are no other storage possibilities as close to Brisbane that are as cost effective and that are able to provide substantial quantities of water, as Wolffdene. In the most recent review of those investigations by an interdepartmental committee in October 1987, all possible sites in south-east Queensland were examined. Sites included those on the Nerang River—Hinze Dam—the Logan River—Cedargrove—the Coomera River, Christmas Creek, Cainable Creek, Teviot Brook, the Brisbane River system, Lockyer Creek, the Caboolture River, the South Pine River and as far afield as the Mary River. Also included were ground-water supplies from the Moreton Bay islands and the 750 27 September 1988 Questions Upon Notice

reuse of waste water. Neither of those latter options is a practical or economic source of major water supply. The review confirmed the 1971 decision by the Govemment that Wolffdene will be the next major dam and that planning should commence to acquire the site for future development. To quote a few statistics— • there are only three sites with any significant water supply potential able to match the future needs of the region; • Wolffdene dam provides 40 percent more water than the next largest site in the region on the Logan River; • water from the Logan River site would cost at least 33 per cent more; and • the only other site able to match the yield of the Wolffdene is on the Mary River near Kenilworth, from which water would cost at least two and a-half times as much. All the major sites in south-east Queensland have significant social costs associated with their constmction. Whichever other site is selected, there would also be objections or major cost penalties. The simple fact is that the region will need new sources of water and a new storage will have to be built. (5 and 6) The Govemment has already given an assurance that resumptions for the dam will be based on market values of similar lands outside the dam area and unaffected by the dam. Market values will be determined using normal principles of valuation and can always be tested in the Land Court when agreement on values is not achievable. The Brisbane and Area Water Board is currently examining the number of properties involved and the relative sizes of lots concemed. I can assure the House that a new dam is necessary. People will be demanding further water by early next century and planning has to start now. To do otherwise is irresponsible.

6. Bowen Water Supply Mr McLEAN asked the Minister for Local Govemment and Racing— "With reference to the promise of the Minister for Northem Development, the Honourable R. C. Katter, MLA, to the Bowen Chamber of Commerce that 'he would resolve Bowen's water problem' as printed in the Bowen Independent and as he, as Minister for Local Govemment, the Minister responsible, has not yet indicated his Govemment's commitment to this much-needed water supply— (1) Has his Govemment made a decision from what source the supply will come from? (2) WiU constmction commence on the project in 1988-89? (3) When wiU the people of Bowen expect to benefit from this water supply?" Mr RANDELL: (1 to 3) The matters raised by the honourable member come within the area of responsibility of my colleague the Honourable the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services and I suggest that the question be addressed to him. I am sure that the honourable member would agree that this moming the Honourable the Minister has answered aU of his questions in an excellent manner.

7. Sentencing Options for Vandalism Offences Mr WHITE asked the Minister for Family Services and Welfare Housing— "With reference to the alarming growth of vandalism affecting the community, including public facilities, by delinquents— WiU he give consideration to immediately amending the Children's Services Act to widen the range of sentencing options, including compensation by parents. Questions Upon Notice 27 September 1988 751

or, altematively, bringing forward the next stage of the famUy welfare legislation to include a more comprehensive range of sentencing options?" Mr McKECHNIE: I share the honourable member's concem regarding serious acts of vandahsm against pubUc and private property from time to time. I firmly beUeve that parents should be Uable for the actions of their children, although there are obvious problems in implementing laws in relation to this, particularly as far as compensation or restitution involving huge sums of money is concemed. The existing ChUdren's Services Act provides the courts with a discretion to order compensation or restitution of that nature, but I am informed that such orders are infrequent. As the honourable member is aware, new legislation to replace the Children's Services Act is being introduced in a series of BiUs, the first of which was the FamUy Services Act which was passed by this House in 1987. The next BUI to replace the child protection provisions of the ChUdren's Services Act is expected to be placed before the House during the latter stages of this session. At the same time, work is proceeding on a new juvenile justice BiU, and it is my intention to introduce it during the second half of next year. I have stated previously that serious consideration is being given to an expanded range of sentencing options such as community service orders and attendance at an attendance centre, and the responses received by my department suggest that there is wide community support for the introduction of community service orders.

8. Illegal Catching of Mud Crabs in Moreton Bay Mr WHITE asked the Minister for Primary Industries— "With reference to the ongoing problem of iUegal mud crab capture in areas of the State such as the Moreton Bay area— (1) What action is the Division of Dairying and Fisheries taking to curb this activity and protect what must be regarded as the favourite deUcacy of many people and an important attraction to our ever-growing recreational and tourist industry? (2) Is it planned to undertake any research or studies similar to the sand crab study carried out recently by his department?" Mr HARPER: (1) While administration of fisheries legislation faUs within my portfoho, enforcement is undertaken by the Department of Harbours and Marine through my coUeague the Honourable the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services, who also very capably answers his questions. I am advised that from 1 July 1987 to 10 June 1988, inspectors of the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol apprehended 104 persons for taking or being in possession unlawfuUy of crabs. While a proportion of the matters relating to the apprehensions remains outstanding pending court hearings, the penalties plus court costs for completed cases totalled almost $11,000. Should officers of the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol detect large quantities of unlawfully caught crabs on board a vessel or in a vehicle, that equipment may be seized and, if the offender is convicted, application may be made to the court for forfeiture of the equipment. On 3 June 1988 I announced an amendment to the fisheries regulations which should provide a further deterrent for persons found in possession of undersize or female mud crabs. If a person is convicted of being in possession of more than 10 undersize or female mud crabs, he could face a maximum penalty of $5,000, 6 months' gaol or both. The maximum penalty for possession of a lesser number of mud crabs remains at $400, or $1,000 in a situation in which a vehicle or vessel was used in the commission of the offence. 752 27 September 1988 Questions Upon Notice

(2) My department has conducted extensive research into the mud crab fishery over recent years. From 1979 to 1983 a research project was carried out involving the biological and management aspects of the industry throughout Queensland. Studies included an economic survey of the mud crab fishery and an analysis of trends in catches. Biological research included population studies, catchability, movement, growth, larval recmitment and mud crab storage and transport. The findings were published in 1984 in a report titled The Queensland Mud Crab Fishery, a copy of which I will seek leave to table. Last year, my department conducted further detailed research into the reproductive physiology of mud crabs by artificially spawning and growing small crabs in captivity at the Southem Fisheries Research Centre at Deception Bay. Further research is being undertaken to develop hatchery techniques for the mass culture of mud crab larvae to assess the feasibUity of seeding mud crabs into mangrove areas. There is some doubt as to whether that is a feasible operation. Mr Burns: There are no mangroves left. Mr HARPER: Research work is being undertaken to establish whether more mud crabs can be provided for the honourable member to catch in Moreton Bay and elsewhere, of course. That work wUl proceed. I seek leave to table a report published in 1984 titled The Queensland Mud Crab Fishery. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table.

9. Establishment of Parks for Transportable Homes Mr HYND asked the Minister for Local Govemment and Racing— "(1) What progress has been made by his department in establishing firm standards for local authorities so that they are in a position to continue to establish parks for transportable homes? (2) Is his department researching the quality of buildings so that a high standard will be established within the local govemment authorities where these home parks are established? (3) Will he, by the introduction of legislation, in every way ensure that those people already residing in home parks are not disadvantaged?" Mr RANDELL: (I to 3) I would like to thank the honourable member for this question because I know the great interest that he takes in this matter. In 1984 the Local Govemment Department issued a bulletin to local authorities recommending minimum standards for the establishment of caravan parks and relocatable home parks throughout the State. Departmental bulletins are of an advisory nature only and many local authorities did not adopt these recommended minimum standards, preferring to retain their own local standards. The relocatable home manufacturers and caravan parks association subsequently made representations to my predecessor seeking the introduction of uniform requirements to apply throughout the State. A committee was established to examine this matter and is well advanced in its deliberations. There are, however, a number of important issues yet to be resolved and these are related primarily to matters not dealt with in previous departmental bulletins. In addition to updating previous requirements, the committee is examining the constmction aspects of factory-built relocatable homes, the intention being to ensure that they are constmcted and installed on a site in accordance with standards recognised by the industry and acceptable to local authorities. Questions Upon Notice 27 September 1988 753

Residents in existing parks should not be disadvantaged by any future requirements relating to site-planning of new caravan parks or relocatable home parks, or constmction standards for relocatable homes, because the intention is that requirements will apply only to new parks established and homes constmcted after the new requirements take effect. The honourable member vrill be pleased to know that it is understood that the Honourable the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General has approval from Cabinet to introduce legislation giving security of tenure to mobile home dwellers.

10. Payment of Ministerial Expenses from Departmental Funds Mr WELLS asked the Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts— "With reference to The Courier-Mail of 26 August in which the Minister for Health is quoted as saying that the payment of function attendances, including National Party fundraisers, by departments was a regular occurrence throughout the Ministry— Will he either confirm or deny this statement?" Mr AHERN: Each year the Parliament appropriates money to each Govemment department for expenditure under various headings. In the case of the Health Department, an annual amount in accordance with the Estimates is allocated to Chief Office, Salaries, Administration Expenses, etc. Ministerial expenses to attend an official function in an official capacity would be charged to this heading.

11. Payment of Ministerial Expenses from Departmental Funds Mr WELLS asked the Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts— "With reference to the statement by the Minister for Health in The Courier- Mail of 26 August— (1) When he was Minister for Health, was the use of departmental funds to pay attendance at National Party functions a regular occurrence? (2) Is it now a regular occurrence in the Premier's Department?" Mr AHERN: (1 and 2) Admission fees to official functions in my official capacity are paid through the Chief Office Vote of the department from allocations approved by the Parliament for that department.

12. Construction by Curtain Brothers of Gas Pipeline to Townsville Mr SMITH asked the Minister for Mines and Energy— "(1) As Curtain Brothers are proposing to build a pipeline to Townsville and other locations at no cost to Govemment and, in fact, take sole responsibility for any commercial risk, will he indicate if the Govemment is now prepared to allow the project to proceed and will it facilitate the constmction of a pipeline by bringing about the necessary resumptions along the proposed pipeline route? (2) Will he indicate the Govemment's preparedness to initiate any legislation necessary to assure Curtain Brothers of ongoing access to the gas fields?" Mr TENNI: (1) Curtain Brothers could be given approval to constmct and operate a methane gas pipeline to Townsville, provided the relevant requirements and procedures as set out in the Petroleum Act 1923-1988 are followed, and provided that it can be established that payable deposits of methane gas exist. The first stage in this process is the grant by the Govemor in Council of permission to enter on lands to make any investigation, including surveys, deemed necessary for the proposed pipeline. Next, the Govemor in Council may grant a licence for the constmction or operation of a pipeline subject to certain terms and conditions. 754 27 September 1988 Questions Upon Notice

The licensee is then required, as soon as practicable, to enter into agreements with land-owners for easements or rights of way to allow constmction to commence. If agreements are not reached, there are adequate provisions in the Act for resumption of land. The company has been advised that, when it is satisfied that the development of its methane resources and their transmission to TownsviUe and Ayr is feasible, an application for permission to enter on lands to make any investigations, including surveys for a proposed pipeUne, could be made with supporting data to justify the proposal. In this regard, my colleague the member for Townsville keeps me apprised of latest developments on the supply of methane gas to Townsville. Over some six or eight months the member for Townsville and the Minister for Northem Development, the Honourable Bob Katter, have kept me weU and tmly informed on methane proposals in far-north Queensland. They are also great supporters of the proposals. It is good to see the member for Townsville East now supporting the scheme also. Although it is rather late, at least he is now doing so. (2) Curtain Brothers, through its association with Median Oil NL, the holder of the authority to prospect 364P, at present can explore for petroleum, including methane gas, over a very large area comprising the majority of the northem part of the Bowen Basin. Existing mining leases for coal and coal seams shallower than 300 metres in depth are excluded from this area. When the title-holder has established to the satisfaction of the Govemor in Council that payable deposits of methane exist in the authority, he shall be granted a petroleum lease over those deposits. Under these circumstances, I believe the existing provisions of the Petroleum Act adequately cover the production of methane from coal seams and its distribution. Recently, one of my departmental officers visited the United States of America to examine its progress in the development of methane gas reserves and the legislative controls applying. If changes in our legislation are found to be necessary to facilitate the development of methane gas drainage in Queensland, appropriate action will certainly be taken to make sure that that does take effect.

13. Training of Nurses in Tertiary Institutions in North Queensland Mr SMITH asked the Minister for Education, Youth and Sport— "(1) Is he aware that the proposed allocation of 150 nurse training places at James Cook University for the two years, 1990 and 1991, would effectively reduce the present number of North Queensland graduating trained nurses by about 170 for the period? (2) Does he realise that while North Queensland has 19 per cent of the State's population, the allocation of 150 places represents only 12.6 per cent of the total Queensland tertiary nurse training places? (3) As Queensland's constant demand that the Federal Govemment allow more tertiary places on the basis of Queensland's population, how can he justify the treatment of North Queensland in respect to nurse training? (4) Will he immediately take action to have the allocation of places increased to at least 225 for years 1990 and 1991?" Mr LITTLEPROUD: (1) Yes, if the Mackay area is included in the north Queensland region rather than in the central region of Queensland. (2 and 3) Based on estimates of the resident population by area for Queensland as at 30 June 1987 recently published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the population of the northem, far north and north west statistical divisions constitutes 14.1 per cent of the Queensland population. This figure increases to 18 per cent if the Mackay division. Questions Upon Notice 27 September 1988 755

3.9 per cent, is included. If Mackay is excluded from the north Queensland region, an allocation of 12.5 per cent of the nursing places is considered reasonable. The Capricomia Institute of Advanced Education proposes to undertake nurse education in Mackay. It already has a higher-education presence there, in that it is teaching the first year of selected courses through the Mackay College of Technical and Further Education. (4) At this stage James Cook University has been allocated 150 out of the 800 commencing students approved for 1990, which represents 18.75 per cent. A notional allocation of 150 has been made for 1991, when the total allocation is to be increased to 1 200. The final allocations for James Cook University and the other seven participating institutions will be determined in 1990 in the light of enrolment pattems in that year. Finally, I advise the honourable member that representations on this matter have previously been made very capably by the honourable member for Townsville and the honourable member for Burdekin.

14. Accountability within Railway Department Mr De LACY asked the Minister for Transport— "(1) Has an intemal audit been carried out into (a) the Railway Department's ticket-seUing agencies on the Gold Coast and (b) Destination Projects, who operate the Kuranda tourist train on a lease basis from the Railway Department? (2) Have these audits been finished and, if not, what is the reason? (3) Has the money raised selling promotional products for Queensland RaUways from a stall at the Exhibition Grounds been banked into revenue and, if not, for what purpose is it to be used? (4) Is he satisfied with the level of accountability currently prevaUing in his department?" Mr I. J. GIBBS: (1) (a) Yes. (b) No. Destination Projects operates on a charter basis, hiring trains on a contract rate. It is not an agent of Queensland Railways and, as it does not hold any ticket stocks or other assets of Queensland Railways, intemal audit is not required. (2) The audits associated with the Gold Coast agencies have been completed. (3) Moneys received from the sale of promotional products at the Queensland Railways display during the Exhibition were paid into revenue through the local station- master each day and subsequently transferred to a special account in the special suspense accounts to enable a proper record to be kept of the result of such sales. When such accounting has been completed, the balance in this account will be passed to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. (4) Yes.

15. Premier's Statement on Ministerial Expenses Mr De LACY asked the Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts— "With reference to his statement to this House in the week ended 3 September that the Auditor-General reports to Parliament on ministerial expenses in the same way as nationally and, given that individual details of spending by each Federal Govemment Minister are made public in the areas of official car use, charter aircraft, staff use of cars, ministerial travel allowances in Australia and cost of overseas visits— Does he deny that his comments are another instance of his misleading this House and, if so, will he advise what details of ministerial expenses are made public in Queensland?" 756 27 September 1988 Questions Without Notice

Mr AHERN: Let me say at the outset that I deny emphatically the honourable member's allegation that I have misled the House. In the answer I provided to the honourable member for Sherwood on 30 August, I stated— "What has happened in recent times is that the matters are now brought under the direct supervision of the Auditor-General and the Financial Administration and Audit Act. It is the same procedure as that which is applied in all of the other States and nationally in respect of these particular matters." I reiterate my previous comments that the expenditure of Ministers of the Crown is subject to the general requirements of the Financial Administration and Audit Act and the vouchers are audited by the Auditor-General. Neither the Auditor-General of Queensland nor the Auditor-General of the Commonwealth makes a special report in any form to his respective Parliament on ministerial expenses. However, I am in no doubt whatsoever that should the Auditor-General of Queensland have any concems in regard to this expenditure, he would certainly inform the Parliament accordingly. I would also mention that the question of the reporting of ministerial expenses is not unique to Queensland. I have been advised that the practice of separately reporting Ministers' expenses to Parliament by portfolio is not adopted eleswhere in Australia.

16. Emergency at Circle Petroleum Plant, Eagle Farm Mr HENDERSON asked the Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts— "With reference to the recent emergency situation at Circle Petroleum at Eagle Farm— Who will end up meeting the enormous cost for police and emergency services who attended Circle Petroleum—the negligent parties or the taxpaying public of Queensland?" Mr AHERN: The metropolitan fire bridgades attended this incident and, in accord­ ance with Regulation 20 of the Fire Brigades Financial Arrangements Regulations, the board has assessed the costs incurred and has issued an account to the petroleum company concemed. The Police Department has no power under the Police Act to recover normal expenses related to such incidents, but it is examining methods whereby extraordinary costs may be claimed from the company. Any costs which were incurred by the Brisbane City Council are a matter for that council to pursue.

17. Government Involvement in Toondah Harbour Development Mr HENDERSON asked the Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts— "With reference to the proposed Toondah Harbour Development by Hooker Land Development via its subsidiary company Brisbane Shores Pty Ltd— What is the extent and nature of State Govemment involvement, if any, in this proposed development?" Mr AHERN: The Govemment called for expressions of interest for the development of Toondah Harbour, for which only one proposal was received. The Govemment has approved that the basis for tenure be a special lease, awarded for investigation purposes only, under the Land Act and Harbours Act.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Economic Development Strategy Mr GOSS: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I point out that my question refers to Queensland's State Economic Development Strategy and that it is in three parts. Firstly, why is it that Queensland is the only Australian mainland State Questions Without Notice 27 September 1988 757 still without a State Economic Development Strategy? Secondly, why is it that every other State's Economic Development Strategy has been drafted by that Govemment's principal economic policy advisers at no cost to the tax-payer, whereas this Govemment is spending nearly half a million dollars to import one from overseas? Thirdly, if the Opposition is wrong and there is a strategy already in existence in this State, why did the general manager of the Queensland Confederation of Industry, Mr Roger Bryce, state in the Courier-Mail of 10 September 1988 that Queensland industry is still waiting for the Premier to deliver on his promised strategy and that for industry, the content of that strategy was still a mystery? Mr AHERN: Without doubt, the economic strategy process that is being adopted in this State wiU lead to the best outcome because, by virtue of coming late onto the scene in the preparation of this process, the Queensland Govemment has had the opportunity of looking at the processes that have been used in the other States of Australia before coming to its conclusion. That is always the advantage of doing something in this context, because it is possible to look at what other people have done and leam from their mistakes. It is also possible to leam from the strengths of their processes and put those into the process that will deliver the right outcome for Queensland. I make no apology at all for having sought intemational advice on this process. Today, Treasurer Keating, who is the doyen of the honourable member's party and the driving economic force in this country's economic planning, tells everybody on every occasion on which he speaks that Australians have to be intemationally competitive. If Austraha is to be intemationally competitive, then intemational advice in the operation of the strategy is surely appropriate, and even necessary. In discussions with Govemments of other States in Australia, I have received commendation for the process that the Queensland Govemment is about to implement. The process is now being undertaken inasmuch as the Govemment is in the process of receiving papers on the matter and has gone about this matter very carefully. Queensland's strategy will be the best because it is the newest. Because it is the newest, it has to be the best. It takes on board the processes indicated in the other States of Australia and the papers that I have seen seem to indicate that it has every chance of being the most innovative in the country. There are some very innovative strategies suggested in the papers which will put Queensland at the forefront in terms of economic strategies within Austraha. That is as it should be. This Govemment has taken broad advice in respect of it and I make no apology because the exercise has been most worth while. Queensland will have a state-of-the-art document.

Queensland Government's Strategic Economic Management Plan Mr GOSS: My second question without notice to the Premier and Treasurer follows the same theme. I refer to a statement made by the director of the Premier's State Economic Development Strategy Division. He explained the Queensland Govemment's belief in strategic economic management in a recent paper delivered by him as follows— "The holistic overview provided by the strategic and operational policy activities of the Govemment can be very effective in identifying opportunities for the private sector to 'gap-fill' holes in the infrastmctural network." Will the Premier explain to the House just what that means? Mr AHERN: It is interesting that the honourable member has selected one particular quote from a public servant who has been preparing papers for this Govemment. Mr Goss: Just tell us what it means. Mr AHERN: If the honourable member is having difficulty understanding the English language, he should consult a dictionary. This is a requirement of every Parliament. After a quick hearing of what the honourable member has read, the statement is completely valid. Where it is alleged Mr Goss: Tell us what it means. 758 27 September 1988 Questions Without Notice

Mr AHERN: If the honourable member would stop making carping interjections all the time and trying to intermpt me, I will endeavour to answer his question. The proposition is that private enterprise will fill some of the gaps where public infrastmcture has been found to be wanting. Obviously, in the world today that has some validity. There is a very substantial demand for economic infrastmcture of one type or another. For example, in the Federal communications area—and this has some relevance for the State—in relation to Telecom's being invited to be the telecommuni­ cations monolith in Australia, this is clearly not relevant today. In addition there are a number of companies, including NEC, DEC and others, that can provide private infrastmcture and fulfil some of today's community requirements which Telecom cannot satisfactorily or cost-effectively provide. Another example is port infrastmcture where the argument that there are gaps in respect of the provisions of export infrastmcture which might appropriately be filled by investments from private enterprise, is completely valid. That is completely consistent with the philosophy of this Govemment. Obviously it is not consistent with the philosophy of the Labor Party, which is socialistic in terms of its economic outlook. This is a private-enterprise Govemment and in areas where the public interest is served private enterprise is encouraged. Where private enterprise can be encouraged in relation to a wide range of matters, this Govemment does just that. I make no apology in respect of it. This Govemment is a privatercnterprise Govemment and the statement made by Mr Rowell, the director of the State Economic Development Strategy Division, is entirely appropriate and consistent with Govemment policy. If the honourable member cannot understand the English language, I would refer him to a dictionary, or I can arrange for a primary schoolteacher to advise him.

Free Diphtheria and Tetanus Vaccine for Adults Mr FITZGERALD: I ask the Minister for Health: what is the situation with regard to the provision of free diphtheria and tetanus vaccine for adults? Mrs HARVEY: The responsibUity for the provision of free vaccines was transferred from the Commonwealth to the States without any prior consultation. Therefore, the Queensland Health Department found itself in the difficult position of not having any time for pre-planning or organising for the provision (of free immunisation. The problem was compounded by the fact that the Commonwealth Govemment could not supply the Health Department with any worthwhile information as to the extent of the vacdnes' distribution through councils, which the Commonwealth Govemment provided directly without any reference to the State Health Department, Mr R. J. Gibbs inteajected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wolston! Mr Burns interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Orderi I wam the honourable member for Lytton under Standing Order 123A. Mrs HARVEY: In June, when the funding from the Commonwealth was announced, the Queensland Health Department decided that it would not be able to fund the adult diphtheria and tetanus immunisation program. Since then the amount of funding has been renegotiated and it is now at a reasonably satisfactory level. Therefore, the Queensland Health Department has advised all the local councils that their present planned program for immunisation would be fully met. However, because of its rationalisation and the fact that it is now in control of the immunisation program—despite the fact that the Commonwealth could not mn it effectively—the Queensland Government has effected some savings and is looking for a State Stores contract which will enable the Health Department to provide a better vaccine program at a better rate throughout Queensland. Matters of Public Interest 27 September 1988 759

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Operations of the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing Mr CASEY (Mackay) (11.01 a.m.): I draw to the attention of the House a very serious matter conceming the fmit and vegetable industry in Queensland, which is the heartland of the National Party, and some of the very, very small growers and primary producers in this State. In July of this year I raised publicly my concem about the operations of the Committee of Direction of Fmit Marketing in Queensland. This organisation, known better as the COD, is the statutory body, supposedly controUed by Queensland fmit and vegetable growers, that is responsible for the orderly marketing of almost half of Queensland's production of fmit and vegetables. My initial concems related to the mmours circulating in north Queensland that the TownsvUle branch of the COD would be closed. After the initial indignant denials by the officials of Sunshine Produce, which is the commercial arm of the COD, it was admitted that the existing facUities would be closed for the reason, amongst other things, that they provided insufficient room for the future proposed expansion of operations. What a load of mbbish that tumed out to be! At the time my remarks were referred to as "uninformed comment", but for many years the Townsville branch has sustained losses averaging between $10,000 and $15,000 a month. Until recent years, that branch had been the north's biggest outlet and one of the most profitable operations of the COD. Despite denials that the operations were to be sold, earlier this month the entire plant, land, cold rooms, stores, warehouses and the paved areas were sold for $950,000. The facihty was virtually given away. Even the fellow who bought it was surprised that he got it so cheaply. He nearly fell over in shock when his final offer was accepted. To replace the facilities that he bought for a very low figure would cost between $5m and $6m. That is an example of the operations of the COD at the moment; that sale will help the profits during this financial year. Instead of the so-caUed expanded market and restmcturing, in Townsville the COD now has only a manager, an assistant manager and a receptionist operating from a rented office to try to sell fruit and vegetables to the area's retail outlets. In recent years the same sorry scene was witnessed in Gladstone. A magnificent, big warehouse and cold-room complex was built only a matter of three or four years ago in Gladstone at a cost of between $6m and $7m. The plant was opened with great gusto by the then Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Mike Ahem, who is now the Premier of this National Party Govemment. With the usual codswallop of National Party openings, he talked about the great things that his Govemment had done, and was doing, for the primary producers of Queensland. Those Gladstone premises have been closed for almost two years. They were supposedly built to supply the big, new complex that Woolworths built in Gladstone, but the tmth of the matter is that the COD did not sell Woolworths a bean—or even a carrot. Nothing at all was sold to Woolworths. The operations in Gladstone were a dead loss. I believe that the Newcastle complex of the COD could be in the same boat. The worst of the lot are the Melboume operations of the COD. A conservative estimate of trading in Melboume for the last 10 years is that on the Melboume market the COD has lost more than $5m. That is $5m of Queensland growers' funds that have been lost, money that should have been retumed to them. In fact, the loss is more than that, because the COD should have been trading at a profit. My investigations have revealed that, to date, there has been great mismanagement and even mischief. Suggestions have been made that graft and cormption in the Melboume operations, and perhaps some other operations, of the COD have caused, and are continuing to cause, some of the big problems. 760 27 September 1988 Matters of Public Interest

The worst problem of the lot is mismanagement. At one stage a manager was appointed for the Melboume operations who tumed things around so that for the first time in years the venture had a trading profit. Of course, very quickly the Sunshine Produce hierarchy found a reason to get rid of him, and it has retumed to the old system. The main reason for that is that the Melboume management has always been closely aligned with a gentleman named Orlando Luciano. Mr R. J. Gibbs: "Lucky" Luciano's brother. Mr CASEY: I do not know about that, but is it not marvellous that, when the friends and dealings of the National Party Govemment are looked at, the mystery Italians appear—the Lucianos and the Bellinos. There always seems to be a suggestion of the sorts of things that Mr Fitzgerald is investigating. I think somebody like Mr Fitzgerald should investigate what has been going on within the COD, particularly its Melboume operations. For many, many years, Luciano has been an acknowledged manipulator of the Melboume markets. It has always been suggested that some of the COD managers down there spend up to four hours a day in Luciano's office. At one stage one of the Melboume managers had cash of up to $37,000 sitting in his office desk so that he could cash cheques for Luciano to enable him to launder money. The Melbourne branch also had a suspense account with losses of upwards of $300,000 in it. Because one of the managers who was in with Luciano was found to be totally inefficient and to have certain nervous problems, he was sent on a seven-month fully paid holiday until such time as he qualified for his superannuation. Then the COD was able to dispose of him. The management of Sunshine Produce, which is the marketing arm of the COD, is now negotiating for a so-called joint venture—that is if a 49 per cent share can be considered to be a joint venture—with Luciano for an amount of $5m plus $lm for goodwill. There is even the suggestion that that figure contains an amount for a kick­ back for the curtent Melboume manager. Last August I asked the Minister a question about this matter and I received a strange reply. The Minister said that he would have a look at it, but the deal has gone a long way. I believe that the management of Sunshine Produce has a study from a reputable merchant bank, which is recommending against the merger. Both the general manager and the finance manager know all about it, but the executive committee of Sunshine Produce is unaware of the report. Because one of the Minister's representatives has been to Melboume to examine this matter, the Minister ought to know about it. The Minister has also appointed the Director of Marketing to the executive board of COD. I would like to know if the Minister consulted with the Director of Marketing and gave the green flag for negotiations on this deal. It is strange that the annual report of the Director of Marketing, which was tabled in this Parliament by the Minister, blames COD's trading position on road stalls and flea markets. Either the Director of Marketing is not taking too much notice of what is going on or he is not telling the Minister anything. Queensland does not need another Peanut Marketing Board or Fish Board scandal. The growers of Queensland want answers to these questions. Since I first raised the matter, growers in Queensland have phoned me, written to me and talked to me as I have travelled around. They want to know more about the position. The banana-growers are against the proposal. Bananas from far-north Queensland are having a great impact on the Melboume markets. Many of the big northem banana- growers have left the COD, talking of forming their own co-operative and dealing through various other areas of the market. Where will the money come from to finance this big deal with Luciano? I believe that approaches are being made to Queensland Treasury to lend the money to the COD so that negotiations can take place. Those questions must be answered. The growers are entitled to know the answers because they will have to pay. They have a financial interest in the matter. Matters of Public Interest 27 September 1988 761

I have spoken to former employees of COD, who have told me how Sunshine Produce management has been rorting the growers. Fmit is sold on a special basis. Money is skimmed off the top and paid into a special fund. The commission is then taken out of the lower figure, which provides a lesser retum to the grower. That is what is happening in the COD in Queensland and it needs investigation. Time expired. Oxley By-election Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (11.10 a.m.): I wish to raise a number of questions about the forthcoming Oxley by-election. I have a number of critical questions in relation to the demonstrable double standards of the Australian Labor Party and the insensitive and inept bumblings of a person once hailed as a shining star by the Australian Labor Party but who has now been shown to be a mere flicker in the real world of political performance and perception. I wiU examine that double standard and some of the factors that relate to it. This week, in the Australian, when referring to Bill Hayden and the Oxley by- election, Mr Hawke said— "Obviously, he can no longer be part of the party and the campaign and that's as it must be." The article continued— "But Labor Party workers noted that protocol did not stop Mr Hayden's wife, Dallas, courting publicity as she voted in the plebiscite which saw Mr Hayden's protege, the Rhodes scholar and State member Mr David HamiU, lose the candidature." Mr Hawke's visit to the Oxley electorate was an endeavour to wind up the troops. The article also said— "The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, yesterday waded into Bill Hayden territory, where factional tensions are mnning high, to urge on the man whom Mr Hayden had not chosen to follow him. Many in the audience at the ALP campaign launch for the by-election in Oxley, west of Brisbane, gritted their teeth"— I ask honourable members to imagine that— "as Mr Hawke sang the praises of the former minister for foreign affairs, who held the seat for 27 years." I ask honourable members: where is common decency? Where is the voice of the local party member? Where is the so-called democracy that the Labor Party talks about so much? What is Mr Hamill's future? The one question that has been answered is that the factions are not only alive and well but they are also kicking—and they are kicking one another with tremendous accuracy. With reference to the recent referendum, the question has to be fairly put to the people not only of Oxley and of Queensland, but also of Australia: when is a majority of 58 per cent not in fact a majority? The paradox is revealed by the ALP's cmde support for its candidate in Oxley. It supports one vote, one value one week and the following week, in Oxley, virtually 60 per cent does not count as a majority. I ask honourable members to consider an article in yesterday's Courier-Mail, which reported that the branch secretary resigned because Mr Les Scott, the ALP candidate— unfortunately, he will not be successful—received only 32 per cent, or less than a third, of the local branch support. However, the party heavies drove out and tumbled the poor little local branch person. They said that 58.3 per cent support for David Hamill was not enough and that they would ensure that Mr Hamill would not contest the by-election. They had decided that the ALP would not win Mr Hamill's seat if he stood, so they said, "We will go out there and we will tum 32 per cent into a majority." That is exactly what they did. 762 27 September 1988 Matters of Public Interest

Ms Bev Dignam said that she had resigned because party factions had endorsed Mr Les Scott as the candidate when he received 32 per cent of the local branch support. A letter that she wrote reveals the tmth of the matter. She said that she resigned after three years as branch secretary because she was disgusted with the ALP's campaign to keep the seat. She stated— "The events of the past few weeks have caused me to give many long hours of thought to that and to the continuation of my membership of the Labor Party. All members who fulfil the correct membership requirements have a right to nominate, I don't dispute that, but then all nominees should have equal chance without being white-anted from within the Party itself .." She also said— "I was disgusted by the dirty campaign." She concluded by saying as foUows— "It even reached a stage where the integrity of the two members who processed postal votes was questioned." Would one wonder why anyone would question the tactics of an organisation such as the Labor Party when it carries on like that? I think it is worth while asking a couple more questions. I understand that, before the vote was taken, Mr Hamill was so confident that he cleaned out his desk, tidied up the drawers and came down to the bar with his boxes of papers and shouted for the bar. He came down and shouted a farewell drink. He said, "Okay, boys, have one on me." Mr Booth: First time he ever shouted. Mr STONEMAN: The honourable member is probably right—in fact, I think he is definitely right. So he shouted for the team. He said, "Bye bye, fellas. I'm sorry, I won't be here any more. I'm off to Canberra." And away he went. In the Labor Party a majority does not really mean a majority. In the Labor Party a majority of more than 50 per cent does not count. This party that talks about the National Party, gerrymanders, democracy, the right of the little individual party person and the whole range of activities that it purports to stand for says, "No go." Anyway, Mr Gibbs, who I must say has done a marvellous job for the party and who has won a tremendous victory in this instance, is now being comered by Mr Hamill. Mr Hamill is now back. I suppose he has unpacked his boxes and put his things back in the drawers. Now he is shouting in the bar again. He is trying to get back that support that he thought he had. In fact, I understand he is especially shouting for his close friend. Bob Gibbs. It must be remembered that Mr Gibbs put hammer and sickle and party ahead of his Canberra aspirations. I dip my lid to him. At least he did that and stood firm. Mr Harper: He would have romp>ed in. Mr STONEMAN: Yes, he would have romped in. Mr Gibbs is a member of this House, which is the most auspicious House in this nation. He recognised that. He could have gone off to Canberra, without a shadow of a doubt. However, as I have said, he put hammer and sickle and party well ahead of that move. He refused to jump off the ship onto another ship that is steaming straight towards the rocks. He stayed with his team. But not so Mr Hamill; he tried to get out. Now he is back again. I cannot believe that a party can be so disorganised. Honourable members have seen Mr Goss begging Mr Hamill not to mn. They have seen Mr Gibbs begging Mr Hamill not to mn. They have seen Mr Vickers saying, "I'll mn if you mn, HamUl." Matters of Public Interest 27 September 1988 763

They have seen Norm Kmger, Les Scott, Hamill and Hec Jerram out there demonstrating tme democracy, one of them getting 58.3 per cent and the other, the winner, getting 32.5 per cent. Honourable members have seen all of those processes. They heard about Mr Hamill ringing Mr Hawke and saying, "Help me." So Mr Hawke rang Mr Ludwig, the Queensland AWU secretary, and said, "Hey, you've got to help our man. You've got to put him on." Apparently the reply was, "That is not on." More is needed than the support of the Prime Minister to get the favoured candidate, this shining star who has now become a very dull twinkle, into the Federal House. If that is not a rebuff, I have never in my life heard a rebuff. The members of that party should hang their heads in shame, not because they have endorsed Mr Les Scott as the candidate but because the way it is going, the ALP will not win the by-election; not because they have endorsed Mr Scott but because they have tom up the script for democracy in every way, shape and form. Members of the Opposition will never again be able to rise in their places in this Chamber and talk about things such as gerrymanders and rigged votes. If that is not the ultimate in rigging, I have never seen anything Time expired. 1996 Olympic Games Advertisements Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (11.19 a.m.): The honourable member who has just made such a pathetic contribution in this Chamber, Mark Stoneman, would be better known as Mark "Stone-axe" because he is the closest thing to Neanderthal man ever seen in this Parliament. A couple of days ago this nation and, indeed, Queensland had good cause to be proud of one of its sons. I refer to Duncan Armstrong and the magnificent contribution that this young man made to Australian sport at the Olympic Games in winning a gold medal and missing out by a mere fraction of a second on winning a second gold medal and collecting a silver medal for this nation. Of course, it did not take long for the political ferrets of this State to jump on the bandwagon. What honourable members have witnessed over the last couple of days has been one of the most disgusting, pathetic efforts that I have seen since I became a member of this Parliament. I refer to the Premier of Queensland—a man who confuses wanting to lead with wanting to be loved—being linked arm-in-arm with the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, SaUyanne Atkinson, whose only real attribute in her position as Lord Mayor is an ability to flutter her eyelids at half the male population of Brisbane and send them weak at the knees. Good grief, the honourable member for Sherwood, the Leader of the Liberal Party, must shudder every time he sees these pathetic television and newspaper advertisements, which have been shown right across this State in the last couple of days, which are costing tax-payers hundreds of thousands of dollars. As a result of this pathetic charade a number of questions need to be asked. Firstly, how much are the newspaper advertisements costing? Secondly, was Armstrong himself consulted? Was he asked whether he could be used in that television advertisement? Was his family asked whether he could be used as a political shuffler for the National and Liberal Parties in Queensland? I will bet that there was never an approach made to this young man. I think it is disgusting that the National Party and Liberal Parties are trying to ride on the back of the two medals that Duncan Armstrong is going to bring home in a couple of days time. The simple fact is that the newspaper advertisements that honourable members have seen in the last couple of days would be costing the Queensland tax-payer a minimum of a half a million dollars. That would be a conservative estimate. When it comes to the television advertisements, of course, one can only imagine the amount of money that would be needed to cover that very expensive and very costly production in terms of the extras that are used in it, the use of the Expo site, the camera crews and so on. I am told that that campaign alone could well mn into an amount in excess 764 27 September 1988 Matters of Public Interest of $ 1.5m. At a conservative estimate, at least $2m of tax-payers' money is being used for little more than propaganda purposes by the Queensland National Party, in particular, and by the Lord Mayor, SaUyanne Atkinson. One of the jokes is that the newspaper advertisement provides a section for Queenslanders to sign. It is called a petition. But what a charade it is; it is nothing more than sleight of hand. All honourable members know the attention that is given to petitions when they are presented in this Parliament. They mean nothing and they achieve nothing. The simple fact is that the people of Queensland are being conned. The signing of the petition that appears in the newspapers throughout Queensland will do absolutely nothing to influence the Intemational Olympic Committee's decision on where the 1996 Olympic Games will be held. I shall deal with that shortly. The other questionable matter is that in his television advertisement the Premier said that the Queensland Government will be making available $20m as "our contribution"—that is, the tax-payers' contribution—towards seeking the holding of the 1996 Olympic Games in Brisbane. I do not wish to be a knocker and I do not want to be seen as one, because I believe it would be an absolutely marvellous day for this nation and an even more marvellous day for the State of Queensland if at some time in the future the Olympic Games were held in Brisbane. However, it is almost a foregone conclusion that the 1996 Olympic Games will be held in Greece. It will be an occasion celebrating the holding of the first Olympic Games. I forget the number of years involved, but the Olympic Games will be held in Greece in 1996—at a cost to the tax-payers of Queensland of an amount conservatively estimated at $22m for little more than a promotion of the Premier, the National Party and the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. Only yesterday an article appeared on the back page of the Sun under the headline "Govt aid needed on Lawrence". If Lawrence is not Australia's most briUiant swimming coach, he is one of Australia's most brilliant swimming coaches. At the Chandler complex, Lawrence charges the swimmers in his particular team the sum of $10 a week. The newspaper article states— "Chandler must be established as almost a northem arm of the Australian Institute of Sport's swimming unit with govemment backing to continue the line of Australian champions." Regrettably, I have some news for this nation and this State. In the future, there will not be too many Australian champions unless the State of Queensland gets its finger out in relation to sport funding. The amount of money that will be wasted on the Olympic Games bid could well go towards employing Lawrence on a full-time basis as a full-time coach in Queensland. It could go towards giving people, such as Duncan Armstrong, paid full-time jobs so that they can get on with their swimming prowess. The money could be allocated to sport to encourage budding young athletes and champions who are coming up through the ranks and enable them to devote their time to their particular sport. Regettably, throughout the world sport is becoming an industry. Whilst there must always be a difference between the industry and sport and the enjoyment of sport, the fact is that if this nation and Queensland want to continue winning medals, money needs to be poured into sport. Let us examine the pathetic amount of money that the Queensland Govemment puts into sport. In 1987-88 the Queensland Govemment contributed a lousy $8m to sport in this State. The Budget figures for 1988-89 show that the sum will be close to $9m—a pathetic amount of money for a Govemment that says that it is proud of its young sportspeople. The Govemment has tried to jump on the bandwagon of Duncan Armstrong's gold medal win at the Olympic Games. That lousy $8m or $9m should be compared with what is being spent in New South Wales. In 1986-87, the New South Wales Govemment spent $86m on sport. In 1987-88, $88m was spent on sport in that State. Matters of Public Interest 27 September 1988 765

In 1988-89 the Labor Govemment in Victoria will spend $47m on sport. In the previous year it spent $43.Im on sport. Is it any wonder that many Australian champions reside in the southem States? It is time that the Queensland Govemment took an overall approach to sport in Queensland instead of its pathetic bleating that we heard recently from the Premier—a pathetic promise—that he wiU contact a couple of his mates in Brisbane to give Armstrong a job so that he will be able to keep on training. That was a pathetic contribution for a pathetic Govemment. In two weeks' time the Labor Party wUl hold its State conference, at which its policies will be discussed. The Labor Party's documents have now been put together. I predict that my party's policy, which will be passed at the State conference, wiU be that an Australian Labor Party Govemment will select regional centres to participate in a pilot scheme to establish multipurpose sport/recreational complexes for school and community use; that joint State/local govemment funding will be provided for their constmction; that facilities such as squash courts, indoor basketball courts, swimming- pools and extensive multipurpose recreational areas will be incorporated in the complexes. These complexes will provide a wide range of sporting and recreational activities for all age groups within the community, and necessary provisions will be made for the disabled. As a means of reinforcing school/community links, it is envisaged that the complexes will be sited in close proximity to local educational facilities. Compared with the approach adopted by the National Party, the policy that I have outlined is an indication of the Labor Party's positive approach. Time expired. Officious Administration by TownsvUle City Council Mr BURREKET (Townsville) (11.29 a.m.): I draw the attention of the House to two matters conceming Townsville, where I believe democracy has gone mad. Gestapo tactics are now being employed by the Townsville City Council and there exists an officious administration. The first incident to which I refer concems a bizarre sequence of events. A charge was laid against a Mr NeU Havard, who supposedly had not paid his dog-registration fee. As a result of that charge, Mr Havard was put into the watchhouse. He was only one hour away from being put into Stuart gaol. Because Mr Havard had paid his dog-registration fee, the sequence of events is astounding. Mr Havard had notified the council of his change of address. The councU had processed the dog registration. However, Mr Havard was processed through the court system for non-payment of that fee. The police arrived on his doorstep and informed him that he had been prosecuted by the council. Mr Havard informed the police that he had paid the fee and that he had informed the councU of that fact by telephone. As a result, the police suspended any action against Mr Havard for 24 hours. The next day, despite the fact that Mr Havard had spoken with the council, the pohce were forced to arrest Mr Havard and take him to the watchhouse. Because Mr Havard was able once again to contact the city council, the city solicitor paid the fees out of his own pocket. That is a ridiculous sequence of events. I cannot believe that our Queensland justice system allows a man to be arrested and put in gaol for non-payment of a dog-registration fee when, in fact, that fee has been paid. There must be something wrong with the administration of the Townsville City Council. The editorial in the Townsville Bulletin blamed the State Govemment and the system. However, I blame poor administration and bumbling inefficiency. The poor old Town Clerk, who has been doing his job for many years, had to suffer intmsion by the present elected representatives into his administration of the council. Once again, when things went wrong, who was left to make the public statements? It was the poor old Town Clerk. Where were the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor, who have consistently voiced opposition to the State Govemment? They blame all their ills on the State Govemment. Where were they when the chips were down? They were 766 27 September 1988 Matters of Public Interest hiding in their rooms behind their offices. The poor old Town Clerk had to take the blame publicly for that ridiculous occurrence. The second incident to which I wish to refer concems a Mr Tremeer, who was prosecuted by the council on a charge of conducting business on his property. He was found guilty by a magistrate and is facing a fine of something like $1,800. Again I wish to highlight the officious administration of the Townsville City Council, in which democracy has gone mad. Last Sunday I visited Mr Tremeer, who lives on a very high knoll in a mral area overlooking much of Kirwan. On a cleared area at the base of the hill and near the entrance to his property Mr Tremeer has built a garage. For some time Mr Tremeer has hired out equipment such as tractors to many parts of Queensland. Occasionally that equipment comes back for maintenance. In the past the Townsville City Council has successfully prosecuted Mr Tremeer. There is no doubt that Mr Tremeer has breached the by-laws. However, that is not the main issue. During my joumey to Mr Tremeer's property I passed many other urban and mral areas in which tractors, back hoes and all sorts of other farm equipment were stored. Because of the way in which Mr Tremeer had looked after his property, those other properties were put to shame. The council officers who went out to prosecute Mr Tremeer must have been blind not to have seen that other farming equipment on the properties surrounding Mr Tremeer's property. Situated next door to Mr Tremeer's property is a rifle-range. Every Sunday moming pistol-shooters visit that range and conduct pistol exercises. I am aware that bullets from that rifle-range have ricocheted onto Mr Tremeer's property and that that has been condoned by the council. This is democracy gone mad. This is hypocrisy. Let me assume that Mr Tremeer was guilty of breaching the by-laws. However, I estimate that approximately 5 000 home­ owners and back-yard operators in Townsville who fix their cars, fix other people's cars or do a little bit of business at home would be guilty of the very same offence. However, the story does not end there. Following his conviction, Mr Tremeer was informed by the Townsville City Council that he could not use his own telephone to conduct business and that he could not allow any member of his staff onto his property. For example, he could not pay his staff on his property and could not talk business with a foreman who wanted to visit him. What has happened to the role of local govemment? Who owns the telephone system? How can a council officer say to a man, "You cannot allow people to come onto your property."? The council is using Gestapo tactics. Last week, Mr Tremeer was telephoned by the Townsville City Council and told that he had to remove from his workshop every tool that was larger than that required to service his motor car and that, if he did not do so, the council would seek an injunction—a warrant—from the clerk of the court and would send officers out to his property to break into his workshop and ascertain the type of equipment that he had in it. Probably at some time in the past every member of this House has done some work in his private yard that would come under the classification "business". What has happened to local government in Queensland? I have been criticised by Mr Smith and Mr McEUigott for attacking the Townsville City Council too much. What I am highlighting here today are exactly the sorts of things that I have been criticising. I was a member of the council for three years. I saw a whole series of these things going through the council, but because I was a member of the opposition I could not do anything. In a numbers game the Labor members of the council always had the final say. I now refer to a case relating to a gentleman on Magnetic Island, Mr Mario Corico, who was treated poorly and mthlessly by the Labor Party council, which is supposed to be for administration for the people and by the people. Mr Davis: They are, too; I will vouch for that. Matters of Public Interest 27 September 1988 767

Mr BURREKET: That might be the case in the rest of Queensland, but it is certainly not happening in Townsville. I draw attention to the need for the Minister for Local Govemment to consider what is happening in TownsvUle. Perhaps some attention should be given to the issuing of complaints. There is no doubt that both of the gentlemen whom I have mentioned have been treated harshly by the council. I believe that Mr Tremeer intends to draw up a petition calling for the sacking of the Townsville City Council. I would heartUy endorse that. In fact, I would support it strongly, because these are not just two isolated incidents. It is a case of an administration that has been in power for too long and has become autocratic. Blood-lead Level among Lead-processing Workers Mr BEARD (Mount Isa—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (11.39 a.m.): At a time when Australia should be doing everything in its power to make its industries competitive on world markets, I want to refer to an example of bhnd adherence to a theoretical ideology with complete disregard for scientific evidence that places one of Austraha's major industries under dire threat. I refer to the lead-processing industry in Austraha, which encompasses, as weU as the mining and smelting of lead, the battery- manufacturing industry and others. At present a full, wide-ranging review of lead-processing is being undertaken by the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, or Worksafe Australia. A fiiU review is being conducted of the literature and evidence of what is happening elsewhere throughout the world, to determine what should be a clinically safe level of lead to which people can be exposed. In most countries in Europe the accepted level is 80 micrograms of lead per decilitre or 100 millilitres of blood. I will continue to refer to those numbers. The units are micrograms per 100 millihtres of blood. As I said, the level in Europe is 80. At Mount Isa and Port Pirie, and in Australian industry generally, the industry itself has set a level of 70, which is 10 below the European standard. At the Mount Isa smelter, after every change of a three-week shift, the men who work there are given a blood test and they are monitored. If the level of lead in their blood starts to rise above 50 or 60, the men are advised and care is taken to ensure that they know exactly what the mles are for industrial hygiene. If the level reaches 70, the employee is removed from the environment for some weeks, and in some cases, three months, until the level retums to a safe level. It is measured and monitored at all times. The body is capable of excreting the lead. At a level of 70, there is no symptomatology at all of lead-poisoning. The symptoms of lead-poisoning do not appear until well after that level, and there is absolutely no danger to the men as long as they are restricted to the level of 70. On the other hand, for the foetus—the unborn baby—a grave danger exists. There is plenty of evidence that there is a toxicity to the foetus if the level of lead in the mother-to-be exceeds about 30. For that reason, women of child-bearing age have been excluded from working in lead-processing plants throughout Australia. That is obviously to protect the foetus from being damaged when the mother-to-be works in a certain environment. With this review being undertaken in Australia, a ludicrous situation has arisen. One of the smaller partners on the committee reviewing lead in the workplace, namely, the equal opportunities lobby, is demanding that a level of 30 apply universally—for all people who will be working in lead-processing. The scientific objectivity of debate is being distorted at the earliest level by attempts to impose social engineering onto the industry—the old lowest common denominator syndrome. There is a conflict of interest between the duty of care in the lead-processing industry and what is stated or implied in the sexual discrimination legislation. With lead there are objective criteria, yet an attempt is made to put everything at the lowest common denominator. To protect the foetus, certain people are seeking to reduce the blood-lead 768 27 September 1988 Matters of Public Interest level for men working in the industry to 30. Biology has determined that it is the woman who carries the foetus, not the man. Occupational exposures of from 40 to 70 micrograms of lead per 100 mUlilitres of blood are quite safe. There are some areas where a reduction by less than 40 cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, there is a discrepancy between what can be guaranteed for individuals in an industrial setting and what is known may harm the foetus. Foetal protection is paramount, which is the reason why women of child-bearing capacity are not permitted to work in lead-processing areas. Therefore, in many States of Australia, including Queensland, there are exemptions from the sexual discrimination legislation, in that under the Queensland Factories and Shops Act children under 18 and women are not allowed to work in lead-processing areas. However, a woman, the equal opportunities commissioner, Josephine Tiddey of South Australia, attended by invitation a Melboume hearing of the review of lead in Australia, which began on 14 September. She also sits by invitation on Worksafe Australia—the NOHSC—on matters pertaining to equal opportunity. Before the hearing in Melboume on 14 September she stated categorically that there would be no exclusions from the provisions of the sexual discrimination legislation; that the lead-processing industry will have to come down to a universal level of 30. That cannot be done. Eighteen months ago. Coopers and Lybrand conducted an economic review of the cost to Australian industry of various scenarios—of reducing the lead-in-blood exposure to 60, to 50, to 40 and to 30. It was clearly identified that the whole lead-processing industry in Australia, including battery-manufacturers, would become non-viable at a level of 50. There would be very high costs associated with reducing the level to 60; highly significant costs in reducing it to 50; and the industry would become non-viable at below 50. Yet, Ms Josephine Tiddey, the South Australian equal opportunities commissioner, insists that the level be reduced to 30 because she insists that women be allowed to have the same rights as men to work in the lead-processing industry. I remind you, Mr Speaker, that every country in Europe also has equal opportunities legislation, but all except one has an exclusion clause based on sex. The one exception is Finland, and the Finns have assured friends of mine who have toured Europe that their society is so conservative that there is no possibility of women working in lead- smelters in any case. Europe applies provision for a level of 80 with exclusion clauses that apply to women. In Australia, the lead-processing industry has adopted its own self- imposed limit of 70, yet the equal opportunities commissioner insists that the level be reduced to 30. It cannot be done. How is Australia to compete with lead-producers in Europe and in Asia? What are the limits in Asia? Mr Innes: Who pays her salary? The tax-payer! Mr BEARD: Yes, indeed. She is pursuing blind ideology without regard to scientific evidence, to the costs or to the feasibility of achieving certain limits. She is insisting that the level be 30 because of her adherence to the principle of complete equality of sex, regardless of biology or anything else. The lead-processing industry has put forward its own code of practice based on a clinically acceptable maximum level of 70, which cannot—and I repeat "cannot"— accommodate women of reproductive capacity without potentially harming the foetus. At Mount Isa, approximately 18 men per year are temporarily removed from the lead-smelter because the lead level in their blood temporarily exceeds 70. Typically they are taken out of the lead-smelter environment for two or three months while their bodies adjust and the level falls below 70. The proportion is only 18 per year out of a work­ force of nearly 300. If the level were set at 30 the whole work-force plus 25 per cent of the men working in nearby areas would be out of work; in other words. Mount Isa Mines Limited could not operate. The company could spend $100m or $200m—the amount is irrelevant—trying to create an environment in which the exposure to lead would be a maximum of 50 micrograms per 100 millilitres of blood, but it would not Matters of Public Interest 27 September 1988 769 work. The company would have to close down its operations and cease producing lead. Ms Tiddey seems to be quite unable to comprehend this fact. The main factor is biology. I point out that it is quite safe for men to work in this environment with those levels, but it is not safe for women. Mr Innes: A Labor appointee. Mr BEARD: A Labor appointee! I offer a rather cmde parallel, Mr Speaker. It is the equivalent of saying that there must be urinals in women's toilets in case some women prefer to use them. Biology dictates that women function in a fashion that is slightly different from men, and the parallel is valid. Ms Tiddey insists that biology be ignored and that costs be ignored; she insists that all things be equal. Already a number of small processors are getting out of the industry in Australia, essentially because of a foregone conclusion. It seems to be inevitable that the level will be reduced to 30. What can the bigger companies do? What can MIM and Australian Mining and Smelting at Port Pirie and the bigger lead-battery manufacturers do? They can only confront the Govemment and the equal opportunities commissioner. They can only fi^t and take her on. They can take the matter to the High Court or anywhere else possible, because the only altemative for them is to cease production altogether. Over the next few years, Australia will be faced with the prospect of companies that are already under severe threat from overseas competition—Australia's export- earners and wealth-creators—having to divert valuable resources to fight through the courts a ridiculous, pedantic ideological nonsense. Australia will go down the tubes while producers in Europe laugh.

Central Queensland Tourism Promotion Mr HINTON (Broadsound) (11.49 a.m.): I rise to talk about a crisis in tourism promotion in central Queensland. I refer specifically to the Capricom region, which extends from Gladstone to Mackay and as far west as the Central Highlands. The regional tourist body is the Capricom Tourism and Development Organisation, which is known throughout the area as CTDO. It is a Rockhampton-based body and it comprises regional membership from the Capricom Coast, the Central Highlands, Rockhampton, the Callide Valley and local govemment representation from the Rockhampton City Council, Livingstone Shire Council and the Emerald Shire Council, to mention but a few. It also has representatives from both the tourist industry and other strata, including service industries, manufacturing industry and land development companies as well as local govemment, as I mentioned earlier. And herein lies some of its major problems. The organisation is insufficiently oriented to tourism because it has too few representatives from the tourist industry and is not affiliated with the subregional tourist bodies in its region, which in the main are quite hostile to the CTDO's creating a fractured and ineffective tourist promotion effect in the region. Central Queensland—particularly the Capricom Coast, which is in my electorate— has tourist features, including Great Keppel Island, that I believe are second to none throughout Australia; yet the area is known as "the gap in the map" in Queensland as far as tourism is concemed. The industry has not capitalised on the region's natural attributes, nor has it held for anywhere near long enough those people who travel through it to Caims and other northem tourist areas such as the Whitsunday group. The area's tourist slogan is "Stay another day" in the region. Although that is a very appropriate slogan, it certainly has not worked very well in promoting central Queensland tourism. I believe that major stmctural changes are necessary to improve the effectiveness of tourism promotion. These changes need to be addressed by the CTDO, the Govemment, the Minister for Tourism and the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. The central Queensland region is, of course, quite vast and takes in the whole of the Central Highlands area. Central Highlands tourist operators and their organisation, the Central

80545—28 770 27 September 1988 Matters of Public Interest

Highlands Tourism Organisation, are also dissatisfied with the CTDO's promotion of that area, including the gem-fields. Many of them seek the creation of a new region. Meetings have been held among the shires in the area with the objective of creating a new inland tourist region. The Gladstone area has already broken away from the Rockhampton-dominated CTDO and has formed a separate region. Along the Capricom Coast, dissatisfaction is absolutely rife. The subregional body for the Capricom Coast Tourism Organisation refuses to co-operate with the CTDO because it regards the CTDO as a Rockhampton- based organisation. Of course, the Capricom Coast is engaged in fierce competition with Rockhampton for the ovemight travellers' market. The CTDO's promotion of the Capricom Coast is a complete disgrace, because although at least 40 or 50 per cent of the tourism facilities in the region are situated on the coast, the area hardly rates a mention in CTDO's promotional material. For example, the CTDO's promotional material at Expo is called "Rocky I", "Rocky 2", "Rocky 3", and "Rocky 4", under which a person stays ovemight in Rockhampton at a motel, visits the coast—buying only a packet of chips during the day—has a good look round, retums to Rockhampton to stay ovemight at a motel and then the next day visits the gem-fields in the Central Highlands. This does nothing for the motel-operators, the accommodation places or the tourist industry in the region other than those based in Rockhampton. It is hardly the stuff that will create harmony in the region. I have a copy of the 1988 market and promotions strategy issued by the Capricom Tourism and Development Organisation. I have read this document very carefully and in its six pages I cannot find any mention of my region. The people in my electorate would have every right to ask the question, "Where the hell is Yeppoon?" The CTDO received $70,000 last year from the Govemment and spent very little in my electorate. The local tourist organisation, the CCTO, is building a tourist information centre from its own resources and receives not one cent from QTTC funds to assist in its mnning or upkeep. Where does the CTDO spend its funds? I have examined the financial statements of the organisation as at 30 June 1988 and I assure this House that it paints a very dismal picture for those who do not live in Rockhampton. The total income for the organisation was $161,714, which included the Govemment grant of $70,000 and the membership subscription income of $46,569, which is a decrease from $55,972 the previous year. This reflects the substantial problem of falling membership due to disillusionment with the organisation. The standard membership fee is $80. Consequently, last year there must have been a drop of approximately 80 members. On the Capricom Coast there are approximately 35 members paying $80 each, which retums approximately $3,000 in subscriptions; yet the coast would have in excess of 40 per cent of the region's tourism. The people in my electorate think that this is a pitiful situation which needs to be addressed. I am pleased that the honourable member for Rockhampton is in the House, because I know that he agrees with me and will take some steps to assist me with this diabolical situation. Of the expenditure in 1987-88, wages account for $80,000, or half of the revenue. Approximately $30,000 to $40,000 is spent on overhead costs, depending on how those costs are allocated, and $40,000 to $50,000 is spent on promotional material. That is not a high proportion of a total budget of $160,000. This is a crisis for tourism in central Queensland and it must and will be addressed. A total restmcture in central Queensland is essential. Membership should come from the more successful subregional bodies and there should be a tourist organisation at subregional level which directly represents Rockhampton. A new organisation should be formed in Rockhampton at subregional level to represent the tourist industry there and each of the subregional bodies should have members directly elected to the regional body in order to achieve proper regional representation of the area. This would alleviate Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 771 to a very large extent the commonly held belief within the area that it is a Rockhampton organisation that merely looks after itself The subregions should be directly involved to ensure that the most effective promotion takes place. The subregional bodies could contribute part of the membership fee to the regional body, and the State Govemment grant could be partly distributed through the regional body to the subregional bodies, thus creating far more autonomy at a regional level. This would be very acceptable to the regional operators. I do not think that there is any doubt that the most effective promotion to date for the subregional bodies, including the Central Highlands, the CaUide Valley and the Capricom Coast, has taken place at a lower level. Some of the resources that are spent in the Rockhampton area should be redirected towards those areas. This is a vast and diversified region and no other method would be satisfactory. Later this week I will be talking with the Minister for Tourism, Mr Muntz, and the honourable member for Peak Downs, Mr Lester, with a view to the Govemment's taking some action in this region. At the present time the CTDO and the organisation on the coast are having talks to try to resolve the problem. It is my view that, if those talks are unsuccessful and if the present situation continues into the future, the Govemment has a role to play. A withdrawal of the grant to that organisation might be necessary until such time as the organisation is restmctured to the satisfaction of the tourism industry in the region. This might be the only effective way in which this matter can be addressed.

SUPPLY

Committee—Financial Statement Debate resumed from 8 September (see p. 738). Mr GOSS (Logan—Leader of the Opposition) (11.59 a.m.): It is a pleasure for me to reply to the Budget Speech on behalf of the parliamentary Labor Party. At the outset, I wish to state that it is the Labor Party's view that Queensland is a State rich in human and natural resources with great potential and an exciting future. We in the Labor Party are bullish about Queensland's future, but this State's economy will never move into top gear with a State Govemment which has no strategy of its own and is plagued by an inability to make decisions. Queensland is no different from any other State in that it requires a sound economic policy framework and an approach to financial management based on competent and accountable administration of the State's finances. However, Queensland, while no different from other States in that respect, is different in that it represents the new frontier in Australia. We have the opportunity to make an exciting future for the people of this State. An important part of the drive to the new frontier is the energy and attitude of the decision-makers in Govemment. While we in the Labor Party would disagree with many of the attitudes and decisions of the former Premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, in one respect he had it dead right. When it came to the economic development of this State, he had an aggresive and decisive attitude, and that is what Queensland has now lost. Up and down Queen Street business is complaining about how hard it is to get a decision out of this Govemment. Let me borrow the following anecdote from Peter Charlton's book State of Mind—Why Queensland Is Different— "You ever heard of the woman going from Rockhampton to Townsville. She got the labour pains, had to be delivered by the engine driver and the fireman. Later on, in the Townsville Hospital, the doctor ticked her off. 'You shouldn't have got on the train in that condition,' he told her. 'I didn't,' she answered." Unfortunately for Queensland, that typifies the current Premier and his administration of this State. The Govemment's strategy is lethargy. Its solution to any problem is: another committee, another inquiry, another consultant. If the Premier, Mr Ahem, was a surgeon, he would not have a patient left. He dithers for so long in his diagnosis that he fails to notice that in the meantime his patient has died. The Queensland economy 772 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) cannot afford the delay of this Premier when it comes to his diagnosis, much less his prescription to get the economy of the State moving. What the Labor Party is determined to do is to offer the people of this State not just a sound economic pohcy framework, not just competent and accountable administration of the State's finances, but a fresh approach and an aggressive and decisive attitude when it comes to making the decisions necessary to get this State moving in top gear. I tum specifically now to this Budget. Like previous Budgets in which Mr Ahem has been a participant at Cabinet level for the last nine years, this Budget continues the bad practices of past Budgets. It does not ensure competent financial management or genuine accountability of expenditure. It hides from the people of Queensland the tme nature of the economic and financial problems facing the State. My Budget reply speech on behalf of the Labor Party in Queensland is divided into the following seven sections— 1. The functions of the State Budget; 2. The limitations of the State Budget; 3. Queensland's natural economic wealth; 4. The paradox of Queensland's comparatively poor economic performance; 5. The reasons behind the disparity between performance and resource wealth; 6. A critique of the National Party Govemment's 1988 Budget; and 7. The Queensland Labor Party's alternative approach to economic and financial management. 1. The Functions of the State Budget What should the Budget do? First, it sfiould account tmly for the spending of money raised by the Govemment. Second, it should ensure that proper parliamentary approval and scmtiny are given to the raising of taxes and charges and to the spending of those funds. Third, the Budget should provide a blueprint of the Govemment's economic strategy for the State as a whole. This Budget fails on all three counts. The National Party Govemment looks on tax-payers' money as money to be spent on furthering its party-political interests or on indulging the personal tastes and ambitions of Ministers. WhUe the Government has announced the setting-up of a public accounts committee, there is still no detail and there are no grounds to be confident that the committee will be vested with the powers necessary to protect further plundering of the public purse. Perhaps the most glaring shortcoming of this Budget is the absence of any discernible or definable economic strategy. Nearly 12 months after the Ahem Govemment assumed control and responsibility of Queensland's economic and financial management, and more than eight years after the Premier's promotion to State Cabinet, Queensland is still waiting for this Government to spell out in precise terms the strategy under which it is operating.

2. The Limitations of the State Budget In framing any State Budget, Govemments must be mindful of the extent of their economic powers: those economic activities over which they have control and those over which they have no influence at all. Queensland cannot conduct its own independent macro-economic policy. It cannot determine interest rates, the exchange rate, the money supply, personal income tax rates or company tax rates. Queensland will develop a more rational and informed economic policy only if it recognises the existence of these parameters and seeks to work creatively within them rather than in ignorance of them. For example, Queensland as a leading exporter is subject to the economic influences of world markets and of the world economy. There will be times when developments overseas impinge unfavourably on the Queensland economy. That has happened in the past. A strong, efficient and competitive economy is better able to cope with such disturbances. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 773

The Govemment can do much to ensure this. It needs to monitor commercial, economic and financial developments overseas so it is aware of potential problems as well as emerging opportunities and to act on them. Queensland does not stand alone, it is part of the Australian and intemational economy. The Queensland Labor Party has already outlined its 10-point economic strategy to take our State to new frontiers of economic development. We are now in the process of further developing details of our policies under this strategy designed to accommodate and adjust to the reality of changing economic circumstances. Queensland needs a State Govemment that is able to match the rigor and vigour demonstrated at the Federal level by the Labor Party. Queensland Labor will provide that calibre of govemment next year. 3. Queensland's Natural Economic Wealth Queensland is a State rich in resources and is able to produce commodities which find ready sales in highly competitive export markets. In many areas Queensland is a leading producer of important commodities. It provides— • 40 per cent of total Australian beef and veal production; • 95 per cent of sugar production; • 65 per cent of tobacco production; • 65 per cent of maize production; and • 25 per cent of Australian mineral production. Queensland accounts for more than 23 per cent of total exports from Australia, including 40 per cent of mineral exports. Although Queensland is a State rich in human and natural resources, this richness is not matched by the quality of State Govemment policies and performance. 4. The Paradox of Queensland's Comparatively Poor Economic Performance While Queensland has been richly endowed by nature and is competitive in many areas, the economic retums for its citizens are comparatively low. This is not a criticism of Queensland or Queenslanders. A favourite artifice of the National Party Govemment is to deflect legitimate criticism of its performance by accusing its critics of knocking Queensland. Queensland Labor rejects this accusation absolutely. The National Party does not have a mortgage on commitment to Queensland, its people and its future; nor can it expect to be immune from criticism. Criticism of the National Party is not, and never will be, criticism of Queensland. Queensland has so much going for it. I have outlined some of the statistics. Why is household income per capita in Queensland consistently below the national average and generally lower than that of all other States? Why are average weekly earnings for both women and men consistently below the Australian figure and lower than that for most other States? Why is the rate of unemployment in Queensland higher than the Australian average? Why has Queensland's share of new fixedcapita l expenditure— business investment—lagged behind that of the other States? Why is our manufacturing industry still underdeveloped? Why on a value-added basis does Queensland's manufacturing output account for less than 12 per cent of the Australian total? To these questions Mr Ahem has no answers—only yet another round of publicly funded advertisements to prop up the Government. Our State remains overly dependent on production of a limited range of primary and mineral products. Queensland exports are highly concentrated on the Japanese market; 40 per cent of our exports go to Japan compared to 23 per cent of national exports. Queensland has a high population growth—higher than the national average and higher than that of all other States except Westem Australia. But our State has an uneven 774 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) age distribution. Queensland has a high proportion of its population in the youngest age group—0 to 4 years—and a low proportion in the 15 to 64 age group. This unbalanced population distribution is the result of large-scale interstate migration in recent years. This interstate migration includes a high net gain to Queensland in the age group 0 to 14 years. Why, however, does Queensland suffer a net loss of people in the 15 to 24 years age group? Because they are the ones who are looking for jobs and they are the ones who are voting with their feet. That is why they are leaving. The result is that Queensland tends to gain people in the age groups which require a high level of Govemment services and, because of a shortage of jobs, loses people in the productive age groups. Queensland can no longer tolerate a situation in which we are losing our youth because we cannot provide them with jobs.

5. The Reasons Behind the Disparity between Performance and Resource Wealth The principal reason for the sharp contrast between Queensland's potential, on the one hand, and its relatively poor economic performance, on the other, is the sustained economic mismanagement of this State by successive coalition and National Party Governments. This appalling record of mismanagement has been continued by the Ahern Govemment. It, like its conservative predecessors, has failed to recognise that the primary function of govemment is to facilitate private-sector activity rather than govemment itself supplanting the role of the private sector. Both the Bjelke-Petersen and the Ahem Govemments have indulged in large-scale and unnecessary public works programs which do not add to the efficiency of the State's economy but, instead, represent a misallocation of scarce public resources. The Nationals continue to be the party of big govemment. It remains a public administration scandal, however, that the Queensland Govemment administers a $20 billion-a-year enterprise but does not have an economic strategy. Do not bother to ask the Govemment for its strategy, because it does not exist. The only semblance of a strategic approach to managing the Queensland economy has been to dispense favours to National Party cronies. Conservative Governments have radically distorted the market-place by pursuing policies which give preferential treatment to vested interests. Too much of State Govemment economic policy in Queensland has been concemed with providing favours and largess to a small group of cronies at the expense of genuine competition which is needed for the proper development of the Queensland economy. Queensland must decide which path it wants to pursue. The choice is between National Party cronies dividing the spoils of government—a crony-led recovery—or fair competition that will generate additional wealth and higher incomes; deliver a better standard of economic performance; and provide tangible benefits for Queenslanders through improved Government services.

6. A Critique of the 1988 Queensland Budget Mr Ahem's Budget Speech is in all essential respects a replay of his predecessor's in that it is little more than a litany of excuses and myths. When it comes to excuses, none is replayed more than the one which blames everything on Canberra. Somehow, it is always Canberra's fault. The Ministers say, "We haven't got enough money because of Canberra. We can't build enough roads because of Canberra. We haven't got enough teachers, police and nurses because of Canberra." They even say, "Our moral standards are declining because of Canberra." The reality, of course, is very different from this constant negative whinging from the National Party Govemment about imaginary wrongs which have been done to Queensland.

Federal Funding: We all realise that the outcome of this year's Premiers Conference imposed substantial financial restraint on all the States. The burden of adjustment and the winding-back of Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 775 the total public sector borrowing requirement had to be shared by aU States. Nevertheless, Queensland fared best of all when it came to total Federal Govemment allocations to the States for this financial year. Queensland's allocations increased by 3.05 per cent in 1988-89, the highest of all Australian States. Queensland's share of total Federal allocations to the States wiU also rise from 16.7 per cent to 17 per cent in 1988-89. During my reply I will table a number of graphs—eight in all—and I mention that I have sought and obtained the approval of Mr Speaker for the incorporation of these graphs in Hansard. Obviously, that is subject to the Committee being in agreement. I table the first two of those eight graphs to illustrate my point and seek leave to have the eight graphs incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following documents—

TOTAL COMMONWEALTH PAYMENTS TO.THE STATES

PERCENTAGE INCREASE 1987/88 TO 1988/89

3.05

UJ 2.39 O Z 2- < I O UJ fz 0.29 UJ 0.03 o QC ffliltjt-i:3j+ UJ Q. -0.55 -0.86

-2 NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS STATE

SOURCE: 1988 COMMONWEALTH BUDGET PAPER No.4 776 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

TOTAL FEDERAL FUNDING FOR QUEENSLAND AS A PROPORTION OF TOTAL STATE AND TERRITORY ALLOCATION

lO.U

17.0- 17 0 16 7 16.7 UJ 16 5 ' ;• '..'^ 16.4

',!,,, i: ' HI 16.0- ;v;-..?j-!_]_ O ill QC LU a. ii . • " 1 15.0- m m*: :

14.0- li;::;rt:?:4|sif '1 i 1 1 ''' 'r''^'' 1984/85 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 FINANCIAL YEAR SOURCE: COMMONWEALTH BUDGET PAPER No.4

Mr GOSS: The two graphs that I have just tabled illustrate the points that I have just made. Despite the Premier's repeated claims in his Budget Speech of financial discrimi­ nation, the tmth is that for every $1 Victoria receives, Queensland receives $1.22. Queensland's total general revenue and hospital payments increased by $76m over last year—an increase of 2.8 per cent, which was by far the highest for any State. Queensland is to receive $982.60 per person. That is $35.80 more per person than it would have received if Federal funds were distributed on an equal basis between all the States. If Mr Ahern had his way and all States were treated equally, Queenslanders would have been $99m worse off in the allocation of Federal funds. It is also pleasing to note that the changed hospital funding arrangements mean that Queensland now receives the average for all States. As for loan raisings, Queensland's borrowing limit for State authorities was cut substantially to $792.8m—a limit that Mr Ahem says he does not accept, but he has failed to explain why he wants to put Queensland deeper into debt. The ABS has said that the Queensland Government has not fully used its borrowing entitlements in the past. Neither Mr Ahern nor the Queensland Treasury has disputed this claim. However, if the ABS is wrong, and if the Queensland Government has in fact borrowed to the extent of its limit, it is entirely conceivable that the Government has used these borrowed funds to top up its various hollow logs or else to play the short-term money market. The worrying bottom line is that honourable members do not know the answer to these questions because the Budget papers do not tell them. Neither does the Auditor- General's report tell them. This is just one of the vital pieces of financial information Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 777 hidden from public scmtiny because of the deficiencies in the presentation and format of the Queensland Budget papers. I draw to the attention of the Committee the Australian Financial Review's editorial comment of 22 September, which lambasted the Queensland Budget papers as "a back of the envelope job" and quoted the New South Wales Treasury's assessment that Queensland Budget papers were such a mess that no reliable estimate of the Budget deficit could be made. That comment by the Australian Financial Review that the Queensland Budget is "a back of the envelope job" just sums it up. Queenslanders deserve an explanation of the Queensland Govemment's handling of State borrowings. They will not believe the Premier's claim that Queensland has been discriminated against in its borrowing limit until they get the facts. I will say more shortly on the need for a more honest and accountable presentation of the Budget papers, including more detailed information on the State's public sector debt. State Taxation Policy: The National Party Government exploits the myth of Federal funding discrimination as its excuse to hit average and low income eamers through higher State taxes, fees and charges—recently in particular by way of car registration fees and beer and tobacco taxes. The Ahem Government presided over a massive increase in State tax revenue last financial year, and this continues in the current financial year. In 1988-89 the Ahem Govemment will collect 18 per cent more tax revenue in real terms than it did in 1984-85. It should be emphasised that this is an 18 per cent increase over and above inflation. This contrasts sharply with negative real growth in State taxes during Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's last full term from 1983 to 1986. I table for incorporation a graph illustrating this point. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document— STATE TAXATION - QUEENSLAND ANNUAL REAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE SINCE 1984/85

UJ (Dz < oI H Z UJ O cc UJ Q.

-I 1 1 1 1 r 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 FINANCIAL YEAR BASE YEAR 1984/85 SOURCE: QLD BUDGET PAPERS Mr GOSS: Despite much greater than anticipated collections from the business sector through higher stamp duty and pay-roll tax retums, the Ahem Govemment decided to bring in new taxes. 778 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

The Budget imposes new or increased taxes on motor vehicle registration fees, 11 per cent; tobacco, 30 per cent and liquor, 25 per cent. Premier Mike Ahern had the distinction of watering-down the beer price cut contained in the Federal Budget three weeks earlier Delivery of Govemment Services: Despite aU this extra tax revenue, in real terms very little has been passed on to improve the delivery of Govemment services to Queensland families. In his Budget Speech, the Premier and Treasurer claimed, "The community's cry for improvements in the service sectors has been heard." If that is the case, then although the cry may have been heard, it certainly has not been heeded. Education: 1 will first of all consider education. In spite of the claim that education funding has increased 11.2 per cent this year, education services will in fact be hard pressed to mark time. In real terms, education-funding has increased by a meagre 2.2 per cent. However, this increase is overwhelmed by higher enrolments. A total of 800 extra teachers were required just to cope with increased enrolments. The State school system was allocated only 522 extra teachers. The marginal real increase in education spending this financial year will do nothing to keep pace with the State's continuing population increase. I table for incorporation a further graph illustrating this point. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document— EDUCATION PERCENTAGE REAL INCREASE IN EDUCATION EXPENDITURE COMPARED WITH POPULATION GROWTH (BASE YEAR 1984/85) 10

6,. ,7, M Percentage increase in 8- Population LU CO < D Percentage increase in Real Education Expenditure go 6- — 00 ^^ i m ii:!± 4- ±41 2J^ iii; ZJl QC ii aUJ. 2- M 1^ m -Mi 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 FINANCIAL YEAR SOURCE: QLD BUDGET PAPERS (DEFLATED TO 1984/85) AUST BUREAU OF STATISTICS

Mr GOSS: Education's share of the Budget, this "top priority" area according to the Premier, remains static at just under 20 per cent. This is by far the lowest proportion of any State Budget spent on education. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 779

Queensland's sorry record of spending the least per capita of any State on education has not been rectified by this Budget. Education, one of the cmcial ingredients of economic growth and development, receives low, not top, priority from the Ahem Govemment. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The level of conversation in the Chamber is above an acceptable limit. I ask honourable members to resume their seats. Mr GOSS: Queensland will continue to have the largest class sizes, the most overworked and underpaid teachers, the poorest facilities and the least opportunities for its children. I recall Deputy Premier Bill Gunn's comments to a p. and c. delegation when he was Education Minister that leaming under a tree did him no harm. I heg to disagree. I do not think that Bill Gunn should be used as a role model for what our children should aspire to in their education or what parents expect of the education system. Nothing is more important than fostering the creative and analytical talents of our young people. This Budget is another opportunity lost for Queensland children, teachers and parents—an opportunity lost for Queensland's fiiture. Health: This Budget puts further pressure on hospital funding and brings the abandonment of the free hospital system one step closer. Spending on health remains virtually static. As with education, health expenditure is failing to keep pace with population increases. Queensland is now spending 3.3 per cent more on health than it did in 1984-85, despite a population increase of 8.7 per cent during that 5-year period. I table for incorporation a further graph that demonstrates that point. 780 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document—

HEALTH PERCENTAGE REAL INCREASE IN HEALTH EXPENDITURE COMPARED WITH POPULATION GROWTH (BASE YEAR 1984/85) 10

01 Percentage increase in Population 8 UJ D Percentage increase in (0 Real Health Expenditure <

6- — 00 UJO) ' r-i it -Jriijj'li IS 4- AJl m JUL QW <•••-! QC ^Ul IhH-ft,: UJ Q. JL'-JJ.S.I 2- .1.9,. 1.9 m I U4 1^ 3fy~, -ii-t iin HlJi i 111 Jr:; 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 FINANCIAL YEAR SOURCE: QLD BUDGET PAPERS (DEFLATED TO 1984/85) AUST BUREAU OF STATISTICS

Mr GOSS: Queensland's underspending on health services is now $367m below the Australian average. Queenslanders can thank the Federal Government for any improvements which have occurred. Federal hospital funding for Queensland has increased from $223m last year to $500m this year.

Police: The basic responsibility of any Govemment is the maintenance of law and order and the protection of life and property. The Ahem Government has fundamentally failed to meet this responsibility and duty to the Queensland public. The Budget allocation of $265.37m is a reduction on last year's expenditure of $281.3m. Amazingly, the Government manages to constme this reduction as an 8.7 per cent increase. Although there is a real decrease in police spending, the Government manages to constme it as an 8.7 per cent increase. In fact, this year spending on police wiU be 3.4 per cent less in real terms than it was in 1984-85, despite Queensland's 8.7 per cent increase in population over the same period. I table for incorporation a further graph that demonstrates that point. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document— Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 781

POLICE PERCENTAGE REAL INCREASE IN POLICE EXPENDITURE COMPARED WITH POPULATION GROWTH (BASE YEAR 1984/85) 10 Percentage increase in 8- Population

UJ D Percentage increase in (0 Real Police Expenditure < 6- QCoo zs 4- — oo UjO

QC UJ a.

1 1 1 r 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 FINANCIAL YEAR SOURCE: QLD BUDGET PAPERS (DEFLATED TO 1984/85) AUST BUREAU OF STATISTICS

Mr GOSS: The 600 police who we are told will be trained over the next three years will take us only half-way to meeting our immediate police shortage of 1 200 officers and does not take into account population increases. Queensland will still have the worst population-to-police ratio in Australia and it will still have the highest crime growth rates and the highest dmg crime levels.

Public Sector Debt: The National Party Govemment has had a windfall in tax receipts in the last financial year. This will continue in the current financial year. But why is it that while Treasury coffers are full to overflowing, the key service sectors of education, health and police have received such paltry increases in real funding levels? In short, where is the money going? One obvious answer to that question is this State's ballooning public sector debt. Public sector debt is defined as the accumulation of net financial liabilities by the State Govemment and statutory and local authorities. These institutions borrow on the domestic market and from overseas to finance large expenditures, usually of a capital nature. Coalition and National Party Govemments have allowed Queensland's public sector debt to grow at an alarming rate over the last five years—from $8.7 billion in 1983-84 to $13 billion for 1987-88. This represents approximately a 50 per cent increase over that period. In the last 12 months alone, Queensland's debt in fact increased by a massive 782 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

$1,130m. That is a staggering increase in the size of our State debt. It means that last financial year Queensland's debt rose by— • $3m a day • $130,000 an hour • $2,150 a minute—every minute of every hour of every day of the year. I table for incorporation two further graphs that demonstrate that point. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following documents—

TOTAL QUEENSLAND PUBLIC SECTOR DEBT

z O CO

1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 FINANCIAL YEAR SOURCE: AUDITOR GENERAL. QUEENSLAND. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 783

TOTAL QUEENSLAND PUBLIC SECTOR DEBT ANNUAL PERCENTAGE INCREASE

14.0

12.0- UJ 0)

X o 8.0- lzU •iilll t 6.0 z oUJ 4.0- or lU 0. 2.0-

0.0 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 FINANCIAL YEAR

SOURCE: AUDITOR GENERAL, QUEENSLAND

Mr GOSS: Interest payments alone on Queensland borrowings now stand at $ 1,629m a year. Over the last six years, they have grown faster than those of any other State. Queensland's interest bill over that period has increased by 212 per cent, which is the highest increase of any State. By comparison. New South Wales' annual interest bill increased by 157 per cent, while Victoria's rose by 126 per cent. What does this mean for the Queensland economy? This uncontrolled growth in Queensland's public sector debt impedes the capacity of this and future Govemments to provide an adequate level of spending on key service areas such as education and health. It is also monumentally short-sighted and irresponsible in that this Govemment's financial mismanagement will place an enormous tax burden on future generations of Queenslanders. Despite the gravity of the situation, this Budget— unlike Mr Greiner's in New South Wales—makes no attempt to elaborate a strategy to reduce our State's debt. Balanced Budget Myth: On the subject of the New South Wales Budget—the Greiner Govemment has made an important contribution to openness and honesty by implementing the practice of the Federal Government and presenting its Budget in national accounting format. New South Wales is the first State Govemment to fully present its accounts in this way, although all States except Queensland have been presenting summaries in this form for some time. By presenting the Budget in national accounting format, the deficit is clearly identified and false claims of balanced Budgets or fictitious surpluses are shown up for what they are. For years coalition and National Party Govemments have peddled the myth that Queensland is the only State to balance its Budget. Past and present National and Liberal Party Treasurers have simply drawn up the consolidated revenue account to balance— a manipulative exercise—while deliberately ignoring the other two public accounts, 784 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) namely, the Tmst and Special Funds and the Loan Fund. That is akin to someone saying, "I've balanced my cheque account.", but ignoring his mortgage, car loan and Bankcard bills. It is the total picture which is relevant, not one component of it. It is no wonder that New South Wales labelled the Queensland Budget papers a mess and said that Queensland was the only State for which a reliable estimate of the real State Budget deficit could not be made. Four years ago the Opposition exposed the massive diversion of funds away from services to capital works, which has amounted to $2,27Im since 1976-77. That diversion also provides the mechanism for the mythical balancing of the consolidated revenue account. Last financial year the Govemment planned to transfer $275m from recurrent spending across to capital works. As it tumed out, the tax windfall was so good that a massive $45 5m had to be shifted across to the two capital works accounts, namely, the Special Major Capital Works Fund and the Special Projects Fund. If the revenue had been left in consolidated revenue, an embarrassing surplus of $219m would have been exposed, and teachers, police, nurses and others would have been justifiably asking for more. To avoid that Oliver Twist scenario, the Govemment had to get rid of the surplus. What better place to hide it than in the shadowy capital works accounts and claim that it had been earmarked for future works? This year, a further $320m is planned for transfer from services to works. Mr Ahern's pledge last December to mn an honest and accountable Govemment has been broken in his first Budget. As it stands, the Budget papers are nothing less than a cheap side-show trick which relies on mirrors and smoke. The only honest feature of the Budget is the pictures. Queensland's Budget papers are the only ones to carry photographs; a device which is apparently essential for the National Party back bench and a good proportion of the Ministry to understand what the Budget really contains. However, although the Budget papers contain many glossy photos, by contrast they provide— • no details of program budgeting within individual departments; • no details of increases in State fees and charges; • no estimate of the deficit; • no indication of overseas borrowing liabilities; and, in particular, • no indication of interest rates on borrowings.

The Missing Economic Development Strategy: Labor's fundamental criticism of this Budget is that it has been delivered in the absence of an integrated economic strategy for the State as a whole. The annual Budget is the principal economic policy instmment of the State Government. Yet it has been delivered in the context of a total economic policy vacuum for the overall economic management of the State. This State Govemment has put the cart before the horse. It still does not have an economic strategy, because it is still busy importing one from the United States, at great expense to tax-payers; yet it has announced a $20 billion Budget, seeking to give effect to a strategy which does not exist. In his Budget Speech, the Premier made repeated references to a new strategic approach to the economic development of our State. But where is that strategy? Because it contains no strategy whatsoever, any careful analysis of the text of his address leaves the reader disheartened, disappointed and disillusioned. The promises and public relations create the impression of a new era. The reality is that we have a new era of jingoism and buzz words, most of which are imported second hand but at marked-up prices from Califomia. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 785

Nowhere is that better demonstrated than in a recent speech by the Premier's Director of Economic Development Strategy. At a recent seminar at the University of Queensland, the man who Mr Ahem appointed to that most senior public service position in the overall economic management of the State said— "The Queensland Govemment has recognised the importance of setting out the path ahead for the economy and is adopting a strategic management approach in recognition of the significant impact, complexity, difficulty and momentum of the process upon which it is embarking." He went on to say— "The holistic overview provided by the strategic and operational policy activities of the Govemment can be very effective in identifying opportunities for the private sector to 'gap-fill' holes in the infrastmctural network. Provided the Govemment acts in a way that encourages the private sector to take up such opportunities and does not 'crowd out' the private sector by prematurely entering these markets itself, then a strong partnership of interests between the public and private sectors should be established for building a process for sustainable economic and business development." That is no more than pseudo-economic gobbledegook. It means nothing in practice. If the Govemment was genuinely concemed about not crowding out the private sector by entering the market itself, why has it done just that by not allowing private companies to have the mnning on the Wallumbilla-Gladstone gas pipeline when those companies were more than prepared to do so? The answer is that this Premier is, in this regard, no different from his predecessor. He was desperate to lift his plummeting image and electoral stocks by announcing a big project, irrespective of whether that project was economically justifiable or not. In terms of State intervention, this Premier has continued the National Party tradition of digging deep into the capital works slush fund and doing something dramatic to demonstrate his political virility. In doing so, he continues to ignore the abysmally low level of spending on education and other services in this State. In summary—this Premier raised the hopes and expectations of the people of this State and the business community with his declaration of his vision of excellence. Yet 10 months later these hopes and expectations have turned sour. Queensland business is fed up with a Premier who dithers and cannot make decisions. Business is fed up with a Premier who, having made decisions, then proceeds to flip-flop, depending on the findings tumed up by the latest piece of National Party research. It is fed up with a Premier who continues to cultivate cronies. It is fed up with a Premier and a party that prefers public relations hype to sound, pragmatic and practical government. The business community is a very practical community. It does not expect Govemment to solve all problems, but it does expect practical assistance in areas where Government can help, such as— • making quick decisions on development projects rather than allowing them to languish amidst Mr Ahern's labyrinth of committees, commissions and reviews; • providing a better-skilled and better-educated work-force for industry; and • vigorously assisting industry in finding overseas markets. It is in these practical areas where the Ahem Government has failed and where it has lost enormous credibility within the business sector. In short, business is tired of the humbug that is the vision of excellence.

7. Queensland Labor's Altemative Approach to Economic and Financial Management: While Mr Ahern talks of a vision. Labor believes in substance, not rhetoric. A Goss Labor Government would recognise that, first and foremost, economic development depends on a strong, progressive and competitive private sector. In our economy the bulk of economic activity occurs in the private sector; most people in the economy are employed in the private sector; most economic decisions in the economy are made in 786 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

the private sector. A Goss Labor Govemment would ensure that Govemment activity would create a positive environment for private sector activity. A Goss Labor Govemment would ensure that any use of public resources by the private sector resulted from an open and competitive allocation and not from back­ room deals designed to advantage National Party cronies over their commercial rivals. It is only when the Queensland economy is fully efficient and productive that spending on social objectives will be maximised. Queenslanders have succeeded and continue to succeed in a highly competitive world environment. Queenslanders know that competition brings out the best in people; keeps them on their toes and keeps them up with the latest developments across the country and throughout the world. Queenslanders know that there is nothing to fear from competition, provided that everyone plays according to the same set of mles and on a level playing field, and provided that the referee is impartial and enforces the mles equally on everyone. Despite its talk about free enterprise, the present Govemment does not know how to play the game according to the mles. It changes the mles to give cronies special privileges; it does not let some players onto the playing field at all.

Labor's Economic Development Strategy: A commitment to a genuine market environment for business where competition is encouraged and enterprise is rewarded is one element of Labor's 10-point economic strategy for Queensland. This strategy also includes policies to— 1. increase the benefits received from primary industries through greater Queensland-based processing of minerals and agricultural products; 2. diversify Queensland's manufacturing and service industries; 3. further develop and promote Queensland's tourist potential; 4. enhance Queensland's trade performance; 5. foster more co-operative industrial relations in Queensland; 6. increase Queensland's capital resources by expanding the State's financial infrastmcture; 7. implement a regional development strategy for Queensland; 8. revitalise Queensland's public sector; 9. expand job training and skills development; and, as I have already mentioned, 10. eradicate cronyism.

Labor's Policy on State Financial Management: Fundamental to the successful implementation of Labor's economic strategy is sound public sector financial management. In order to gain the best deal possible for Queensland, a State Labor Govemment would pursue a co-operative rather than a mindlessly confrontationist approach in the management of Federal/State financial relations. While not increasing real taxation levels. Labor would review the efficiency of the State taxation system and would consider providing taxation relief in certain areas. In its first term in Govemment, Labor would set about bringing spending on key service areas, and in particular education, up to the Australian average. By retaining just 30 per cent of the $320m that will be switched from recurrent services to capital works this financial year, sufficient funds would be available for a Labor Govemment to employ, in addition to those announced in the Budget, 900 extra schoolteachers, 1 000 extra police officers and 1 100 extra nurses. That would be achieved by simply using 30 per cent of the funds that will be transferred from recurrent services to capital works in this Budget. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 787

Labor would immediately devise a debt amortisation strategy and would use any tax windfall to pay off Queensland's public sector debt earlier than scheduled. Labor would also adopt a more rigorous approach to scmtinising borrowings by statutory and local authorities. Finally, Labor would present its first Budget in the national accounting format in order to clearly identify the real balance of revenues and spending. Conclusion: In this Budget reply I have spelt out how there is a better way for Queensland. Labor's approach will in one respect be similar to that pursued by former Premier Bjelke-Petersen: it will be decisive, assertive and forthright. In other important respects the Labor Govemment will be vastly different; it will be competent, efficient and accountable. Our economic policy framework will provide the plan for the future development of the State. Our goal is not economic growth for the sake of growth; our goal is economic growth because it is precisely that economic growth that underpins the rest of Labor's program—the rest of Labor's social objectives—in raising the standard of community services in the key areas of State Govemment responsibility—health, education and police in particular—to reasonable levels and a standard comparable with that of the Australian average and with that provided in all other States. While the Labor Party will be pursuing economic growth and development with single-minded determination, it recognises that the private sector must be given the opportunity to realise the potential of this State but with a view to ensuring that a fair share of the benefits of economic growth go to the average Queensland worker, to the average Queensland family—not just to the privileged friends of the National Party. This is the approach that I^bor in Govemment in Queensland will pursue—with vigour, energy and purpose. Queensland did not win so many State of Origin games by Wally Lewis setting up a subcommittee every time an opening appeared in the Blues' back line. We won because he saw a chance, he put his head down, and he went for it. Queensland has a world of opportunity before it. The Labor Party in Queensland says, "Let's go for it." Mr McPHIE (Toowoomba North) (12.46 p.m.): I listened to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition and found that so many of the things he said reflect what the Queensland Govemment is doing, what the Queensland Govemment has provided, and what this Govemment's intentions are for the benefit of Queenslanders and the economy in Queensland. Judging by the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, it would be fair to say that he is obviously not an accountant. It is equally obvious that he will never be a Treasurer. His speech was full of the buzz words and catchphrases that he so readily criticised when he referred to the Treasurer's Budget Speech. Although the Leader of the Opposition made many comments in his lack-lustre speech, I point out that since the Budget was brought down approximately two weeks ago, comments made about it have already been effectively answered and refuted by the Minister for Finance, who is presently in the Chamber. The Minister has put down the outlandish claims that were made. The speech made by the Leader of the Opposition today is aligned with what the Govemment has done and provided for in the Budget. Two weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition made some comments in a small section of a one-page article that appeared in the Australian Financial Review. His criticism was effectively put down by the Premier in this very Chamber. In similar vein, the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition today will be put down, because his comments do not measure up as effective or realistic comments on what has already been provided in the Budget, and his speech could not be regarded as offering an altemative to the Budget. The National Party does not know what it has to do to please the ALP when it brings in Budgets, either in this Chamber or, as in days gone by, in the Federal Parliament when it was part of the coalition Govemment. It seems to be traditional for Leaders of 788 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) the Opposition to criticise and routinely attempt to denigrate Budgets. Leaders of the Oppositon never acknowledge that a job is being done well by a Govemment in terms of its budgetary strategies. That is one reason why the Opposition's comments become so ineffective in reply to a Budget. The Leader of the Opposition's speech in this Chamber today was a piece-by-piece denigration of various items contained in the Budget. That is a very easy method to adopt. One only needs to open a Budget document and single out a paragraph or sentence to put forward an altemative. The Leader of the Opposition did not put forward even one single, reasoned argument. His speech was wound up by the suggestion that instead of an increase of 600 police officers, the Government should provide an increase of 1 000. That is completely ridiculous because the capacity of the police academy is limited to training only 200 a year. If the Govemment was to produce another training coUege, it would have to implement a three-year program to get it up and mnning because of the capital works that are involved. His comments were simply not realistic. Of course it is possible to increase training capacity with the provision of additional facilities, but that takes time. The Govemment's provision of an increase of 200 police officers each year for three years is spot on, and is realistic in terms of what can be done and what will be achieved. The suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition of an increase of 1 000 is simply not realistic, which is the case in relation to many of the points he made. Instead of considering the Budget document piece by piece, the Leader of the Opposition should have considered it as a whole. If honourable members were to look at the Queensland Budget as a whole, they would agree that it is a beauty. The Budget contains the seven sections that the Leader of the Opposition spoke about. The Budget has already covered the topics he referred to as Labor's great economic strategy and what it will do for Queensland. However, the difference lies in interpretation. Different interpretations arise from the different philosophies adopted by members of the Oppo­ sition and members of the Government. Thank goodness the philosophies are different, and will always remain different! I would hate to take on board any of the Opposition's ideas. The point I wish to make is that the end-product will be achieved by different means. I put it to honourable members that the means employed by the Govemment will be better and are the preferred means for Queensland. They are also more likely to result in a successful outcome. The objectives of the Government's 1988-89 Budget wUl be achieved. The objectives that the Budget is intended to achieve have already been basically established. The Budget outlines what will be achieved over the next 12 months, despite the difficult financial circumstances being experienced at present. The Budget refers to Federal restrictions on funding, which are a fact that must be acknowledged by the Opposition. Throughout the Budget Speech the Queensland Govemment adopts a positive attitude to those restrictions. The main indicators of the Government's Budget strategy are the increased manning levels. The Govemment intends to increase the number of police officers by 200 a year each year for three years. The number of teachers will be increased by 522 over the next 12 months, and additional support staff will be provided. In the Health field, there wiU be an increase of 700 nurses this year and 600 the following year. Those increases will be producing the manpower that is needed, and they are good to see. The Budget is an exceUent shift in emphasis from a capital works Budget—the kind of Budget that this Government handed down over the last few years, which was necessary at that time—towards a manning and people Budget. It is a logical progression, and I congratulate the Premier on his movement towards this area. An additional 57 prison officers and 50 additional staff in the Probation and Parole Service will be provided. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 789

Mr McPHIE: The honourable member would like to take that figure in isolation and say that 67 and not 57 are needed. That shows the mentality of the members of the Opposition. This Govemment is putting large numbers of operational people into the field through its manning program. That is what is needed in the public arena. Through this Budget the Govemment is interfacing with the public and providing services to the people. It would have been great if the Leader of the Opposition had made a few compli­ mentary remarks about the Budget instead of his continual denigration and criticism. Queenslanders know which party makes the best Govemment. That is the reason why the National Party was retumed to office at the last election and why it will be retumed to office again. The National Party has a realistic approach and it performs and produces the goods for Queenslanders. The Budget emphasis is on manning and people in preference to capital works, which was given the main emphasis in previous Budgets—although capital works are well catered for throughout this Budget. Overall it adopts a balanced approach, and the first Ahern Budget must go down in history as being one of the best that Queensland has seen. It has not received the recognition to which it is due. It ensures the continued progress of the State of Queensland which has occurred over the last 10 or 15 years. The honourable member for Port Curtis is shaking his head. He knows in his heart what will happen in his electorate of Gladstone in the next 12 months solely as a result of this Budget and this Government's initiative. Mr Prest: The Minister does not know, so how would I know? Mr McPHIE: The honourable member can make a noise on the other side of this Chamber, but his remarks are as totally ineffective as all his other comments. During his criticism the Leader of the Opposition might at least have mentioned a few points in the Federal Budget. I thought he would have mentioned the $5.5 billion surplus in the Federal Budget; the thing that the members of the Labor Party all skite about. The Leader of the Opposition knows what is involved and therefore kept quiet about that surplus. The $5.5 biUion surplus is there, but the national debt of this country is increasing at a rate of $10 billion a year. In spite of the fact that Paul Keating has come up with a $5.5 billion surplus, every year Australia's debt is increasing by $10 billion and there is a net loss of $4.5 billion. Australia is going further and further down the gurgler. There are no grounds for the media's elation or Keating's self-congratulation on that section of the Federal Budget. Mr Lee: They only took it off the States. Mr McPHIE: That is right, and the Federal Govemment does it at every opportunity. It is bleeding the States and people dry. That method of accounting negates the gains in export eamings achieved by this country and the increased eamings from wool, beef, coal, sugar, minerals and many other products. All those increases have been achieved through the hard work of Queenslanders, Australians and Australian free-enterprise companies which are gaining credibility on the world markets. The Federal Govemment is completely negating the gains made through these export eamings. The Federal Govemment is squandering money, but the Leader of the Opposition made no comment about that. What has happened to the promise made by the Federal Govemment concerning tax cuts? The Federal Government had made this promise for the last three or four years. Mr Lee interjected. Mr McPHIE: The honourable member for Yeronga has not seen one tax cut yet and does not believe that he ever will. I will retum to the Queensland Budget. Year after year this Govemment has made concessions in relation to pay-roll tax. That tax was introduced originally by the Federal 790 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

Govemment and, as has been done in many other areas, dumped into the lap of the States. In the late 1960s the Federal Govemment handed the responsibility for pay-roll taxation over to the States and asked each State to collect its own pay-roll tax. The Federal Govemment no longer wanted to collect it and transfer the money over to the States. Unfortunately for all the States, the amount of money taken in pay-roll tax under the Federal system was so large that the States could not merely wipe pay-roll tax. Over the last five or 10 years Queensland has been the leader in reducing the impost of pay­ roll tax on employers. There have been steady increases in the threshold, and this year's Budget states that over the next three years the exemption level will be increased from $324,000 at the beginning of next year to a $500,000 threshold on 1 July 1990. That is a big help and will provide concessions to firms with 30 or more employees. It is time that this Govemment looked ahead towards making pay-roll tax concessions available to some of the larger firms. A firm that currently qualifies for the concession with 30, 40 or 50 employees competes very effectively with many of the larger firms in the market-place. The smaller firms will qualify for a concession, but no such concession is available for the big firms because there is no graduated scale of payment for pay-roll tax. There is a threshold below which a firm pays nothing and above which a firm contributes the full amount. The Minister for Finance should look towards the next Budget and the introduction of a graduated scale in order that some concession or relief in pay-roll tax will flow through to the big firms who pay the most pay-roll tax in this State. In addition, other tax concessions should be considered. I realise that State and Federal authorities must impose taxes in order to obtain money, but the successful firms and people in this country are the ones who pay the taxes. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. Mr McPHIE: Before the luncheon recess I was about to mention the problem of other taxes that apply to individuals and companies under the present system of taxation in Australia. Presently it is the successful companies and people who are paying large amounts of taxation. In fact, over the last five years, total Federal Govemment taxation takings in Australia have increased by 60 per cent, that is, an increase of $30 billion. The Queensland figure is certainly much better, but the increase was 45 per cent, which is the lowest of any State in Australia. On a per capita basis, the Queensland figure is still the best. In 1986-87 the per capita amount was $569, which is a tremendous amount of money. For the States, that revenue comes mainly from pay-roll tax, land tax and stamp duties on transactions of one kind or another. I ask the question: should not everyone be contributing towards the State's coffers for the services that are provided in so many different ways? The State is moving towards a user-pays system. Mr DAVIS: Mr Temporary Chairman, I draw your attention to the state of the Committee. Quomm formed. Mr McPHIE: Surely it is reasonable that everybody contribute towards the money that is required. As I was about to say, the State and Federal Governments are moving towards the principle of user pays. I admit that there is an arguable case that successful businesses and people are best able to pay and that it is right that they should pay the lion's share. However, the burden upon them is becoming excessive. The total Govem­ ment imposts levied on some companies now exceeds 50 per cent of their eamings. A good case can now be made to move to replace the existing system of taxation with one under which the user pays, and even to a consumer tax. As I have been speaking about concessions to industry, I should say that last night I attended the 25th anniversary dinner of the Department of Industry Development. The record of the DID over the last 25 years is quite significant. The record of industrial Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 791 development achieved since 1963, when DID came into being, is a very, very proud one. The Ministers, departmental heads and all others involved over the period should be congratulated. The story of the establishment of industrial estates throughout Queens­ land is one of which we can be very proud. While concessions are given to new industries starting up in Queensland and to interstate industries to lure them to Queensland, nothing is done for existing industries that have already established themselves in Queensland, the ones that over the years have battled to become the basis for Queensland's industrial muscle, as it were. Surely it is time that a program was developed to help those long-established firms. In fact, the Premier, who was a guest at the dinner last night, referred to that. The time has arrived to help the established firms, in addition to new industries and to interstate industries that we wish to lure to Queensland. Established industries should be assisted to expand and to undertake programs for re-equipment, which in some cases needs to be very, very extensive. Perhaps a special program could be devised to help existing industries move from their present sites to bigger or better-positioned locations so that they can prosper and become more profitable than if they were to remain on their present sites. The Govemment must continue to help the establishment of new industries but, with an interest-subsidy scheme or something like that, it should move to help established industries as well. I wish to comment on some initiatives on education which were mentioned in the Premier and Treasurer's Budget Speech but which have not received the support of the media that they should have. I congratulate the Minister for Education, the Honourable Brian Littleproud, and his department on these initiatives. Mr Davis: Why? Mr McPHIE: I ask the honourable member to sit back and listen. I know honourable members opposite find that very hard to do. However, if he does so, he will find out why, because that is just what I was about to tell him. I shall mention some of the smaller matters contained in the Education Vote. They may be small but they will be tremendously significant to individual schools scattered throughout the State. The first is the funding of school grants. Instead of a number of individual allocations being made to a school to cover a whole lot of minor items, they will be consolidated and the schools will receive one amount to cover a number of small matters. That will give them flexibility on the expenditure of the money. However, the significant point is that the amount that will be handed over in this first year is increased by 50 per cent, that is, by $10m. That will be a tremendous help to aU schools. That assistance will be flowing to the parents and citizens associations, which do an excellent job for schools throughout Queensland. Their support for the schools, the children and the teachers shows a tremendous record of fine achievement. The p. and c. associations have the difficult task of fund-raising for many needs. Often I question whether they should be raising funds for some of those requirements. The department should be providing the money. However, because the p. and c. associations will pick up the tab, they are allowed to do so. Because of the 50 per cent increase in funding and the consolidation of grants to the schools, that fund-raising task should be eliminated. The p. and c. associations will have more flexibility. The scheme will work well, provided that the consolidated amount is properly managed at each school. I am sure that it will be. In the last Queensland Budget, because of demands made on other Budget allocations, the Govemment was unable to increase the allocation to the private schools. However, that has been corrected this time to a tremendous extent. The increase in grants to non- Govemment schools covers the enrolment growth of the schools plus a 2 per cent real increase per capita per annum for the next three years. That will be a tremendous help and will overcome the problems that developed last year. This year, the allocation is increased by $6.5m, which is an increase of 9.5 per cent. That shows the sound Government policy in support of the private schools and the freedom of choice for 792 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

education in accredited private schools in Queensland. The Government will never retreat from that policy. I refer now to schoolground improvements, which is another area in which the p. and c. associations are often involved. The Govemment's commitment in the Budget is to meet claims at an enhanced level for various ground improvements and buildings. Last year, Toowoomba East State School celebrated its centenary. In 1971, when initial steps were being taken to celebrate the centenary, a project was conceived to build a $300,000 activities hall. The project was confirmed in 1985. At present, the plans are approved and have been lodged with the department. All they are waiting for is funding. That school was not at the top of the hst of aUocations of 1988-89. However, the Treasurer has given a commitment to meet the claims at an enhanced level. I am sure that the Toowoomba East State School will benefit from the Budget allocation, as so many other schools in Queensland wiU. Many positive initiatives are provided in the Budget. I am at a loss to understand why the Leader of the Opposition denigrated it. He has shown us time and time again, not only in this Chamber but also in the media, that he does not fully understand the Budget. He believes that he must knock everything. He does that and, when he attempts to be specific, he is caught out time and time again. Honourable members observed the Premier and Treasurer towel him up on the last day of sitting. Furthermore, after the Budget was brought in, the Minister for Finance nailed him about six or seven times on his statements. The Govemment has provided a sensible allocation for Education in the Budget. However, Mary Kelly from the Queensland Teachers Union is yelling her head off, saying that it is not enough and she will take everyone out on strike. It may be fair for the Leader of the Opposition and the Mary Kellys to make comments, but they do not have the responsibility for the allocations, the mnning of departments or the funding. The emotive statements that come from them are unreasonable. The Govemment has provided a sound Education allocation with new initiatives. It has provided for 522 new teachers in the next 12 months. In addition to that, extra support staff will be provided. Since the Budget came down, the Minister for Education even announced some extra initiatives in regard to time-sharing. Yet people such as the Leader of the Opposition and Mary Kelly are never satisfied. It comes down to a purely selfish and unreasonable attitude by those people. They want everything for themselves. They demand everything for themselves. If they do not get it, they level threats. Mr Vaughan: Just like your attitude to the Federal Govemment. Mr McPHIE: We do not level threats. We complain when we are disadvantaged, but we can back it up with facts. If the member for Nudgee listens a little longer and my time does not mn out, I will give him many facts on road-funding that will back up that argument with the Federal Govemment. The Leader of the Opposition and Mary Kelly want everything for themselves, to the absolute exclusion of everyone else and to the disadvantage of every other department. There is no way in the world that they will give credit where credit is due and appreciate the overall coverage of this excellent Budget. I will address some comments to road-funding. I am totally disappointed with the road-funding from the Federal Budget. The Federal Government commissioned the Cameron report. That report was compiled over a long period. The only thing to come out of it is that Federal road allocations will be divided into six areas. It is a real con job. All the Federal Government is doing is reducing it, cutting it up, fragmenting it, confusing it and providing less money than it ever did before. Mr Vaughan might contend that the Queensland Government complains about the Federal Govemment's allocation for roads. Mr Simpson: They won't try to do anything to get a better deal for Queensland, will they? Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 793

Mr McPHIE: They do not do it, and they will not do it. We are not likely to see it. In real dollar terms, 1983-84 is the base year, with $252m in grants. If that is taken up, with the Consumer Price Index increases over the years, 1988-89 should see Queensland with $355m in funding. What does this State get? Queensland is getting about $242m. In fact, the missing amount over the five-year period adds up to $28Im. That is the shortfall. That is the amount that should have been made up to Queensland over those five years. That figure exceeds a single year's allocation. The Federal Government takes 31c per litre in excise duties and gives back to the States only 5.1c per litre for the roads. And people wonder why the roads are in bad nick! Those figures are absolutely correct. The arguments of members of the Opposition do not stand up Mr Vaughan: They're not, you know. They're falsified. Mr McPHIE: Those figures are not falsified at all. They are the real figures. I obtained them from official documents. I want to conclude by saying that this first Ahem Budget is a responsible Budget. It is a forward-looking Budget. It has a great deal to commend it. As 1 have said, it will go down in history as one of the great Budgets of Queensland. Mr Beard: That's a bit of an exaggeration. Mr McPHIE: The Budget contains many things that I have not mentioned. It gives help to primary producers. Mr Beard would be very pleased about that. He has plenty of primary producers up in his Mount Isa electorate, as weU as all the MIM people. The Budget provides $50m over three years for a productivity enhancement scheme for primary producers. The Leader of the Liberal Party does not understand what that is all about because he is not a primary producer. He has lost contact with them, as has his party. The Budget provides for the North Queensland Business Enterprise Zone and the Cape York spaceport. Money is being made available to provide for tertiary places. Project Pay Packet will provide assistance in regard to employment. Wherever one looks in the Budget papers, one finds initiatives that will enhance the productivity, progress and development of Queensland. The Budget makes special provision for housing and welfare. Assistance is provided in any area honourable members care to name. In addition, the Capital Works Program will continue. I congratulate the Premier and Treasurer on this Budget. It is an excellent Budget. I congratulate also all those who were concemed with its compilation. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Leader of the Liberal Party) (2.47 p.m.): This year's Budget is marked by the presentation of the accounts in a form which does not allow for an understanding of the tme financial position of this State. It does not allow for a proper comparison with the financial position of other States or the Commonwealth and, probably worst of all, by not providing those sorts of standards, it does not provide the people of this State and the Govemment of this State with a tme measure of its own performance. Unlike the new New South Wales Greiner Govemment, which demonstrated courageous new and hard-headed honesty, the Queensland Govemment did not adopt modem standards in the presentation of the public accounts. I think that Mr Goss must have had a moment of weakness when, after carefully avoiding talking about New South Wales for most of his speech because it reflects so badly on the years of the Wran administration, he actually conceded that the presentation of the Budget by Mr Greiner in a standardised form, albeit that it revealed, and had to reveal, the tme indebtedness of the State, was a major appropriative progress on behalf of a State Govemment. 794 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

The States of Australia have a responsibility to take part in the solving of the national economic and financial problems. Until we get some standardised and modem systems of accounting and get the States to operate on the basis of a tme comparison of performance, we will not have the development of that level of responsibility which is vital to rectify the financial problems of the whole country and the financial problems of each individual State. The Budget is also marked by political distortions. I refer to the fact that the Budget still reflects the political reality of the traditional base of the National Party Govemment. The reality is that at $31.43 per capita, Queensland has the highest expenditure by Govemment on primary industry in Australia, but at $5 per capita, it has the lowest spending on industry. That is the reality. Despite the brave new words, the development of a new economic strategy, the talk of sunrise industries and new technology industries, industry in fact fares very badly from the policies of this Govemment. We have the situation in which the Govemment's obsession with publicity—the purely political motivation of self-publicity—comes to the fore. There has been an increase in the Premier's media section of 24 per cent, up to more than $5m, which almost matches exactly the decrease in the spending on the Road Safety Council of Queensland. But, of course, there has been no such corresponding reduction in the camage on the roads of this State. Apparently it is more important to promote the Premier of this State and this National Party Govemment than it is to spend money on vital community services and essential commitments to battles against social scourges. This Budget also contains the dangerous principle, I suggest, that if another Gov­ ernment gives taxation concessions or an efficient sector of public operations such as the insurance industry responds to the demands of competition or the demands of reduction in taxation, then this Government believes it is appropriate and justifies the imposition of taxes on those grounds. For instance, the Federal Govemment reduced the excise on beer and one of the State Govemments has reduced third-party insurance. Therefore, this Govemment believes it is proper for it to impose taxes to make up the difference. If that is the situation, and if that was the justification used by the Queensland Govemment, then of course it takes all the pressure away from public sector activities or other Govemments to reduce taxes in those areas. If it is known that reductions are going to be taken up, that Federal Government reductions will be taken up by State Govemment, there is no incentive, there is no compulsion felt to make the adjustments that everybody believes should be made, for which there are constant demands, and which are proper. When 1 refer to excise and increases in licence fees, I can also include tobacco tax. People have to address this problem. It is all very well to say that some people do not drink or smoke, some people overindulge and some people indulge to the extent that they cause some social problems and that, therefore, that is an appropriate area for the imposition of relentless, continuing and increasing taxation. However, let us look at the reality of taxation and the way that it falls. I think that statistics would still show that beer consumption would be greatest among manual workers and those in a particular wage bracket. I am talking about the wage-eamer—not the person living on social services—who earns the standard or an average wage. I am talking about the guy who raises a sweat and therefore feels that he is entitled to a beer at the end of the day or at the end of the week. Statistics will show that it is exactly the same group of people among males who smoke the most. If a bread-winner is working 36 or 40 hours plus a bit of overtime each week, he feels justified in taking part in activities in which generations of Australians have taken part- going down to the pub for a few beers and having a couple of smokes. Workers consider that that is the minimum to which they are entitled. These taxes are all very well for those who can pick or choose, take it or leave it, or those of us who can engage in lofty things. It is suggested that we should count the social cost. However, we are not looking at the human reality. Those working men who Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 795

have formed a smoking habit will still have their smokes; they feel that that is a minimum entitlement. They will still have a few beers; they feel that that is also a minimum entitlement. So the burden of taxation falls clearly on the people with the least disposable additional income. Those workers feel that an entitlement to a few beers and smokes is an absolute minimum. One can understand why they feel that way. I can guarantee that money for those items comes out of the other disposable income that might be used on the wife and kids. It is a real fad to have relentless taxation on alcohol and tobacco, but, if one looks at it seriously, I do not think that it is a tax that falls equally or fairly on all members of the community. It falls principally on the people who, one would think, deserve the most consideration. The Budget is conspicuous by its failure to address the macro-economic issues that this Govemment and this Premier in particular have set up—the essential need to move away from the traditional areas of business activities and industrial revenue to the new areas which, in a modern world, give opportunities of more diverse employment, of a more diverse economy and, some might say, of greater profits. For a Premier and Treasurer who espouses those views, who has been talking high-tech and who has been talking about the wind of opportunity, who has been talking about spackle or gap- filling—his public servants talk about gap-filling of tertiary and service sectors—this Budget does absolutely nothing to address any of the fundamentals that are involved in reordering, reorganising or creating the incentives to alter significantly the course that has been traditionally followed. In fact, the talk about this redirection has excited a deal of thoughtful criticsm not only from the industry sectors that are to be forsaken but from the Govemment's own departments involved in the sectors that are to be forsaken. Shortly, I shall retum to one of those sectors in particular and demonstrate its continuing importance to the economy of this State. The Budget also demonstrates that the allocation of money to essential services is not that which the Govemment represents. It shows a continuation of the traditional neglect of the basic services for which every modem Govemment should at least claim to deliver, having regard in particular to the taxation take maintained by all Governments, including the Queensland Government. To return to my original point about the way in which the Budget is presented and to the issue of accountability—there can be no accountability unless a tme account is presented. In the preparation of my speech I certainly had seen precisely the same comments to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. In fact, I had taken the same extracts from a variety of documents. Last week, the Australian Financial Review made a correct statement when it pointed an accurate, constmctive and analytical modern finger at State Governments and said that the way in which the Queensland State Govemment Budget papers are presented is absolutely inadequate. Things have changed; the world changes; but certainly the historical accounting methods that are and were the tradition of all the State Govemments are no longer relevant or sufficient in the eighties. Australia has seen astronomical rises in interest rates, astronomical increases in public sector borrowing and the utilisation of overseas loans at an increasing rate, and an extraordinarily dynamic movement in international currencies. Compared with a Queensland or an Australia of 10 or 20 years ago, all financial circumstances have changed. The volatility of interest rates is enormous; the volatility of currencies is enormous; and all those things affect the accounts of the public sector, as well as the private sector, to an enormous degree. Major banking groups have encountered some difficulties. Major industries, major investors and major farmers found themselves in difficulties because of the mere fluctuation of a single currency that affected significant borrowings that were made earlier in this decade. While the odd farmer has borrowed $lm in Swiss francs to buy an additional farm, Governments in this decade have been borrowing up to their ears. The developments that have taken place in Queensland have demanded extensive public sector borrowing. In a fast-changing, modem financial environment historical accounting 796 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) methods are absolutely insufficient to correctly portray the tme financial position of the State. There is a move within Australia towards the standardisation of accounts. From the Commonwealth point of view there is no longer a debate of any significance about the state of the national debt. A great deal of debate exists as to estimates of future revenue and the sufficiency of financial policies on taxation and revenue. There seems to be an acceptance of certain primary figures as a measure of the current state of affairs. In New South Wales, Mr Greiner has moved vigorously from a private-enterprise point of view to make a correct evaluation of the tme size of that State's debt and its financial efficiency. He has not attempted to do what is done in this State. I refer to the dishonest practice of separating the public sector indebtedness, which is presided over by the State's umbrella, into those purely departmental operations and statutory authority operations. An absolutely false picture is presented by not taking into account the operations of those statutory authorities that are set up and controlled solely by this Govemment. The Government is the only process of accountability in the supervision of statutory authorities. A reference in leaked Government documents to the proposed massive new gas pipeline system as one of those natural public rnonopolies that the State should own highlights the fact that the activities of those natural public monopolies must be taken into account in the presentation of the tme financial picture of the State. In the end, those monopolies pass on to the public any charges that they wish to pass on. Only the political resistance of the public provides some brake. This Parliament should demand accountability from statutory authorities. In order to understand properly the financial position of the State, we must know what statutory authorities are about. In order to understand the tme nature of the public sector indebtedness for which this State Govemment is responsible, we must know what statutory authorities are borrowing. By force of reasoning, that contributes to a full understanding of the nation's indebtedness. It is a matter of constant concem and regret that Government members seem absolutely incapable of understanding that this State's indebtedness and statutory authority indebtedness are part of the national indebtedness of this country. In an international and competitive sense, the national debt compounds our problems and presents difficulties. Mr Greiner had only five months during which to prepare his Budget. This Govemment has had 10 months within which to present its figures in a standardised form. Other States that have not got around to presenting their primary Budget figures in a standardised form have presented supplementary Budget documents that show standardised accounting procedures. This State must move in that direction. It should have presented its figures in a standardised form in this year's Budget. It must do so by the time that the next Budget is presented. In the absence of a standardised form of presentation of Budget figures, the Government's motives must be questioned. There seems to be an element of deliberation in this Govemment's not wishing to present the tme picture. That the Premier has not honoured a very simple commitment to introduce a public accounts committee 10 months down the track is a matter of total disappointment. There was no simpler thing to do. The Premier stated that he had that commitment. In the past he advocated the establishment of a public accounts committee. Every other Parliament in Australia has a public accounts committee. There is absolutely no reason why a public accounts committee has not been set up in this State other than intentional dilatoriness and concern about what it might do. This moming, honourable members witnessed the performance of the Premier and Treasurer. In the 10 months since the Premier has been in power, the most disappointing aspect has been his response and attitude to the question of Mrs Harvey's use of departmental funds when attending National Party or political party functions. The evasion of simple questions, which this Premier has practised as Treasurer, demonstrates Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 797

his lack of fitness to be in charge of the public accounts of this State. It is clear that he has a political problem. A person who does not face up to the problem fairly and squarely and accept that it is wrong for a Minister to use departmental funds to attend to domestic and party matters functions clearly should not be left with the responsibiUty of mnning the finances of the State. Those are the standards that are demanded by the community. But there are no standards in this State. The Premier refused absolutely to answer my simple, straightforward, properly asked questions about the issue. He has made no attempt to respond to the questions that were fairly asked by the honourable member for Murmmba. What are the mles? Does the Premier use his departmental accounts to pay entrance fees to National Party functions? An answer was given that somehow it is mixed up with ministerial responsibilities. Unless the National Party is unbelievably different from any other political party, if a Minister attends a function as a guest speaker he is offered free entrance. That is certainly the practice whenever a person is invited to a function as a guest speaker. Just because he holds a portfolio, is a Minister allowed to big-time himself by using the public moneys of the State unnecessarily? There are supposed to be guide-lines for ministerial expenses. Last year they were changed. The total controls were changed. However, there are still supposed to be guide-lines. The Premier and Treasurer has refused to table either the old guide-lines that operated before April this year or the new guide-lines that have operated since then. Why was a cheque for $100 going to the Townsville branch of the National Party? How much was big-timing? How much was necessary to gain admission? I want the Auditor-General of this State to investigate those figures. If there are no proper procedures, 1 want to see procedures established in this Chamber. I do not think that the present position is acceptable at all. The Premier says, "We write the mles." If the Govemment has written the mles to justify those sorts of actions, the mles are wrong. The Auditor- General is being used as a puppet. The hand of the Government is moving the mouth, the fingers and the pen because in the end the Auditor-General can do only what he is allowed to do by the instmctions set down by the Treasurer and by the guide-lines set down by the department. The position is absolutely and totally unacceptable. The question I ask myself is not just whether Mr Ahem is protecting his protege but whether the reality is that all the other 17 Ministers and the Premier himself are in it up to their necks, with their hands in the till. What are the ministerial expenses used for? I find it absolutely unbelievable that a Minister would think that he could use departmental moneys to pay for his entry into a party branch function. If those are the standards of this Government, there are no standards operating in this State to supervise the finances of this State. I have said that fundamental economic matters have not been addressed and that fundamental delivery systems have failed in this State. It is tme to say that the real reduction in police spending is $ 16m. From the point of view of morale, the Queensland police force is in desperate straits. Apparently a rising crime rate exists outside the police force as well as within it. Suburban police stations are being closed. Sufficient police are not available for all the new suburbs that have been created in the State. Compared with the amount that was expended on police last year, this year's estimate is a real reduction of $ 16m. In the field of education it is revealing or instmctive to look not at the accounts of Queensland, because they frankly do not reveal the figures, but at the figures of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. That commission has made some attempt to put into a proper order of comparison some of the activities of the States. In relation to education, I, like I suppose many other people, have been a little distracted or misled by the reference to the global figure. Queensland has the lowest global figure of $535.87 per capita. That is the per capita amount that is spent on the sectors of education that are the responsibUity of the State. Tasmania has the highest per capita spending of $649. 798 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

Like many other people, I suppose that I have listened to the fact that Queensland has lower wages and lower building costs and to a variety of other explanations. A break-down of the 1988 figures produced by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, a copy of which I have here, shows interesting differences between expenditure on the different sectors of education. Queensland does not spend the lowest amount on pre-school education. In fact, Queensland spends the second-highest amount. The lowest amount is spent in New South Wales. It is $8.18 per capita. Queensland spends $20.48 per capita, which is only slightly below that spent by the highest-spending State, South Australia, which spends $20.80. In relation to primary education, it is again found that the amount spent in Queensland is by no means the lowest; it is the fourth-highest at $209.86 per capita. The lowest amount is spent in New South Wales. It is $174.25. The highest amount is spent in South Australia. It is $242.91. Queensland is about the middle of the mck. In the non-Government sector, Queensland spends the third-highest amount. In other words, it is roughly in the middle of the mck. In spending on pre-school education, Queensland performs very creditably, if not almost the best. When one looks at the figures in relation to secondary education, one finds that things change absolutely. At $157.06 per capita, our State Government's secondary schools are the lowest-funded schools in Australia. Tasmania has the highest funding of $243.32 per capita for secondary education. In the field of non-Government secondary education, Queensland is not quite the lowest. In a decentralised State one necessarily would expect a higher commitment than in other States, because more high schools have to be maintained. Queensland has the highest retention rates in secondary education. However, Queensland has overwhelmingly the lowest expenditure per capita on secondary education in State and non-Govemment schools. As a person moves up from secondary education to technical and further education, the scandal increases. Queensland is the most highly decentralised State in the nation with a dozen or so significant provincial cities and many, many big towns, yet it weighs in with expenditue of $49.76 per capita. The highest expenditure is to be found in New South Wales. It is $75.52 per capita. Victoria's expenditure is $68.80. In effect, all the other States weigh in at $70 or more and Queensland is below $50. I thought that it was a little bit cheeky of Mr Goss to refer to the use of pictures in the Budget papers as being necessary to enable Govemment back-benchers to understand the papers. On any reasonable look at the figures on education, the educational background of the Queensland Cabinet and the National Party in Queensland comes straight to the fore. In other words, the Government is not interested in anything following primary education. Queensland secondary education, which has the highest retention rate in Australia of students who remain at school and complete Year 12, has the lowest per capita expenditure. That is extraordinary in a State that is the most decentralised of all States. The figures are intemally comparable. I am not worried about average weekly eamings or building costs in Queensland being different from those in other parts of Australia; I am comparing Queensland's present level of expenditure on primary education with its expenditure on secondary and tertiary education. The difference is overwhelming, and it shows that this State has an antagonism towards the proper provision of secondary education for its citizens. It comes as no surprise to anyone who has been a member of this Parliament for a few years to leam that there has been and continues to be an instinctive hostility to education and educated people who are referred to as the smarties, the professionals, the long hairs. I have heard it all. This attitude comes pouring out of the figures published by the Queensland Government Grants Commission. The figures indicate an active antagonism. I concede that the words are there to try to placate this audience or that audience, but the reality is that there has been short-changing of a massive order of the young people of this State. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 799

There are important matters that I will not have time to embark upon in relation to the overall financial position of this State. One of the most important matters concems the coal industry. Although it continues to play the most massive part in the finances of this State, it receives no attention in this Budget. Were it not for the contribution made by Queensland's great coal industry, Queensland Railways—which proudly boasts an operating surplus of approximately $ 126m—would be down the gurgler by approximately $250m. Electrification could never have taken place if it had not been for the great coal industry; yet the results of electrification have not reduced coal-transport costs home by the coal-mining companies by as little as one cent. Time expired. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (3.17 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to join the Budget debate this aftemoon. I congratulate the Premier and Treasurer on his very responsible attitude in his presentation of the Budget, and also on his very responsible attitude in organising the Govemment. Mr Davis: Where is the Treasurer, by the way? He should be here. Mr STEPHAN: The Minister for Justice and Attomey-General, Mr Clauson, is taking care of the situation very adequately at the moment. The honourable member does not have to worry about that too much. The honourable member's interjection— all he can pick on is whether or not the Treasurer is in the Chamber during this debate— is an example of the attitude of Opposition members. Mr Davis: When Sir William Knox was Treasurer, he was always sitting in the Chamber during the Budget debate. Mr STEPHAN: I do not know whether it could be said that Sir William Knox was always present in the Chamber. In any event, the demands made on the Treasurer are different now. Honourable members must bear in mind that a greater number of people call on the time, energy and expertise of the Treasurer, and that factor cannot be ignored. I was interested in the Leader of the Liberal Party's concluding comments. I feel he was getting mixed up in the difference between education and schooling. Although education begins when people go to school, it does not finish there. People are educated right throughout their lives. Irrespective of whether education takes place within the grounds of the school or not, it is also an education to be a part of the work-force, a part of the community, and a part of the future of this great State. 1 noted with a great deal of interest the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Goss. Although he went to a good deal of trouble, he was not able to find additional sources of funding that had been made available by the Federal Govem­ ment. He strongly supports the Federal Labor Govemment in its attitude to revenue- sharing, as well he might, and in its high-taxation mentality. One only has to ask tax­ payers about the present level of tax they are paying now compared with the level they paid 12 months or two years ago to find out what ordinary people think about the Labor Govemment's handling of financial resources. One could also ask tax-payers what they think about the way funds are distributed and how States are expected to bear cuts in funding without the Federal Govemment undertaking a cut in its own funding to any large extent. It would be interesting to know why major cuts have been made to road- funding and to Medicare funding, and why increased tariffs are being imposed on industries that have to compete on domestic markets with imported goods. Mr McEUigott: They are all cuts in Commonwealth expenditure. Mr STEPHAN: Medicare is an increase in costs. Mr McEUigott: No, the other ones you mentioned. Mr STEPHAN: Queensland is not given its proper share of Medicare funding from the Federal Govemment, as the honourable member well knows. I suppose that the 800 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

honourable member goes along with the proposition that Queensland should not receive its correct entitlements to Medicare levies contributed to by Queensland tax-payers. When a comparison is made between the revenue made available to Queensland compared with the revenue by the other States, it is obvious that Queensland is a long way below average. That is the position not only in relation to Medicare funds' distribution but also in other areas of Government services. If the honourable member agrees with the Federal Govemment's method of distribution of funds, I wonder why Labor members do not stick up for Queensland but prefer to prop up the Labor Government in Canberra? I wonder why Opposition members support the Federal Government when the Federal Treasurer, Mr Keating, claims to be the best Treasurer in the world? If he is the best Treasurer in the world, he should not need the support of Opposition members while he holds that position. Mr Yewdale: Your Govemment is selling the State—selling the ground from under our feet. They will control you from Tokyo. Mr STEPHAN: We are being controlled from Canberra presently. I am trying to point out that tax-payers are endeavouring to repay Australia's overseas debt, which has risen alarmingly in the last few years. Even a repayment of $800,000 or $lm does not make a significant impact on the high-percentage interest on the loan that was borrowed to prop up Australia's economy. If the Federal Labor Government goes down that track, perhaps the Labor Opposition in Queensland should reconsider its position. I tum now to examine the Queensland Govemment's excellent performance in generating employment opportunities. The unemployment rate in Queensland has dropped markedly. One in every three new jobs created in Australia in the last 12 months was created in Queensland. In the last year the employment rate in Queensland rose by 5.8 per cent, which is an increase of 65 100 jobs. Nationally, employment rose by 2.8 or 3 per cent. Therefore, Queensland has created twice as many jobs and is in twice as good a position as other States. Since October 1987 there has been a consistent rise in the underlying trend in Queensland's employment, at a rate equal to or greater than the Australian average. In recent months the labour force and the employment growth rate have confirmed this trend. When one considers the number of working days lost due to industrial disputes, again Queensland's record is very good. In Queensland the number of working days lost per 1 000 employees was 87; in South Australia it was 90; in Victoria, 164; in Tasmania, 177; in Westem Australia, 212; and in New South Wales, 340. The average number of days lost per 1 000 employees for the whole of Australia was 223. Out of a total of 1.3 million working days lost in Australia, 73 000 days can be attributed to Queensland. That is a very low figure and one that Queensland can be very proud of when compared with the figures four or five years ago. The tables are tuming and Queensland has a positive attitude towards employment and productivity. This needs to be encouraged and supported. It is interesting to look at where the work-force is actually employed at the present time. There has been a marked decrease in employment in the agricultural, forestry and fishing industries. In the years from 1985 to 1987 there was a reduction of 2.6 per cent in employment in these industries when compared with the three preceding years. In regard to the productivity of these industries, Queensland has the expertise and willingness to produce against substantial financial odds. Queensland can be proud of this. Employment in the mining industry in Queensland has grown substantially. There has been an 18 per cent increase in the number of persons employed in the industry. This increase applies not only to the coal industry, but also to other types of mineral industries. There are great expectations in the gold-mining industry along the coast and much will depend upon the trend and the prices offered and paid for gold. In my electorate of Gympie the feasibility of underground mining to a depth of 1 000 metres is being investigated once again. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 801

An area of consistent growth is the tourist and recreational industry. There has been a 19 per cent increase in this industry and a considerable number of people will continue to be employed in it. In the past 8 years the number of persons employed in tourist accommodation establishments in Queensland, that is, hotels, motels and caravan parks, has almost doubled from 12 000 to 22 000. The total number of tourism-related jobs in Queensland doubled from 84 000 to 164 000, which is an increase of 24 per cent. In that 8 years, the total number of people employed in Queensland rose to over 1 million. Queensland is very proud of the amount of investment in this State. It is Australia's leading investment State. Private new capital expenditure in Queensland rose by 33 per cent to $2,533 billion, compared with a national increase of only 10 per cent. New South Wales and Victoria recorded increases of only 1 per cent and 3 per cent respectively. Manufacturing accounted for a larger percentage of private new capital expenditure than any other sector in the State with $252m, which represents a 147 per cent increase over the March quarter of last year. Queensland is showing the way to the other States and is doing so very successfully. Another aspect in this year's Budget is the Queensland Govemment's commitment to youth-training. The Queensland Govemment's Commitment to Youth Program is a special initiative designed to provide employment and training opportunities for young people who are most disadvantaged in the labour market and is targeted at 15 to 18- year-olds. The Govemment is committed to this program and has a number of special initiatives which include the recmitment of youth co-ordinators who will work locally to provide professional placement and vocational training assistance for eligible young people. There will be subsidised employment places for additional apprentices or trainees with group-training schemes in Queensland and additional apprenticeships and traineeship places in the State public sector. Mr Davis: Are you a Bachelor of Economics? Mr STEPHAN: No, I am not a Bachelor of Economics. I am a practical person, just like many of the people employed in these areas who have their feet on the ground. I do not think that the honourable member for Brisbane Central is a Bachelor of Economics either, and he is in no position to argue. The group-training schemes collectively have become the largest employer of appren­ tices and trainees in the State and have the ability to co-ordinate two or three different employers for an apprentice throughout the year, thereby providing training in areas in which an apprentice would otherwise not be able to receive training. The group-training scheme has been a success story. Individually, most regional schemes have become the largest employers of apprentices and trainees in their areas. Some of the bigger schemes are now challenging for the title of the largest single employer of apprentices in the State. That is a plus for group trainees, group schemes, training programs and the young people who will benefit. We can be quite pleased with what has been achieved with traineeships. Rural traineeships consist of 12 months' employment and training, 13 weeks of which are spent off the job. Trainees range in age from 16 to 18 years, but special circumstances and eligibility will be considered for those aged 15 and 19 years. Trainees are selected by employers using the normal recmitment methods through the program already in existence with the CES. The wages paid by an employer take into account the trainee's age and the time spent on the job. The training includes broad-based occupational skills, job-specific skills based on the national farm skills curriculum and personal work and effectiveness skills. Each trainee will receive approximately $1,000 as a training fee to assist in the training given by the employer. The trainees will receive instmctions in quite a number of different areas such as communications skills, personal effectiveness, work environment, functional mathematics, information technology, engineering, agriculture, stmctures, horse-related skills, control measures, vehicle operations and cattle husbandry and management.

80545—29 802 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

Mr Davis interjected. Mr STEPHAN: I am sure that even the member for Brisbane Central would be interested in one of those. Mr Davis interjected. Mr STEPHAN: I understand that the honourable member does not understand. I do not believe he is trying to follow what I am saying. I shall now tum to the need for a farm policy. I ask the honourable member for Brisbane Central to remember the mral sector. I understand that he claims to have been involved in the mral sector at one stage. He should remember that the mral sector is vital to the well-being of Australia. It plays an important part in reducing the nation's foreign debt; it underwrites our standard of living; and it supplies the marvellous diversity of the food that we eat and the fibre that we use. Today agriculture requires an urgent and massive transfusion of resources if it is to enrich this nation into the next century. It needs the immediate abolition of tariffs and discriminatory taxes on the plant and infrastmcture it uses to eam export income, many of which were imposed or augmented by past coalition Govemments. It is not only the Labor Govemment that is at fault. A healthy farming sector requires major deregulation of its service industries to achieve cost competitiveness. It needs firm and specific commitment to vital, long-range research and development programs. It needs vastly more resources to tackle the great environ­ mental menace of soil and water degradation. If this country is to be successful in maintaining the standard of living to which the member for Brisbane Central has become accustomed, the mral sector must not be ignored. Mr Davis interjected. Mr STEPHAN: The honourable member for Brisbane Central will be very much the poorer if Labor Party policies are enacted and the farming community is ignored. Mr Davis interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Alison): Order! The interjections from the honourable member for Brisbane Central are becoming tedious. Mr STEPHAN: Primary industry has not been forgotten in the State Budget, which has introduced some major initiatives such as the Primary Industry Productivity Enhance­ ment Scheme, which aims to provide a more pro-active role for the Govemment in property rationalisation and farm build-up so that the Govemment can give assistance to those who are willing to work, to invest and to take the chance that they may not receive a retum on the investment or that they might even lose when prices fluctuate. The scheme will also offer incentives for non-viable primary producers to leave the industry with dignity. So often, producers have the seats out of their pants and have nowhere to go. Often they are left with nothing to support their families. The scheme will encourage better financial management practices in the mral sector, with training programs and counselling, and it will promote soil conservation, pasture-improvement strategies, drought mitigation and other protective measures. Assistance by the scheme will generally be by interest-bearing loans at between 8 per cent and 12 per cent. Water and soil conservation cannot be ignored. I know that much more money has been allocated in the Budget for water conservation. Possibly the most efficient and cost- effective method of water distribution is from weirs and dams constmcted on coastal streams in such a way that no pumping of water is required. The water can be used to keep creeks flowing, which helps a great deal with the productivity of coastal areas without imposing any additional costs. In dry times there is nothing worse than farmers and producers arguing about the non-availability of water. Water is life-giving and without it livestock and produce will die, which is very sad to see. As I pointed out before, the tariff on processed vegetable products is not giving a great deal of support to our local producers. I know that of late the member for Mackay, Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 803

Mr Casey, has been criticising the Committee of Direction of Fmit Marketing, but it plays a very positive role in primary industries, particularly the horticultural industry. Through its six various sectional group committees and the executive, it will continue to play that important role. The COD has re-emphasised its argument for raising the tariff on processed products to a uniform rate of 10 per cent. When commenting on the I AG's recommendation on the fresh fmit and fmit products industries, the COD's chief executive, Neville Smith, stressed the value of tariff uniformity. He pointed out that the Federal Govemment had already implemented a uniform 10 per cent tariff rate on all processed vegetable products. If it can be done with vegetable products, why can it not be done right across the board on all other products? Surely that is a more reasonable approach to take. A more uniform rate for processed fmit and vegetables would help to minimise distortions in the allocation of resources within the horticultural processing sector and would be consistent with Govemment measures already taken to achieve neutrality in that assistance. I believe that those considerations outweigh the arguments put forward by the I AC for not upgrading to 10 per cent the assistance for those processed fmit products with tariff rates below that level. Another area in which the primary producers and farmers are being hit for six is that of sales tax. There is a need for exemptions on materials and equipment that are used in agriculture. They should be free from sales tax. That is particularly important for export industries, because they cannot recover the additional costs from the market. There is a central market price. That price must be very competitive, and is very competitive, with countries that have a smaller economy and a wage stmcture that is lower than that which applies in Australia. There is a range of goods purchased by farmers in the course of agricultural production which are subject to sales tax. Recent mlings by the Taxation Office have increased the range of items that are subject to that particular tax. One thing that we can do without is extra taxes. However, the Federal Govemment does not think along those lines. It increases taxes to gather more funds. Another area that continues to be of concem relates to grants and rebates from the Medicare levy. On the basis of average population during the period 1984-85 to 1987- 88 Queensland received only $184 per person while the average of the other States was $446 per person. Although Queensland has 16.81 per cent of the population, it received only 7.7 per cent of the identified health grant. In relation to Medicare compensation grants paid to the States during that same period, on the basis of average population Queensland received only $118 per person, yet the average of the other States was $282. That is a tremendous difference. According to the documents that I have, Queensland received $303 per person for the identified health grant and the Medicare compensation grant while the other States on average received $729.50 per person, which is over twice as much as Queensland received. The Federal Govemment has admitted that Queensland is mnning a public hospital system for 16.81 per cent of the national population despite receiving only 7.7 per cent of the Federal Govemment health cake. I fail to see any sense in the attitude that has been adopted by the Federal Govemment. While I am speaking of health, the shortage of doctors in country areas is of great concem in many areas. The Gympie Hospital at present does not have a permanent doctor for public patients. The medical superintendent recently resigned. Two other doctors are working there on a temporary basis only. In fact, the hospital should be staffed by a medical superintendent and three permanent assistants. However, the Gympie Hospital has not achieved that number for a long period. I begin to wonder what the problem is if doctors cannot be encouraged to work in country areas. A city the size of Gympie, which is approximately 200 kilometres from Brisbane, is not a remote area of the State and doctors should not need extra incentives to work there. However, because of the shortages in staff numbers, the workload and the working hours are too great. If 804 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) the appropriate health services that are required and insisted on are to be provided, remedial action must be taken. I tum now to the subject of a hospice. For some time a committee has been operating in the Gympie area to raise funds for a hospice to be established for the benefit of the terminally ill. Mr Milliner: What about funding for the driver training centre? Mr STEPHAN: That is a different subject. However, seeing that the honourable member asked that question, I point out that funding of the order of $10,000 a year has been made available by the State Govemment. It is doing very well at present and receiving a reasonable amount of support. A local committee has been formed and the staff is performing its job very well. Mr MUliner: $10,000 is a joke. Mr STEPHAN: The honourable member says that it is a joke. When it is compared with other areas, I suppose it is a joke. The land has been supplied by the State Govemment. Some Federal Govemment funding has been made available for constmc­ tion of the facility. Mr Elliott: It is important to have training outside the metropolitan area. Mr STEPHAN: It is very important to have training outside the metropolitan area. I take the honourable member's point. Mr Milliner: They are doing a tremendous job and they are stmggling along on a shoestring. Mr STEPHAN: I take the honourable member's point. At present I am president of that committee. It is a committee that the Govemment is looking to duplicate in other centres throughout the State. I would like to think also that other communities would do just as much work as the Gympie driver education committee has in establishing that centre. It is not just a matter of supplying money. At present money would help a little bit. However, more important is the expertise. The Education Department has also supplied staff. There is a full-time teacher on site. That is helping a great deal. This scheme is having a tremendous effect in lowering the number of accidents and deaths on the roads. It highlights the need to know the limits of drivers themselves and the limits of their vehicles. I was speaking about a hospice for the terminally ill in Gympie. I believe that urgent attention needs to be given to this matter. The very difficult circumstances must be home in mind. A big building is not required, nor is a large amount of room. However, it is generally recognised that patients are best treated in a special unit rather than in the hospital itself What has been suggested is either a free standing, four bed hospice with associated services, a four bed hospice unit in an existing public hospital, a four bed hospice unit in an existing private hospital, a four bed hospice unit in a nursing home or aged persons' home, or a four bed hospice unit adjacent to any of the above. Any one of these would be quite acceptable. As I said, at the last count $50,000 or $60,000 had been raised—it is possibly a lot more than that now—to provide a building and facilities to make those last few days or hours when a person knows that he or she is not likely to go home again as comfortable as possible. It would provide a place where these people could be visited by family and friends and make it as comfortable for them as for the person suffering. Time expired. Mr D'ARCY (Woodridge) (3.47 p.m.): The Budget that has been brought down by the Premier, Mr Ahem, is no different from Budgets that have been delivered in the Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 805

past. It is still a bandaid Budget. It does not do anything to raise the level of services in this State. The Govemment still has not addressed the long-term problems facing Queensland. The Budget makes no mention of conservation issues, the greenhouse effect, the effect of the depletion of the ozone layer or the replanting of forests. Services such as health, education and police have marked time in Queensland for many years now. Nothing is achieved in this Budget. Things are so serious in the Police Department that, in areas such as mine, breaking and entering offences are no more than noted. Because of their lack of numbers, the police cannot possibly attend to crimes such as breaking and entering in areas such as Woodridge, which have major socio­ economic problems. Mr Elliott: You need Neighbourhood Watch. Mr D'ARCY: The Govemment wants somebody else to do its work. Morale has reached such a low ebb in the Queensland police force that in a recent edition of its joumal the union stated that police in Queensland would not urinate on the Minister if he was on fire. Mr FitzGerald: Hey, hey! Mr D'ARCY: That is in the editorial of this month's edition of the pohce joumal. When things have reached that level, where is the Govemment going with its admin­ istration of services in this State? It is disgraceful that the Govemment will not address the long-term planning problems facing Queensland today. I want to raise some problems associated with that. Some years ago I made a speech in this Chamber regarding light pollution. It was with some gratification that I noticed that some councils in Queensland have bitten the bullet, but not the Govemment. The Main Roads Department has been helpful to those councils that have wanted to cut out lighting. At that time I said as follows— "The problems I am about to highlight arise from waste light or light pollution, which is needlessly radiated outside the intended area of use. It is a waste to the user, and a nuisance to others. Indeed, light pollution is not just an extravagant waste of revenue; it is a negative factor in such areas as health, safety, education and primary industries." I said also— "The major source of light pollution is the street-lighting installed over the last 20 years. These lights are grossly inefficient with only approximately 20 per cent of the light being directed onto the road and footpath. Another 40 per cent of the light shines into the surrounding properties—often into the living-rooms and bedrooms of irate residents." I stated that that was an intolerable waste of money. The Logan City Council—I have to give it a bouquet—has done something about it. I am appealing to the State Govemment to make sure that other councils in Queensland do something about introducing cut-out lighting. Since I made that speech in this Chamber, the Main Roads Department and the Logan City Council have taken into consideration the light pollution that was occurring within the city, and they have now taken one of the most advanced stands on light pollution in the whole of Queensland. I would like to see a Queenslandwide policy on light pollution, with cut-out lighting, used by councUs, the Govemment and commercial operators. In Logan, Main Roads has come to the party and now uses proper cut-out lighting, particularly in areas such as roundabouts. One can visit any roundabout on the north 806 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) coast, the Gold Coast and in Brisbane and one will find that most of the lights shine on buildings surrounding it. It is an absolute disgrace. It is just an absolute waste. It is time that the State Govemment addressed that problem. As I said, I am pleased that the situation in Logan has changed. It is necessary that there be change in other areas. I congratulate the Logan City Council for being in the vanguard of change. The Main Roads Department has also been very helpful. It would be helpful if city councils like the Brisbane City Council took some immediate action regarding light pollution. Perhaps some help could be obtained from the State Govemment not just through the Main Roads Department but through the Local Govemment Department and other departments to create favourable conditions for change in the area of light pollution and by way of legislation. I noted with interest that in his speech in the Address in Reply debate the member for Springwood, Huan Fraser, commended the many new projects taking shape in Logan City. One of the biggest projects is a shopping centre at Bryants Road, which will be the largest in the southern hemisphere. It is set to employ about 1 500 people. One must question how land for shopping centres is zoned and how approvals for new shopping centres are achieved. I remember when I was member for Albert that there were complaints from areas such as Woodridge about the lack of facilities. One could not make that complaint today with the massive shopping centres in Wembley Road, Woodridge; Garden City; Mansfield; Springwood; Amdale; and the new one at Loganholme. It is obvious that many smaU shopping centres are being squeezed. The State secretary of the Shop Assistants Union, John Hogg, told me that 1 500 workers will probably be employed at the new shopping centre, yet the number of members of the Shop Assistants Union will not change. In other words, there is a reorganisation of labour; the new shopping centre becomes a focal point; and it will become obvious that it will harm and destroy other shopping centres and smaller businesses within the area. It is an extensive problem that must be addressed by this Parliament. It is too late to do anything about the shopping centres in some of those areas. I appeal for a proper evaluation by the State Govemment of the usage of land. It is a waste of time for the council to say to members of Parliament, "We cannot stop shopping centres, because of the zoning. They will take us to court and win on a zoning application." It is time that legislation was introduced into this Chamber so that proper planning takes place throughout Queensland. The development of shopping centres is one matter that must be addressed. Surely a tactical approach would be to designate the use of shopping centres according to the population and to set aside for shopping the best and most viable areas, considering transport and where the crossroads meet. It is time that this Govemment, which has abrogated its responsibilities in that area, took a fair and equitable stance on the subject of local govemment. Another area in which an absolute waste in the Budget has been demonstrated is school-planning. For some time I have been advocating the establishment of regional school systems. Parliament has ignored the pleas that I have made. I cannot understand why there should not be a regional school system. Recently, there was a fiasco with John Paul College's appealing to the Federal and State Governments to move a Catholic school from its immediate area. I can see the value of regional school systems. There is a perfect opportunity to set up such a system near the TAFE college at Loganlea. However, that has not been done. A high school is already located in the area. Every argument that I have heard against the proposal has been fallacious. There is no reason why pre-schools, primary schools, secondary schools, TAFE colleges and CAEs should not be built in the one facility. Children within a designated area could be transported to the facility by bus. It would not be very far for children in densely populated areas to travel to the facility. In addition, there would be a saving in facilities. Children would be able to use the sports Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 807 facilities, the hbrary facilities and the other facilities. The benefits would far outweigh the immediate cost involved. The community should also be given an opportunity to use those facilities properly, as they are paid for out of the public purse. The present massive security problems in schools in areas such as Logan and Woodridge would be overcome. My proposal would allow children to use the facilities virtually for their school life. It would allow the specialist services so badly needed for the quality of education to be instituted in those schools. To some extent at present, Queensland has quantity of education, but not quality of education. Why can we not rely on regional school centres where those facilities could be used? I do not mean only the sporting facihties, I also mean the educational facilities and the total use within the complex. The system has worked elsewhere. It would be worth a try in Australia, particularly in areas in Queensland such as Logan City and Loganlea. I do not envisage that there would be a supreme commander of such an area; we are looking for individual units within those areas. As the population changes, and as the children grow up, in 20, 30 or 40 years' time when the facilities are needed for other purposes or other State Govemment facilities, it would be possible to designate changes. That does not happen at present. From a budgetary point of view, it makes sense to look now at some of those problems. The quality of education in this State has dropped dramatically in the last decade. Three schools are located in one street in my electorate. Queensland does not have quality of education. Some children have reading problems. The underachiever and the overachiever are both neglected in this State. Class room sizes have grown. Specialists who have been needed in certain areas have been shuttled back into the class room and that has not given children the educational opportunity given to other children in this State. I tum now to the TE score. Education administration in this State is an absolute disgrace. It is a waste of time for the Govemment to say that it is doing something about the problem. The TE score is probably the worst example of education bungling in the history of this State. For those who are not familiar with the tertiary entrance score, 1 shaU point out some of the most horrific circumstances that face both parents and students. In the first instance, because more students were going through to Year 12, fewer places became available at tertiary entrance level. The so-called tertiary entrance score obtained by a student did not change. This became a socio-economic problem. Students in an area such as Woodridge were seriously disadvantaged when compared with students in other areas in which there existed a high socio-economic level. In most cases, because of the school's aptitude, students in Woodridge found themselves in a situation in which their TE scores were below those obtained in areas such as Kenmore, St Lucia and other higher socio-economic areas. This meant that when a course became available at QIT, for which the entrance level, which was a book score, might have been 800 or 810, the lowest-scoring student accepted into that course was one with a TE score of 920. That meant that those Woodridge students who obtained the required TE score did not gain entrance to that particular course. That led to the stupid situation of a student's having to nominate four or five courses ages before he undertook his study, without a realisation of what a change in the particular course was likely to be. Students were not being attracted to the areas in which they were needed, namely, in computer and technical skills. Those students had missed out. Four of their nominated courses were virtually useless. They had to take the last course that was offered to them. The following year, they would revert to the course that they wanted and wipe out the new students. Graduate students are doing that all the time. Although they were within the book range, four choices within the applicable range would be cancelled. Students in Queensland are being severely disadvantaged. It is time that we did something about the problem. The education administrators in this State ought to be horse-whipped for 808 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

not changing the system. Queensland students are horribly disadvantaged when compared with other Australian students. Several times in the Chamber I have spoken about the toxic waste problem in Kingston. Circumstances have changed slightly in that the Premier has shown his tme colours. On 16 September he wrote to the Logan City Council Mayor, Alderman Huntress, virtually saying that he had wiped his hands of the situation and wanted to pay half the cost that the council had incurred to date. That is absolutely disgraceful because Mr Ahem has morally accepted the responsibility for that toxic waste. The buck ends with the State Govemment, which should have given consideration to that problem. I believe that most honourable members would be aware of the severe toxic waste problem in the Woodridge/Kingston area. In his speech the honourable member for Springwood intimated that the Premier might visit the area. Mr Ahem has chickened out and has made it very clear that he will not be visiting the area. The latest report by Sinclair, Knight has not been published. This Govemment is obviously mnning away from the problem, which has been poorly handled in a piecemeal fashion. This is the worst muck-up in which this Government has been involved during the past 15 months. Unfortunately, the matter has been left in the hands of the Health Minister, and all honourable members are aware of her shortcomings. She is incompetent, and she has transferred that incompetence to overcoming this problem. She has lied, cheated and deceived the people of Kingston in her handling of the problem. Very little has been done about the toxic waste problem and practically no money has been spent on overcoming it. A few houses have been resumed by the council, whose action is nothing more than a stopgap measure. The real problem is that financing has been left to the State Government, which has abrogated its responsibilities. The tests that have been carried out have involved nothing more than collecting soil from people's back yards. No attempt has been made to examine the toxic waste in the mine-dumping areas. The problems associated with the water-table and the areas in which PVCs were dumped have not been examined. I am absolutely disgusted—as are the people of Kingston—at the way in which this Govemment has handled the toxic waste problem. A Labor Government has committed itself to introducing proper laws regarding toxic waste. No proper laws have been introduced in this State to overcome the problem. It was stated recently in the Australian that ships carrying toxic waste are wandering around the world with nowhere to go. Australia has not addressed its particular problem. Man must face up to the toxic waste problems. It is as simple as that. As to other problems facing Queensland and Austraha at present—I implore the State Govemment to take some legislative action regarding the ozone problem. The Federal Govemment is taking some action in relation to the greenhouse effect, but that action is not being followed up by this State Govemment. The ozone problem is much greater than people realise. I was pleased that in recent press statements, the State Labor Leader, Wayne Goss, seriously took on board the conservation issue. He is aware of the tremendous problems that are being created worldwide by ozone-layer damage. It is absolutely amazing that in Queensland, we are not aware of the problem and are making no attempt to face up to it. The fact that 95 per cent of the world's modem-day scientists are still alive makes one realise how rapidly things are progressing. Some of those scientists are trying to solve the world's conservation problems, but most of them are creating problems. Deodorant sprays, chlorocarbon compounds or CFCs are causing the problem. They take five years to float into the stratosphere and ionosphere and stay there for approximately 75 to 100 years, zapping up the ozone molecules. As a result, last summer's underarm sprays—they are still being sold in Queensland supermarkets—will not be a problem until 1992 or 1993, by which time the CFC residuals from 1983 to 1987 wiU have incorporated themselves into the chemistry and will be ripping apart the top of the sky. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 809

Because of the positioning of the ozone break-through, Australia is more affected by the problem than are other countries. It will affect everything from farming communities to sporting facilities. It is amazing that State Govemments have not banded together to create a uniform code whereby all aerosol sprays in this country are banned. There are substitutes for all of those products. It does not make sense that the world multinationals and this Govemment do not care. We must be aware of what is happening. Icebergs bigger than the Snowy Mountains are detaching themselves from the fringes of the Antarctic, unseen by teeming humanity in the middle latitudes and noted by only a few scientists who consult satellite images. A hole has appeared in the ozone layer above the Antarctic continent. Is that connected in some way with aerosol sprays? Dr Alan Plumb, a CSIRO scientist who knows probably more about the ozone crisis than anyone in Australia knows, must pursue his specialty abroad. Recently he left Melboume to become Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which is one of the most famous institutes in the world. Dr Plumb was saying to anyone who would listen that the problem was starting to look very ominous. At the very least, if the ozone layer depletion stabilises overnight, Australians will need more protective creams, more hats and more effective sunglasses. The problem is much more serious than that. State Govemments should legislate to ban those products that are causing the depletion of the ozone level. Surely that is the first step. Why is this Govemment not taking that immediate action? I tum now to the greenhouse effect, which is affecting Australia in particular. Although a Green Paper on the greenhouse effect has been published by the Federal Govemment, the problem has not been followed up by the State Govemment. I appeal to the State and Federal Govemments to introduce through ministerial councils uniform laws that will solve this problem. Industry and conservationists should band together to address the problem. Some councils are already taking precautions against the rise in sea levels that has been caused by the greenhouse effect. What is this Govemment doing? It is going ahead helter-skelter with industrial plans that do not take into account the lack of oxygen in the atmosphere or the total destmction of our forests but promote CO^ We should be considering reforestation in central-western and westem Queensland. This Govemment has made no attempt to do that. There has been no planning. Coastal management in Queensland is an absolute disgrace. Places such as the Southport Spit, the Cleveland foreshores. Sanctuary Cove, the Broadwater on the Gold Coast and Port Douglas have been inundated with development projects. It makes me mad when I see a Government that is well aware of the greenhouse effect paying no attention to the coastal foreshores. When "Boulder Bmce" built the boulder wall at Southport in order to protect private property, this Govemment had to pay the costs. What will we have to pay in 10, 20, 30 or 50 years' time in order to protect ourselves against some of those projects that have been approved by this Govemment and which are destroying our foreshores? Obviously the practice will continue. The proposed harbour at Cleveland will destroy the mangroves and the foreshore development. Development is proposed for the north shore at Noosa and Inskip Point. There is the proposed McLarens/Woongoolba development, and the Japanese have bought the Carbrook Golf Club. The list goes on and on. Moreton Bay developments are taking place, and many more are planned. The Government has taken no action; there has been no planning. On prior occasions in this Chamber I have spoken about maintaining the relative beauty spots along the Queensland coast. The National Party, in particular, must get brickbats for the way in which it has handled that development. Proper planning to protect our foreshores and those areas of the Queensland coast that are regarded as tourist beauty spots is needed. On many occasions a developer has received approval to develop from one department, and that has had a domino effect. When he has received that approval, the department granting it has bludgeoned another department into granting another approval. The same thing happens with Ministers. So it goes on, until 810 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) finally the developer wins out and the development takes place. The beauty spot is destroyed. As an example, I refer to the wholesale development by developers such as Mike Gore at Sanctuary Cove. I want to say a few things about Sanctuary Cove because it is tremendously important. In the last couple of days Sanctuary Cove is supposed to have been sold for $34Im. It is supposed to have cost around about $26Im. What did this Govemment do about Sanctuary Cove? It introduced special legislation for enclave developments. Such developments are not new. What has happened is that entire suburbs of Queensland are now demanding special legislation of their own to put up security fences and to supply their own guards to patrol property and to protect children, as long as the Govemment helps to pay for the costs. That is what happened at Sanctuary Cove. Remember the $ 10.6m loan that Mike Gore received? Remember the special deal that Sanctuary Cove received from SEQEB? Now what has happened to all that? Worst of all, Mike Gore received $lm in subsidies so that he could dredge the river and knock down the mangroves. Recently, Quentin Dempster interviewed Mike Gore and asked him, "Mr Gore, you are credited with doing more with a bulldozer in one day than all those bureaucrats do in a month of Sundays." Mr Gore thought that was a great idea. That is exactly whal he did. He got in and he destroyed those mangroves. He destroyed aU the frontal land on the Coomera River. He blocked off the river. At the same time he was being paid by the State Govemment. He had a loan from this Govemment, a loan that no other developer could get. He was subsidised by this Govemment to destroy the mangroves and the frontal land. He was given a sweetheart deal. The resort has been sold to the Japs at a huge profit. He walked away from it. He is no longer personally involved. A development, which the Queensland tax-payer has subsidised, has been sold to the Japanese at a profit. That is absolutely disgraceful and it will weigh against this Govemment that that type of project was allowed to proceed. Christopher Skase has done the same sort of thing at the Mirage resort at Port Douglas. These developers have received approval from this Govemment. They have done the dirty work for the clean-skin Japanese developers who have gone in with their billions and bought the resorts. I should also say something about the way in which the recent court case against Mike Gore was handled. The public in my area would have been incensed. I have nothing against Mr Gore personally, but the fact is that somebody bungled it. Every Tom, Dick and Harry knew about it. Mr Gore indicated to everybody that he did not care about the tax. Everybody knew that suitcases of money—$30,000 and $40,000 at a time—were going to Hong Kong. Obviously that was to be part of the testimony. It was never given. The case was thrown out of court. Obviously Mr Gore is one of those people who could afford to take such a matter to court. Constituents of mine certainly would not be in that position. The matter should be investigated. It stinks that that type of thing could happen. During the Quentin Dempster interview, Mr Gore said that if he had received a tax bill he would have been quite prepared to pay it. Obviously it is not just the State laws that are involved. The Commonwealth ought to look at the prosecution and the action of its police and find out what the hell went wrong with the case that it put forward. The real problem in Queensland concems the destmction of the mangroves and what has been done by the Govemment. Look at some of the Ministers, the great conservationists, who are currently serving in this Govemment! A minute ago Mr Tenni was in the Chamber. What a great conservationist he is! What a great conservationist Mr Harper is! He is now responsible for primary industries, fishing and things such as that. What a great conservationist! There are also Ministers such as Mr Gibbs. When I was the member for Albert he was responsible for a terrible eyesore caused by msted car hulks. He wanted to solve the problem by "planting fauna". Everyone, including the cartoonists, had the idea that dead kangaroos and koalas would be planted all along the front of Mr Gibbs' car yard. Mr Gibbs, Mr Harper and Mr Tenni are the conservation Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 811

Ministers of this Govemment. The classic of all has to be Mr Muntz, the Minister for Conservation, who wants to tear everything down. Last week most schools in Queensland received posters such as the ones that I have here. What a disgrace! It is like Genghis Khan publishing a book on peaceful coexistence. They are beautiful posters. They state, "Protect your mangroves"; "Support the seagrass life"; "Protect your seagrass". Mr Harper even had the audacity to have his photograph on one of them. They are beautiful posters. I have here a letter which was leaked from Mr Harper's department, in which he states— "I have recently had discussions with Mr Mai Wyeth conceming the proposal to develop a marina and fisherman's wharf complex in the Noosa river at the mouth of Lake Doonella." It is one of the most sensitive areas in Queensland. The letter continues— "As you are aware this water and seabed is currently part of the Lake Doonella Wetland Reserve, but I am advised that action is in hand to undertake an Environmental Impact Study." That is what is always done. If one of those studies is carried out, the Government can do what it likes. All the mangroves can be knocked down and the area can be destroyed. An environmental impact study is to be undertaken to ascertain the effects of the proposal on the reserve. The letter continues— "On the basis of this study a decision concerning revocation of a part of the Reserve to allow this project to proceed can be addressed." This is Mr Harper's letter. He then states— "Whilst this study is in process I would request that Mr Wyeth be given special consideration in relation to the tenure of the area of land in question, in order that the project may be expedited." That is so that the seagrass, which is on the poster that Mr Harper has his photograph on, can be destroyed. I now refer to the project at Inskip Point, which is probably one of the most dangerous projects. In involves an area of land that is left over from a mining lease, and which Mineral Deposits own. That company wants to do some horrific things that will destroy that total area. Fishermen and everyone else in the area are totally opposed to this development. Although the Opposition puts forward these arguments, the Govemment is still knocking the mangroves down. The mouth of the Mary River contained 40 to 50 hectares of mangroves, but they have been knocked down. In answer to my criticism, Mr I. J. Gibbs stated in an article in the Gold Coast Bulletin that the Govemment had published a booklet. He also said that the mangroves are regrowing. Rubbish! He went on to say that there are more mangroves growing in Queensland today than there were 10 years ago. What a lot of rot! Anyone who knows anything about mangroves would know that they do not regenerate. Mr Gibbs knows nothing about these matters, yet he makes a statement such as that in the newspaper. He should be sued! I tum now to canvass the problems associated with mud and erosion in north Queensland. Although Mr Tenni was in the Chamber earlier, he is not here now. Recently, the Innisfail Advocate pubUshed an article relating to farming and buming methods used in north Queensland and the proposal for trash-blanketing cane farms. It was estimated that 150 tonnes per hectare of soil is being lost. If that is the case, it is no wonder that mud covers north Queensland's beaches and lines the creek beds. The point I make is that the Govemment has not undertaken any economic evaluation at all of these problems. Another problem relates to the portfolio of the Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Harper. Coral trout can be sold in Queensland at a length of 35 centimetres. Beautiful coral trout of that length and even smaller sizes from the reefs in the north Queensland 812 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) region are being sold in the fish shops in south-east Queensland. A recent study in Westem Australia indicated that, because at long last scientists had discovered the biological habits of the coral trout, the length at which coral trout was marketed had to be raised to 45 centimetres. At a certain stage, the female coral trout changes into a male. What is happening in Queensland? The Govemment is allowing coral trout to be destroyed because not one member of the National Party Government has any idea of problems associated with conservation. The lastest saga of the secret report on Moreton Bay is a disgrace. Why has the Minister for Conservation, Mr Muntz, not released the report? Again the Queensland Govemment is attempting to snowball the people of Queensland. It is attempting to treat the people as though they were mushrooms. That is what is happening in Queensland under this Govemment. There are no advocates of conservation in the Cabinet and there is no long-term planning being undertaken by the Queensland Govemment. The Queensland National Party Govemment is destroying the future of this State. Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (4.17 p.m.): It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate on what might be described as the first Budget brought down by a new Govemment, inasmuch as it is a Budget produced by the Ahem Govemment. I have been a member of this Parliament for almost 14 years, and 1 find it fairly interesting to now examine a Budget that is tmly different. During my service as a member of Parliament, I have seen a number of balanced Budgets and this Budget reflects the responsible attitude that was adopted over a long period in the past by successive Treasurers under the guidance and assistance of that now almost revered gentleman. Sir Leo Hielscher. Queensland is fortunate in that the Govemment has continually been able to present balanced Budgets. The Budgets presented by Govern­ ments in other States of Australia are very different in the way that resources are dealt with. I refer particularly to the management of reserves in superannuation funds and the financial affairs of various boards. The other States of Australia have not squirrelled funds in hollow logs but have mmmaged through every hollow log in the country and have used up all the resources that have been put aside for the security of future generations. Other State Governments in Australia have ratted all their reserve funds. Thankfully, that is not the case with the Queensland Govemment. I appreciate the fact that the next generation will be able to reap the benefits of the careful management of this State's financial resources in the long term. It is interesting to note that any number of public servants wishing to retire would be able to be paid out in full and receive all their superannuation entitlements. Mr Davis: I should hope so. Mr ELLIOTT: The honourable member always chips in. He is always in too much of a hurry to talk. If he engaged his mind before speaking, it would be of great assistance. Mr Borbidge: Unlike the honourable member, the fund is actuarially sound. Mr ELLIOTT: Well said! The honourable member is fervently hoping that super­ annuation funds are actuarially sound because his party has done him over. He will soon be gone from the Queensland Parliament. His spouse was not able to get the top job in City Hall, so they will not have that to fall back on. The honourable member has problems, so he will have to make sure that the superannuation fund is actuarially sound. All jokes aside, I am saying that the Queensland Govemment would not have to borrow from reserves or go into debt to prop up its superannuation scheme. Public servants would be able to receive their full benefits because the fund is actuarially sound and has been secured by gilt-edged investments. The position in Queensland is very different from the position in other States. Queenslanders can be justifiably proud of this Government's record in the financial management of schemes such as the workers' compensation fund and many other areas. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 813

The legacy of previous sound financial administration has enabled the Ahem Govemment to utilise certain advantages very wisely. This Budget is very different from previous Budgets because of the input of the Budget committee. This is the first Budget that I am aware of that has been compiled with more political input than usual. Whereas the Budgets of previous administrations to a degree reflect the input made by various people who were involved in the budgetary process at the time, this Budget has tempered the concept of Queensland being the lowest-taxed State—a concept I strongly support—with a desire to come to grips with some of the problems that exist in the community in fields such as education, health and law enforcement. This Budget really strives to redress problems brought about by inadequate levels of staffing in Queensland's hospitals and in the fields I mentioned earlier. It is interesting that Queensland received a tremendous windfaU of approximately $248m from stamp duty. I point out to honourable members that that great windfall in stamp duty did not occur ovemight or like a bolt from the blue. It is due to a number of things. In part it is due to the fact that over the years the Queensland Govemment has been conservative and prepared to mn the State properly. People have confidence in this Govemment. My colleague from the Gold Coast the Honourable Bob Borbidge, the Minister for Industry, Small Business, Communications and Technology, would know better than anyone that there has been a recovery in the tourist industry on the Gold Coast. That area took off when the decision was made to abolish death duties. There was an increase in the number of people coming to live and invest in the area. This also applied to the north coast. There has been a combination of contributing factors. The first results from a continuation of that trend and the second is a result of the tremendous confidence which has been generated by Expo. People are coming to this comer of Queensland in droves from overseas, interstate and other parts of Queensland. These people realise what a fantastic place Queensland is in which to invest. During this period the real estate market has taken off. It began when Expo started but it has increased phenomenally during that period. Queensland has had a windfall which has enabled this Govemment to look at its priorities. Last year's Budget was an austerity Budget, and rightly so. Last year, any reponsible person had to accept the fact that Queenslanders needed to tighten their belts. It hurts, but that is what responsible govemment is all about. I have always been prepared to tighten my belt when things are crook and one must budget according to the amount of money that one has to spend. In a moment I will look at the problems that have been created in this State by the Federal Govemment's attitude, particularly to health, and these problems must be accommodated within the State Budget. This Govemment is implementing several very good initiatives in regard to pay-roll tax and stamp duty. Through the new and existing industry expansion schemes people will be given the incentive to change and start new industries. The Minister is to be commended for this initiative, with which I agree. In this Budget there has been an exemption in stamp duty for the transfer of ownership of a principal place of residence between spouses, which is obviously something that every fair-minded person would support. There has been a measure of criticism in respect of this Govemment's attitude towards tobacco tax and I am sure that the people who live in the areas that grow tobacco are most concemed about it. I am pleased to see that at least $10m will be provided over the next four years to assist in any transition that might take place in those areas. In this year's Budget liquor licence fees have increased from 8 to 10 per cent. A fund will be set up to assist hotel-owners who are having trading problems to move out of the area. This is quite a departure from the usual attitude and approach of Govemments. If one visits a number of small towns in this State, one finds that there are far too many hotels to be profitable. This Govemment has to accept the blame—if it can be called that—for the RID scheme, which has been very successful in terms of reducing the number of road fatalities. Like its other more unreasonable counterparts in other States, 814 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) this scheme was more successful to start with. Everyone knew that that would be the case. Many members in this Chamber argued about how successful the scheme would be because it would have an impact to begin with and would then wind down. One of the casualties of the scheme has been the way in which people in the community enjoy themselves socially. People have been driven out of the hotels and prevented from having family activities around their local hotel. Mr DAVIS: Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I draw your attention to the state of the Committee. Quomm formed. Mr ELLIOTT: The fund to which I referred will have the ability to compassionately and reasonably allow those people who feel that they are trapped in the hotel industry because of the RID campaign and are unable to make a living to leave the industry on a voluntary basis. I live in an area that is very much involved in primary production and I find it heartening that this Govemment is introducing the new three-year $50m Primary Industry Productivity Enhancement Scheme. This scheme takes over from the old dairy marginal and farm build-up scheme. It will assist people who are not viable and wish to leave the industry to gracefully leave the industry and take up training in another area. As a result those people who are viable, making ends meet, efficient and keen to stay and improve their situation will be able to build up by buying out an adjoining or nearby smaller farm. That would thereby make their own unit more productive. That is a very worthwhile scheme and I look forward to it. Under the scheme interest rates will range from 8 per cent to 12 per cent, which will be a breath of fresh air, particularly with the way that the Federal Govemment is pushing up interest rates. At the moment they are going right over the top and I can see some real disasters looming, just as happened three or four years ago. That scheme will be of great assistance to people in my area. I am also interested to see that the Capital Works Program is coming to grips with improving the State's prisons. The Westbrook farm for younger people is in my area. However, for some time it has been very obvious that new prison facilities have been needed. I could not agree more with the assessment of Boggo Road made by the Minister for Corrective Services. It is a disaster and has always been a disaster. The quicker we knock it down and build new facilities, the better. We will get some benefit from them. I spent my first three or four years in this place as a member of the relevant parliamentary committee and I was fmstrated because we could do absolutely nothing about the people going into Boggo Road being cormpted by the hardened criminals who were already there. That problem needs to be addressed and I am glad to see that, with the $5 6m that has been set aside for that program, we are well and tmly on the way. The Budget addresses the education needs of the State. Between the Premier, the Cabinet Budget Committee and the Minister for Education, the problem of funding has been properly considered. I had received a lot of feedback from p. and c. associations, which were concemed about their ability to continue to raise the money needed to mn schools. Mr Campbell: They are still concemed. Mr ELLIOTT: That is a totally unfair comment that shows the honourable member's lack of understanding of the problem. I think it is terribly important that schools fund themselves, that the parents and citizens associations and friends of the schools get out there and do some work. No-one really appreciates anything that is handed to him on a plate but, by the same token, the fund-raising for schools was starting to become a bit of a burden to the community because, in addition to p. and c. associations, other charities such as the Endeavour Foundation and the Queensland Cancer Fund are trying to raise money from the public. The 50 per cent increase in funding to schools will be very helpful. What is more Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 815

important—it is one of the thmsts of this Budget—is that people wUl be more accountable for their own expenditure. In this case, instead of having a multitude of grants to schools, which meant that, when a school ran out of paper, that was the end of it, starting from next year they will get one special-purpose grant and they will then have to budget from that. That is what it should be all about: financial responsibility and, if honourable members look hard at it, that is what carries through in this Budget. In the old days one department would handle all the purchasing of motor vehicles and so on and for a long time I have honestly felt that many departments were buying motor cars that they did not really need purely and simply because they would lose the allocation of that vehicle if a new one was not purchased. As I understand it, in future departments will be given a certain amount of money and, if they believe that to buy fewer motor cars is in the best interest of the most efficient mnning of the department, they can put those funds into other areas. That has to be of great benefit to this State. The quicker the whole country moves in that direction, the better. The Budget provides for 522 extra teachers. I refute the claims made by some that that is no more than keeping up with increased enrolments. The figures show that that is not correct. In fact, the extra teachers represent a 2.04 per cent increase in the teaching establishment of the department, which compares with a forecast enrolment growth to July 1989 of 1.22 per cent, or 5 050 students. So that is a significant increase in teaching staff. I am pleased that the present Minister for Education has followed through on something that was already under way before he took over that position. In previous years the Education Department tended to have a lot of people attached to the head office branch who were leaning towards doing their own thing. They had their own special area of influence, research and so on. In future many more of those people will be back out in front of classes, which will improve our teacher/pupil ratio. We should all be pleased about that. A short time ago I was speaking about funding by p. and c. associations. In the same vein, I wish to say that the new maximum limits for subsidies on tractors and mowers, which will be $5,000, will be well accepted and the community will get great benefit from that. I shall also take up the cudgels on behalf of the bus-operators. Recently I had the Minister for Transport, the Transport Commissioner and some of their technical people out in my electorate to discuss ways of bringing buses up to standard by the installation of dual braking systems. I spoke to practically all the schoolbus-operators in my electorate and discovered that, years ago, many of them bought new buses. Today they have no chance of being able to buy a new bus. Some of them are concemed that, if the age limit forces them to buy another bus, they will be hard pressed to buy a decent second­ hand bus. I am pleased that the Minister has seen fit to change the limit of 20 years to 30 years. The bus-drivers who live in coastal areas have a problem with mst. However, in the country, when the buses are well cared for and kept under cover, they do not have that problem. In many instances, the buses are mn by the local garage-operators and driven by mechanics. They are in first-class mechanical condition. When we inspected the buses, the mechanic who was with me could not get over the good condition that they were in and how clean they were in terms of having no mst in them. Provided those buses pass the compulsory six-monthly machinery inspection, they wUl be allowed to continue on a year at a time after 30 years. I saw some Bedfords, Fords and Dodges that were in first-class condition and quite capable of continuing for a long period. 1 am concemed that the bus-operators have moved from the position in which they could afford to buy a new bus through to the position in which inflation and increased costs have caused them to find it very difficult to continue operating. The Govemment should come to grips with that and keep it in mind in the future. The bus-operators provide a very real and necessary service to many people in country areas. Country 816 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) people know that, if it were not for the bus-operators, they would not be able to get their children to school. Obviously, that would be a tremendous problem. I tum now to Health and refer to the Oakey Hospital in my electorate. I am pleased with the facility that is in place. The senile annexe has been fully rebuilt. We had some concem about the out-patient department in a small hospital being able to cater for people in surrounding areas. That is now under control. A new kitchen has been built to cater for that need as well as the senile annexe. Previously, the senile annexe was used together with the other facilities, which caused some concem to people who came into the hospital. However, that has now been rectified. That facility has been separated. I am delighted to see that 700 additional staff have been provided for in the Health allocation. In 10 years' time, the Leader of the House, who was formerly the Minister for Health, will go down in history as having been game to build facilities for which he received criticism from people who said, "What on earth are you building all these hospitals for? You have not got the staff to mn them." At the time, the Govemment provided the framework to fast-track the building of those hospitals at the right price. As time progresses, when funding is provided to mn them properly, we will be pleased that they were built. Many other States are not in that situation. Their assets are deteriorating. Not only will they be short of staff but they will also have to build hospitals. In 10 years' time, the cost of that will be astronomical. By comparison, Queensland will be in a good situation. While I am on the subject, it is important that I touch on the funding, or lack of it, from the Federal Government. Members of the Opposition attempt to make out that Govemment members are making up the figures on funding for hospitals. Mr Prest: Are you saying you're making up the figures? Mr ELLIOTT: No. I am saying that members of the Opposition try to make out that we are making them up. The Federal Budget clearly demonstrates that during the period from 1984-85 to 1987-88 Queensland received only $184 per person, whereas the average of the other States was $446 per person. Mr Lee: Shocking! Absolutely shocking! Mr ELLIOTT: That is right. My old private-enterprise friend, who has always been a very practical person, knows what a rort it is. Although Queensland has 16.81 per cent of Australia's population, it receives only 7.7 per cent of the identified health grant. That really says it all. If that is included with the Medicare compensation grant, from which Queensland receives $118 per person and the average of the other States is $282 per person, Queensland receives $303 per person and the other States receive $729.50. Federal Govemment documents clearly demonstrate that on the basis of the average population during the period from 1984-85 to 1987-88. Honourable members cannot argue with it. It is there for everyone to see. It is unbelievable. Mr White: That's illegal. Mr ELLIOTT: That is right. It is totally illegal. I now tum to funding for main roads. It is an absolute travesty of justice that the Federal Government is taking Queensland to the cleaners. In fact, it is not just taking Queensland to the cleaners; it is taking all the other States to the cleaners as well. Only some 18-point-something per cent of road-funding comes from fuel excise. The excise duty was set in concrete. It was supposed to be untouchable. It was designed to fund roads. Mr Lee: It's going on welfare instead of roads. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 817

Mr ELLIOTT: That is right. It is going on welfare Mr Sherrin: And on bringing their homosexual boyfriends to Australia. Mr ELLIOTT: Unfortunately, that is so. It is absolutely indefensible that members of the Opposition do not stand up and be counted and try to do something about the fact that only 18-point-something per cent of excise duty goes back to the States for road-funding. Mr Davis: Old hat! I've heard it so many times. Mr ELLIOTT: I ask the honourable member whether that makes it any better. He does not answer, because he cannot answer. Mr Simpson: He doesn't know anything about it. Mr ELLIOTT: That is dead right. My colleague the member for Cooroora is spot on. He does not want to know about it. He knows that the Federal Govemment is ripping off the States. Members of the Opposition are not doing anything about it. They are not game to open their mouths, because they know their endorsements are at stake. Mr Davis interjected. Mr ELLIOTT: The honourable member has already lost his endorsement. He has thrown in the towel. He is history. As I am mnning out of time, I want to reiterate that the Budget is a very responsible Budget. I am delighted to see the emphasis that has been placed on individual Ministers mnning their own ships. That is what it is all about. It is all about making people more efficient. That is what honourable members want to see. As far as I am concemed— hear, hear! Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (4.47 p.m.): I would like to be able to say that everything is shipshape and under tight control, that the State Government is wisely and efficiently managing the Queensland economy and the finances provided by way of taxes. However, such is not the case, as was so capably explained by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Wayne Goss, in his leading contribution to this Budget debate. The 1988 State Budget was not a people's Budget but a Budget to benefit one person in particular—the Premier and Treasurer himself While extra charges are imposed on Queensland families, the Premier lavishes significant increases on his own bureaucracy and personal promotion. Mr Ahern's Public Relations and Media Office is provided with an extra $lm—an increase of 25 per cent—and his bureaucracy, the Chief Office, has a $3.5m increase or over 25 per cent above last year's funding. In the same Budget there is only a 5 per cent increase allocated for teachers for our children and less funds allocated this year for police to protect our famUies and children. Queenslanders deserve a far better standard of Government, and a better standard of living, than the Ahem National State Government is providing. The victims of the neglect of the State Govemment are Queensland families, who now have the lowest household incomes in Australia and the worst level of Government services in the nation. The victims are the 100 000 Queenslanders who are unemployed, and their families who are stmggling to make ends meet. The victims are also the thousands of young Queenslanders who cannot find jobs and are denied worthwhile education and training. After years of misleading Queenslanders, the State Govemment has told the tmth in the Summary Report of the Special Committee on Employment in Queensland. Under item 3 "The Unemployment Situation" the facts are stated. They are not facts that the National Party Government and its members should be proud of; they are facts that they should be ashamed of 818 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

The report states— "(a) The unemployment rate in Queensland has been consistently higher than the national average since early 1984." Mr Austin: You've given this speech before. Mr CAMPBELL: I know, and I will keep giving it until everybody understands what is happening. The report continues— "(b) The unemployment rate of females is historically higher than for males. The last five years, however, have seen this differential reduced. The number of unemployed males is higher than for females, although this difference is also reducing. (c) There are significant regional differences in unemployment rates, with con­ sistently higher unemployment rates outside the metropolitan area. (d) Unemployment among youths seeking full-time work has been above the national average for the past two years. (e) Unemployment rates for all age groups are above the national average. (f) Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders have unemployment rates three to four times that of the State as a whole, and these rates are uniformly high throughout the State." The victims of the State Govemment neglect are the young Queenslanders who are denied employment and a trade through the lack of apprenticeship training. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the total number of apprentices employed in the major trades from 1977 to 1987. Leave granted. TABLE 1 Total Apprentices Employed in the Major Trades 1977-1987 Trade 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Boilermaking 1 374 1267 1 276 1453 1 846 2 198 2 122 1 895 1 415 1 138 1089 Fitting & Turning. 2 130 2 050 2 023 2 135 2 338 2 363 2 236 2 156 1 791 1626 1 592 Motor Mechanic . . 2 478 2 260 2 250 2 373 2 441 2 431 2 240 2 148 1 880 1800 1831 Electrical 2813 2 560 2415 2 531 2 755 2 859 2 954 2 885 2 465 2 359 2210 Carpentry & Joinery 2 638 2 175 2012 2 156 2 471 2 553 2 371 2 340 1948 1 733 1610 Plumbing & Draining . 1 004 942 895 942 1035 1 048 994 943 790 756 700 Panel Beating 539 495 513 529 482 461 414 407 398 401 378 Cabinet Making . 495 424 445 536 561 624 577 549 487 482 508 Total . 20 280 18 780 18 690 20 462 22 373 23 467 22 607 22 222 19 306 18 583 18 301 Source Department of Employment, Vocational Education and Training: Summary of Apprenticeship Stats. Mr CAMPBELL: In 1987 the total number of apprentices employed in the boiler- making trade was 1 089. The figure peaked at 2 198 in 1982. The 1987 figure represents a reduction of 50 per cent on the peak of 1982 and it shows the very poor state of the number of apprenticeships in that trade. Most trades reflect a similar trend. For example, the number of apprentices in the motor mechanic trade peaked at 2 478 in 1977. A decade later the number was down to 1 831. That indicates that in two trades which are not associated with the building industry, great reductions have occurred in the number of apprenticeships. Two trades directly involved in the building industry have also shown reductions in apprentices trained over the decade. In 1977 there were 2 638 apprentices being trained in carpentry and joinery, while this number has dropped to 1 610 or a faU of nearly 40 per cent. Similarly, youth undertaking plumbing and draining have fallen from over 1 000 to only 700 a decade later. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 819

Overall there are now 5 000 fewer apprentices being trained today compared with a peak in 1982. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the new commencements in major trades for each financial year. Leave granted. TABLE 2 New Commencements in Major Trades for each Financial Year Trade 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Boilermaking 317 298 418 492 706 710 317 292 263 347 293 Fitting & Tuming 557 528 546 605 722 697 416 444 377 483 435 Motor Mechanic 774 557 618 624 694 657 388 492 512 526 472 Electrical 794 700 618 747 862 907 638 595 568 645 567 Carpentry & Joinery 620 538 509 579 867 746 383 513 477 479 370 Plumbing & Draining . . 294 259 207 238 342 313 177 175 202 235 176 Panel Beating 161 138 158 123 108 132 84 101 112 137 89 Cabinet Making 142 126 138 174 173 223 95 120 134 182 128 Total 5 626 5 117 5 322 6 022 7 191 7 145 4 367 5 162 5 073 5 662 5 090 Source Department of Employment, Vocational Education and Training: Summary of Apprenticeship Statistics. Mr CAMPBELL: This table showing the number of new apprentices going into the different trades reveals some very disturbing trends. In 1982, 710 apprentices started in the boiler-making trade. In 1987, only 293 started. In 1981, a peak of 722 was recorded in the number of young apprentices who undertook their first year of apprenticeship in the fitting and tuming trade, but last year only 435 did so. In the carpentry and joinery trade, a peak of 867 occurred in 1981, but in 1987 the figure dropped to 370. Compared with 1981, fewer than half the number of young apprentices undertook the first year of an apprenticeship in the carpentry and joinery trade. Overall, a reduction has occurred in new commencements of apprenticeships this year compared with peak periods. Only 5 090 undertook the first year of an apprenticeship last year, whereas in 1981, when the peak occurred, 7 191 started. The statistics show a very disturbing trend and indicate that young Queenslanders are not being trained. A decade earlier, more youth commenced an apprenticeship than those commenced last year. This is a disgrace and shows the neglect of the National Party State Govemment. The State Govemment, with glossy magazines and expensive television advertise­ ments, announced a new training program called Project Pay Packet. However, its record on youth-training is the worst in Australia. The Queensland Government spends $2.40 per head on employment and training incentives—less than half that of the second- lowest-spending State. The story of the National Party's neglect for our youth is shown in the Budget papers in which it is stated that the State Govemment spent only $258,000 under the Commonwealth Apprenticeship Training Scheme and did not use a further $1,207,000 allocated to it by the Federal Govemment. The Auditor-General noted— "The intake of apprentices into the public sector was lower than anticipated resulting in reduced subsidy payments under the CRAFT Scheme." It is indefensible for the State Govemment to have reduced employment of apprentices in its own departments while young Queenslanders are unemployed. It is indeed a callous and uncaring attitude towards our youth to literally give back to the Federal Govemment over $lm of Queensland tax-payer funds. With those Commonwealth funds the State Govemment could have employed five times as many apprentices in its State Govemment departments as it did last year. The National Party Govemment did not do that, and our youth are the victims of that neglect. 820 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

At the end of this year, I suppose that Project Pay Packet will be shown to have made great achievements, but in the trades the Govemment will probably not even reach the level of apprentices that was achieved a decade ago. I believe that charity begins at home. It is about time that the State Government started training our youth in the trades. An important event will supposedly occur this year, that is, the establishment of a public accounts committee. If such a committee is established, it should result in a closer parliamentary scmtiny of the financial operations of Government departments and authorities on a non-party-political basis. Good public sector financial management facilitates sound Govemment decision­ making. It promotes the use of limited public resources in the most appropriate, efficient and effective way. By "appropriate", I mean relevant to the community's need; by "efficient", I mean with least cost and minimum output; and by "effective", I mean achieving the purpose that was intended. Reforms for better public financial management fall into four categories: public information, financial procedures, management procedures and review mechanisms. A public accounts committee can play a major role in improving public sector management. As chairman of the Opposition's public accounts committee, I will endeavour to ensure the proper functioning and establishment of the parliamentary Public Accounts Com­ mittee to oversee reform for better State Govemment management and better returns for the Queensland tax-payers' dollars. I asked, "Where is the money for a public accounts committee coming from?" No mention was made of it in the Budget papers. However, the Minister for Finance rose to say, "Oh yes, it is there. We put $200,000 aside." Where is it? The only possible place where that $200,000 could be put aside for something like that is in the Treasurer's Advance Account. Perhaps it is there. However, no notation was made about that in the Budget papers. How much is contained in the Advance Account? $52m! Although it contains no notations of how the money will be spent, the account is put away for the Treasurer to do whatever he likes with. $52m is contained in that account. As I have said, there exists no notation as to how that money is to be used. One of the first things that the public accounts committee could look at is what will be done with that $52m. Mr White: Ask Mr Austin. He will be able to tell you. Mr CAMPBELL: Of course he will know what will happen to that $52m, but it will not be accounted for by the Queensland Government. The Leader of the Opposition, in reviewing the Budget, quoted from the Australian Financial Review, which reported that Queensland has a very deplorable standard of public accounts. The newspaper quoted them as being "a back of the envelope job". It is very important to look at the situation in Queensland. A new Treasurer is saying the same old things. It is the same old rhetoric; only the name of the Treasurer has changed. The Treasurer says that Queensland has a credit balance in its Consolidated Revenue Fund, but last year total State indebtedness increased by $1,127.8m. Queensland sup­ posedly has a balanced Budget, yet its State debt has increased. How is the Budget balanced? I would like to have incorporated in Hansard a table of the balances of the Queensland Consolidated Revenue Fund at the end of March and June for the years 1984 to 1988. Leave granted. QUEENSLAND CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND Balances as at the March end of June Year $M $M 1984 65.9 (0.9) Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 821 1985 137.0 0.76 1986 183.4 0.2 1987 240.9 0.7 1988 252.8 38.8 Source: (i) Queensland Govemment Gazettes Quarterly Consolidated Revenue Fund Receipts and Expenditure. (ii) State Budget Papers. Mr CAMPBELL: The figures show the way that the Consolidated Revenue Fund has been balanced for more than six years. The practice has been to build up a surplus in the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to transfer that amount out into special capital works programs. The last two years show significantly the use of what I call a balancing factor to balance the Consolidated Revenue Fund. After the first nine months to the end of March 1987, there was a credit balance, or a surplus, of $240.9m. By the end of June, the balance was only $0.7m. In other words, at least $240m was transferred out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Last year, under the new Treasurer, the same practice was followed. At the end of March 1988 the balance of the Consolidated Revenue Fund was $252.8m, but that was reduced to $38.8m by the end of June. I believe that the reason why that figure was not reduced to $lm or $2m was that the Govemment was embarrassed by the revenue from stamp duty on real estate sales. Where does that money go when it is transferred from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to special Treasurer's allocations? I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard two tables showing the actual and appropriated transfers for the Special Major Capital Works Fund and the Special Projects Fund. Leave granted. SPECIAL MAJOR CAPITAL WORKS FUND Year Acutal Appropriated Unforeseen Transfer $M $M $M % 1984 — — — — 1985 140.0 90.0 + 50.0 + 56% 1986 212.526 51.676 +160.85 +211% 1987 86.6 0 +86.6 ++ 1988 140.0 50.0 +90.0 +180% SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND Year Acutal Appropriated Unforeseen Transfer $M $M $M % 1984 102.5 68.7 + 33.8 + 49 1985 43.9 24.4 + 19.5 + 80 1986 79.224 51.224 + 28.0 + 55 1987 181.2 125.4 + 55.8 + 44.5 1988 315.1 225.1 + 90.0 + 40 Source State Budget Papers and Departmental Accounts 1984-85 to 1988-89 Mr CAMPBELL: The very same system that was operating under the administration of the former Treasurer is now operated by Mr Ahern. Amounts are appropriated under the Special Major Capital Works Programs. For example, in 1986 the Budget figure was $51m, whereas the actual amount that was transferred was $212m. In that year unforeseen transfers from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the special tmst account amounted to $160m. In other words, the Treasury boffins were out by 211 per cent in their capital works estimate. If capital expenditure was planned, one would expect the Government to be able to appropriate exactly the figure to be spent on capital works during the year. 822 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

In the following year no funds were allocated and appropriated for the Special Major Capital Works Program, but $86m was transferred. Last year, $50m was appropriated but $140m was actually transferred. In other words, there was an unforeseen transfer of $90m, or 180 per cent of what was supposed to be appropriated at the beginning of the year. The very same thing applies to the Special Projects Fund. Although the sum of $125m was appropriated in 1987, there was an actual transfer of $181m, or $55.8m more than expected, representing an unforeseen transfer of 44.5 per cent above the amount that was appropriated. Last year there was an appropriated amount of $225m, whereas the actual amount that was transferred was $315m. In other words, an additional $90m was transferred to the Special Projects Fund. Those figures reinforce the statement that was made by the Leader of the Opposition, namely, that funds for capital works are being siphoned off from recurrent or operating expenses out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Our teachers, police, nurses and health­ care workers are being denied employment in Queensland because of what I will call statues that are being built throughout the State. This Treasurer has continued the practice of inefficient, ineffective and unplanned capital works expenditure. The very same pork-barrelling and cargo-cult mentality is continuing and only the name of the Treasurer has been changed. We have the very same rhetoric, namely, that our Budget is balanced and that we are in credit, but the State debt increases. The Budget papers show that this year's State public service debt has increased immensely. Three aspects are involved in the State public service debt. The debt serviced by the Consolidated Revenue Fund increased from $3,738 billion to $4.11 billion. The second aspect of public debt is Commonwealth non-public debt from non- consolidated revenue sources, which increased from $989m to $994m. That debt includes the Brisbane Exposition and South Bank Redevelopment Fund, the Electricity Fund, the Forestry and Lumbering Fund, the Home Purchase Assistance Fund, the Queensland Housing Commission Fund and the Queensland Industry Development Corporation Agency Fund, which are all part of the public sector debt for which the State Govemment is responsible. The third aspect of the public sector debt relates to guaranteed statutory and local authority loans and the Queensland Government Development Authority. In this case the public sector debt increased from $7,094 billion to $7.84 billion. Overall, the State debt increased from $11.8 bUlion to $12.9 billion. During that period the State public sector debt increased by 10 per cent, which was a great increase on the previous year's increase in the pubhc sector debt of $857m. As a result, the increase in the State debt was 30 per cent higher in 1987-88 than it was in the previous year. When these figures are being quoted, the way in which the State's accounts are presented must be considered. The Queensland Govemment is the only Government in Australia that has not accepted a national accounting format. Therefore, our State debt cannot be compared with the debts of other States. We were told that under the new Treasurer we would have greater accountability and openness. However, the opposite has occurred with ministerial entertainment expenses. This year we were given fewer figures for ministerial expenses than we have been given for nearly a decade. The Treasurer does not know the procedures for allowing for and recording ministerial expenses and departmental accounts. On 25 August, Mr Goss asked the Premier whether there were any guide-lines covering the payment of ministerial expenses from the fiinds of Ministers' departmental accounts. At that time Mr Ahem stated that the guide-lines are laid down in the Treasurer's Instmctions and under the Auditor-General's responsibilities as set out in the Financial Administration and Audit Act. Mr Ahem rejected any implication that they were not. On 8 June last year. Miscellaneous Instmction No. 330, Ministerial Expenses in Treasurer's Instmctions, which outlines the guide-lines for recording ministerial expenses, Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 823 was repealed. There are now no guide-lines for ministerial expenses being recorded in the accounts. That is a lot worse than the system that existed under the former Treasurer. In effect, the present Treasurer is prepared to accept that the payment of fiinds to National Party branches by Ministers is acceptable departmental expenditure. What is even worse is that the principal reporting officers and accounting officers of aU departments, by the look of it, accept those guide-lines. They are prepared to go along with the fiddles. For example, on 15 Febmary the Minister for Health was prepared to take $25 out of the Health Department funds to attend a National Party function, and on 9 Febmary, $100 to attend another National Party function for the Townsville branch. She expects the Health Department to pay for her attendance at a National Party function in Greenslopes, her own electorate. That was the case on 8 April when $39 was paid. In addition to that. Health Department funds were also used to pay for a hair blow drier. That is a lot less accountability than existed under the former Treasurer. When the Minister for Health took over her portfolio from Mr Ahem, the then Health Minister, she wanted $100,000 spent on refurbishing her ministerial office. However, she did not receive it. That is the way in which Ministers are carrying on. The records of the Legislative Assembly of 1980 indicate that on 24 September 1980 information about expenses of this type was laid on the table of the House for all to see. It was proper accountability. Statement No. 1 was of Ministers' travelling expenses, including expenses of wives and guests where applicable. Statement No. 2 was of Ministers' travelling expenses, including expenses of private secretaries, press secretaries and other officers accompanying Ministers but excluding departmental officers. Statement No. 3 was of Ministers' Brisbane expenses for the same year. That system operated during 1980, 1981 and 1982. The same types of statements were tabled in the House. Ministers were responsible to the Parliament. But what happened? In 1983 a decision was made to change it. The prescribed reporting requirements as reviewed by the Treasurer stated— ".... a note setting forth particulars of Ministers' expenses in the nature of travelling and expense allowances (usually actual reimbursements or payments) but excluding costs of an administrative or overhead nature." They were to be noted. According to the accounts for that year, the ministerial allowance under those headings by the Premier was $40,352. By 1985, his expenses had risen to $53,657. The Opposition knows why the Ministers do not want those expenses tabled and reported. They have their noses in the troughs. That is what is happening, and it is happening all the time. Following that, in 1986, the Treasurer could not allow anything like that to be made public so he made further notes. He stated— "As the Treasurer's Instmction is presently drafted, if a Minister changes portfolio, his expenses up to the time of change remain with the old portfolio so that an incoming Minister may well be attributed as having expenditure for which he has had no responsibility." Because of that difficulty and also other difficulties experienced in identifying and correctly allocating expenses when the instmction was applied in its present form, the Govemment did away with it altogether. Because of that little difficulty there will be no recording of expenses. This year the guide-lines were repealed completely. The Govemment did that because of headlines such as, "Fury over Lane liquor bill". The accompanying article stated that for one month Mr Lane had a liquor bill of $292.38. No worries. The Govemment can still pay for it! Other headlines were, "State Ministers live it up" and "$4038 week for liquor Cabinet." That was in 1984. Isn't it nice to know that $4,038 was spent on liquor? Now we do not know how much is being spent. I could guarantee that it is twice that much. In 1980 a headUne stated, "$2800-a-week for expenses by Ministers". In 1986 it was, "Ministers' tab $471,000 but that's not all". After those sorts of headhnes, the Government decided that it was best not to let the public know. By 1987 changes had 824 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) occurred. One headline read, "No public look at expenses of State Ministers"; another, "Temptation in hidden expenses—Knox". However, Russ Hinze did not mind everyone knowing what he spent. He was in favour of expenses being known. At least he was in favour of that, but the other Ministers were not. Our new Premier and Treasurer, who says, "Let's have open accountability.", does not want ministerial expenses to be known. In other words, it has boiled down to the fact that the Govemment has a mushroom policy. I want to refer to several aspects of the Budget. The Budget has not changed. Extra taxes are being taken off the ordinary working class. Extra taxes have been imposed on cigarettes and alcohol. Even for a worker who goes to work on his motor scooter, this Government has raised third party insurance from $34 to $150. The worker cannot even go to work for the same cost because he has to pay extra taxes; he cannot afford a cigarette because taxes have been increased by 30 per cent; and the cost of alcohol has also risen. Do honourable members know what happens? Do they know where the money is going to? It is going to increase the ballooning bureaucracy not only of the Premier but also of people such as the Health Minister and the Minister for Education. Although the Budget makes allocation for an extra 5 per cent in teacher numbers, an extra 20 per cent is allocated for the chief office in administration in the Education Department. They are the kinds of things that are happening. Another matter about which misleading information has been given in this Chamber is in relation to funding for the Bundaberg irrigation scheme. Public statements have been made that the Bundaberg irrigation scheme is the No. 1 priority. It has received $5m less in funds than the Burdekin scheme. If the Minister wants to say that the Govemment is making it the No. 1 priority, it must give No. 1 funds. Overall, it is not a people's Budget. It is a Budget that helps the bureaucracy and it has been presented for the good of the Treasurer. It is not a new vision. It has no substance. Mr SIMPSON (Cooroora) (5.15 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to support the State Government's Budget because it is one that reflects the wishes of the people. One of the main functions of a Government is the provision of services needed by the people. Mr McEUigott: Who asked for the tobacco tax? Mr SIMPSON: So we are talking about taxes, are we? 1 do not like new taxes. What I will do during my speech is refer to the Labor Party and taxes that it has introduced. People ought to consider what the Labor Party would do if it formed the Govemment in Queensland. I will give honourable members some examples. Since Labor won Government in Canberra in 1983, it has cut depreciation allowances that were given to both primary and secondary industries. In May 1983, the special depreciation allowance on on-farm fuel storage was abolished. Mr White: And the capital gains tax. Mr SIMPSON: I will come to that later. Also in May 1983, the Federal Labor Government scrapped automatic in/out provisions for tax-averaging, which was an essential item for people who received fluctuating incomes, such as primary producers. In June 1983, the Federal Labor Government abolished the first home loan rebate. Shame! In the same month, the tax rebate on health insurance premiums was also abolished. That is the type of disincentive that a Labor Govemment would bring to the people of Queensland. In July 1983, a proposal to tax lump-sum superannuation was introduced. In other words, the Labor Party started to get at the poor old blokes and female retirees who had saved throughout their working lives and repaid them by hitting them with taxes. If the Labor Party govemed in Queensland, that is the type of action it would take; yet Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 825

members of the Opposition have the gall to talk about the puny tax that the Queensland Government will put on tobacco. Mr McEUigott: Do you say that the Federal Government cut incentives? Mr SIMPSON: The Federal Govemment cut incentives and it added taxes also. Perhaps the honourable member would like me to give more examples? I have three pages of examples, and the honourable member can hear them all. The examples I will give are disgusting and they are an indication of what the Labor Party would do if it govemed this State. In August 1983 the Federal Labor Govemment introduced an excise on beer, tobacco and petrol that was automatically increased by the CPI, which was an insidious form of taxation bracket creep, and compounded by inflation. Mr McEUigott: Where did your windfall come from? Mr SIMPSON: I see that the honourable member is in favour of increased taxes. I thought he would be. The example I have just given indicates what people would be in for under a Labor Govemment in Queensland. What tyranny! It would be "hard Labor", all right. In August 1983, export inspection taxes were increased massively on mral exports. Why? It was because the Federal Labor Govemment wanted to suck from the poor primary producer the last drop of his blood. At the same time, the taxation incentive for IBDs was removed. In Febmary 1984, the Federal Labor Govemment introduced a 1 per cent levy in income tax for Medicare. The percentage rate was increased, but I will come to that later. In July 1984, a new excise on intermediate and new oU derivatives was introduced. The Federal Labor Government quitely slipped in through the back door a tax that every motorist and every industry using those products would be up for. Mr Ardill: Are you in favour of the tax on the toll-road up there? Mr SIMPSON: Obviously, the honourable member would introduce all these taxes. Into Queensland's economic stmcture he would introduce taxes similar to those that the Federal Labor Govemment introduced. In July 1984, the resource rent tax was a Connor-job. The Federal Govemment had a go at everyone, irrespective of whether he was digging resources out of the ground or trying to grow them. In August 1984, it imposed a 10 per cent tax on wine. So what would the Labor Party do if it govemed in Queensland? In March 1985, the Federal Labor Government introduced the pensioners' assets test, which was its way of having another go at the poor old pioneers of Australia's economic development. It really got into them. Mr White: Disgraceful! Mr SIMPSON: Opposition members should hang their heads in shame. What happened to the pensioners really stinks. What would Opposition members do if they govemed in Queensland? In May 1985, prescription fees were increased from $1 to $5. Opposition members must remember that. Mr White: Shame! Mr SIMPSON: It was disgraceful. The Federal Labor Govemment was having a go at the poor housewife and battler again. In May 1985, an emasculation of the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme occurred. The Federal Labor Government thought it could squeeze a bit more out of the poor old motorist, who has always been the milch cow. At the same time, the Federal 826 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

Labor Govemment abolished the LP gas subsidy. When people tried to find a way of using another resource and take advantage of a saving—and many industries geared up to do just that—the Federal Labor Govemment had a go at them, too. Mr Davis interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Burreket): Order! If the member for Brisbane Central wishes to interject, he should do so from his proper place. Mr SIMPSON: Well done, Mr Temporary Chairman. You have "unseated" the honourable member. The Federal Labor Govemment introduced the patient's contribution to the isolated patients' travel and accommodation assistance scheme, which was increased from $20 to $30 in May 1985. Mr Davis: And what is wrong with that? Mr SIMPSON: So the honourable member would knock a poor bloke in a remote area that the Queensland National Party Govemment would give consideration to. The Labor Party's reputation is even lower. In the same month. May 1985, there was a fvfrther increase in the excise on aviation fuel because the Federal Govemment thought that if a person could afford to put fuel in his aeroplanes-even though it was the only way that he could reach civilisation—it would have a go at him. Since March 1983 the excise has increased by 2.75c per litre. In July 1985 there was the abolition of negative gearing. Mr Davis: I am against negative gearing. Mr SIMPSON: The honourable member is against negative gearing. The Labor Party would be against everything. It is a typical example of the way in which the Labor Party would mn this State, except in relation to butcher shops. If the members of the Labor Party were in Government in Queensland they would nationalise butcher shops and everyone would have to get his chop from them. People will remember the high taxes of the Labor Party. In July 1985 the Federal Govemment removed the Medicare levy limit so that it could increase the levy even further. In July 1985 it abolished the concessional expenditure rebates and in September 1985 it disaUowed entertainment expenditure. Members of the Labor Party never cease trying to find other ways of extracting more money out of the public. There are people in this world who endeavour to get ahead and be productive, and the Labor Party calls them the haves. The Labor Party's philosophy is that it has to get at them, stop them being productive and stop that innovativeness through taxation. The Labor Party wants to trip them up, put a log in front of them or a noose around their necks. The Labor Party contains a lot of boffins who do nothing but find ways of adding to taxes. In September 1985 the Federal Govemment introduced the quarantining of farm losses but this was dropped in favour of an altemative approach in April 1986. In other words the farmer had to elect which way he would present his losses and had no options. In September 1985 there was the replacing of immediate write-off in year of expenditure for onfarm water conservation with write-off over five years. Mr Hayward: What is wrong with that? Mr SIMPSON: I will tell the honourable member what is wrong with it. In times of production a farmer does not have the opportunity or wherewithal to use substantial expenditure regularly. Therefore, when a farmer has a good year, he has the opportunity to implement improvements for the hard times. Mr Hayward: Because you reduce your income tax. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 827

Mr SIMPSON: The honourable member is a dill. The farmer is hedging against the next drought. Does the honourable member not think that conservation of fodder and irrigation are a hedge against the next drought? The honourable member thinks it is a hedge against taxation. Mr Hayward: You just told me it was. Mr SIMPSON: No, the honourable member said it was, and I do not agree with him. It is a pmdent way of hedging against the next drought. Does the honourable member not know what a drought is? I can see that I am wasting my time in trying to explain to this poor individual what a drought is. He obviously does not know what it is. In July 1986 the Federal Govemment introduced that classic—the fringe benefits tax. The Federal Govemment thought that somewhere, in some cupboard, someone was enjoying a rort and that it had better tax that rort. In July 1986 there was an increase in the corporate tax rate from 46 per cent to 49 per cent. The Federal Government did not want the general public to get away with it, so it upped the ante on general taxation. In July 1986 it introduced the foreign tax credit system, which does not concem me because it is not all bad. In July 1986 the Federal Govemment announced the bureaucratic income tax substantiation provisions. In other words, it began to create the red tape to ensure that half a dozen forms have to be filled out for any application. Chemists and other people in business know that. In other words, the Taxation Department requires a businessman to do all the bookwork in his own time and at his own expense. In August 1986 the Federal Govemment introduced new and increased sales taxes and a further 3c a litre increase in excise on petrol and diesel fuel. Also in August 1986, the wine tax increased to 20 per cent and a 10 per cent sales tax was imposed on flavoured milk, fmit juices and non-alcoholic wines and cider. The Labor Party and the members of the Opposition in this Chamber are in favour of having a go at the poor kids drinking flavoured milk. But that is typical of the Labor Party. In August 1986 there was the abolition of the family allowance for dependent students aged 18 to 24 years and the means-testing of allowances for 16 and 17 year olds. Mr Davis: Don't you believe in means-testing? Mr SIMPSON: Does the honourable member not believe that everyone should be treated equally? Obviously he does not. I have heard Mr Davis talk about one vote, one value and I thought he meant that everyone was equal. Obviously he does not believe that people are. Mr Davis: Not in means-testing. Mr SIMPSON: The honourable member believes in a means test and that is obviously why the Labor Party gets into the old pensioners and everyone else. In October 1986, the fees for agricultural quarantine services were increased. The only way to upgrade Australian stock is by importing better stock and the semen from better stock. Mr Prest interjected. Mr SIMPSON: The honourable member for Port Curtis would not have a clue. That is why he knocks everything. Whether or not members of the Labor Party have a doubt, they knock everything. Mr McPhie interjected. Mr SIMPSON: That is right. They knock it when they are not in doubt; if in doubt, they knock it, too. Mr Hayward interjected. 828 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

Mr SIMPSON: I will agree that members of the Labor Party are consistent; they always knock everything. In December 1986 the Medicare levy was increased from 1 per cent to PA per cent. The Labor Govemment told a lie in the first place. It had no hope of being able to fund Medicare with a 1 per cent levy, even though the funds from that levy kept escalating; so the levy was increased from 1 per cent to I'A per cent. In January 1987 the Federal Labor Government thought up a new form of taxation—a tertiary education fee of $250 per student per year. Didn't that hit the fan! In May 1987 the Federal Government announced income-testing on family aUowances for joint incomes of $50,000, to apply from October 1987. Also in May 1987, $180m was slashed from the road-funding figure for 1987-88. That was in addition to Queensland motorists already being short-changed by the Federal Government on the retum of moneys collected from them. In May 1987 the wool research funding for 1987-88 was cut by $5m. To that time the Australian product had been a world-leader, but that is what Labor did to it. May 1987 also saw the introduction of new administrative arrangements to the diesel fuel rebate scheme, which cost farmers an extra $300,000 a year. In September 1987 the Federal Government decided to increase passport fees from $60 to $66 and also to index that figure. Also in September 1987, the fuel freight subsidy scheme for country Australia was cut by $8.5m, or over 52 per cent over a full year, which made it a virtually worthless subsidy. Although negative gearing previously had been abolished, in September 1987, because an election was coming up, the Federal Govemment changed its mind and reintroduced negative gearing. In September 1987 a new immigration clearance fee of $5 was imposed on people entering Australia. How ridiculous that was. Other increases have been in telephone charges and other retrospective taxes. I shall now retum to the State Budget. Honourable members can see what a disaster it would be if Labor, by some terrible fate, came to power in Queensland. The Labor Party is a super taxer. The State Budget has provided for an increase in services. My electorate reflects the concem for keeping law and order. With an increased population and increasing numbers of holiday-makers, my electorate is a growth area. The holiday- makers do not always behave themselves and, recently, there have been some tragedies. That requires the services of the thin blue line, who do a tremendous job. However, the line has become too thin and Cooroora needs more police. In particular, the small police stations need to be manned for longer periods. The management in the planning section of the Police Department has shown a tendency to concentrate on large police stations, which can have big rosters, good systems, time off, better utilisation of vehicles and so forth. However, that has been at the expense of the local cop, the bloke on the beat, the chap who knows the community personally and not just 40 or 50 of his colleagues in a police station. The local cop can kick a backside before a young person becomes a little crim, and he can give some advice to young people who may be mnning off the rails. That is the sort of thing that the Govemment needs to provide and that is why I support smaller police stations spread throughout our communities, not large, central police stations. Each year, on behalf of the Government the Cooroy Police Station takes more than $300,000 over the counter, yet no clerical staff are provided. That ties up one of the two policemen from that station. That is poor economics and I sincerely ask the Treasurer to employ a person to do the clerical work and free an officer for police duties. 1 ask honourable members to think of the training that has gone into policemen who are sitting behind desks. Clerical staff could do that work. My electorate is not the only instance of this. The recent tragic murder of a young schoolgirl in my electorate is an example of the need for police and of the fact that police work is ongoing. In my electorate, detectives, who are needed to apprehend criminals, are very thin on the ground. I badly need assistance in the provision of more detectives to be based in Noosa. Often I see police using radar guns and other speed-detection equipment on the highway. In this day and age we should be looking at new methods of controlling Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 829

motorists who speed, as is done in other States and countries. In some places motorists are not even aware that cameras are used to detect their speed. I have been told that this sort of thing was tried out one Sunday on the Momington Peninsula in Victoria and 2 000 people were found to have exceeded the speed limit. However, notices were sent only to those who were exceeding the speed limit by more than 20 kilometres an hour—approximately 400 people. With that system, a tmckie cannot say over the CB radio, "The boys in blue have a radar trap up the road." How often have honourable members seen a tmck pulled up for speeding? They never seem to be pulled up on the highway, because they are told by their mates where the radar traps are. However, many cars are pulled up. On the Bmce Highway between Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast, the police walk out onto the road, almost getting mn over and causing accidents. The introduction of camera-detection equipment would aUeviate that problem. A couple of months ago, a five-car collision occurred as a result of a police radar trap on the highway. That system causes damage, which has to be paid for through insurance premiums. The system that I propose would be an improvement. The Govemment must be more efficient in its management of the State and control the size of Govemment. Taxes are still too high. They are a disincentive to productivity. I am pleased that provision has been made for an increase in the number of teachers and police. Apparently only 600 police can be trained in three years. However, 520 new teachers will make a tremendous difference. They will be where they are needed—in the class room. In my electorate, the Education Department is the biggest employer. Education is one of the most important responsibilities of the Government. It has far-reaching implications for the future prosperity of the State. Much money is being put into education in other countries. Countries such as Taiwan and Korea are very dedicated to education. Honourable members would never hear of a student in a class room in Japan, Taiwan or Korea playing up. That type of behaviour is a disincentive to good education in Australia's class rooms and reflects upon the community and its standards. It reflects on what Australians do not teach their children at home, which is a responsibility of the whole community. That places a heavy burden on the teachers and makes their job more difficult. What is more, it means that the Govemment has to provide smaller classes. If there was more discipline in the class rooms, the education dollar could be used more efficiently. I am looking forward to the provision of more funding for schools in future, because flexibility is needed. I tum now to the employment of nurses. Health is the other important aspect that affects everyone sooner or later. I refer to the number of nurses at the Nambour Hospital, which is very dear to my heart. I obtained it as a base hospital in my area and it was built of sufficient size to cater for patients well into the 1990s. It is causing a bit of an embarrassment, because people can see an empty floor and say, "There is a shortage of nurses." There is not. However, it looks that way to people looking for a story. The nurses at that hospital are doing a tremendous job and working very hard. They need additional nursing staff, which has been promised. I am sure that more staff will be required as the area continues to grow. In the last month, in my electorate four people have been killed on the Bmce Highway, which is very sad. There are a number of reasons for road accidents. In some instances the road surface contributes to the accidents. Other cases involve people going to sleep. Other accidents involve chemicals that could be dangerous. The Govemment should police proper labelling of chemicals and the carriage of dangerous goods. Because the composition of chemicals keeps changing, that will be a continuing problem. Another problem is head-on collisions. A double fatality occurred in that way last week-end. That type of accident will only be overcome by making the Bmce Highway a four-lane highway. The Labor Party is doing nothing to help Queensland receive its fair share in funding for roads. Federal money is provided for the national highway, but the responsibiUty for road constmction flows through to the Main Roads Department and local authorities, who constmct urban and mral roads. 830 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

I am pushing for the constmction of a university on the Sunshine Coast. Two excellent sites are available. I believe that it should be constmcted near the railway line and the highway in a magnificent forestry site just north of Nambour. People who know about earth-moving and building would support that site. The new rail line alignment and grade are working very effectively and will soon be electrified as that project moves north from Nambour to Rockhampton. The realignment of that line is a major engineering feat. It was a tremendous achievement by the State Govemment to find the $22m necessary. It would have cost a couple of million dollars more if I was not able to have one of the loops removed from the original design, which was inefficient as it added to the length of the line and only improved the grade minimally. That major saving of approximately $2m will also effect ongoing savings of $500,000 per year in mnning costs. The Railway Department is now mnning at a profit and the Govemment is trying to make it even more efficient. However, I caution the Treasurer not to overdo it, because a definite need exists for a service to be provided as well. Other honourable members have mentioned that this is a great service Budget, and it is. It looks after the needs of the people. With another good Budget under its belt, this great State of Queensland can only go on to bigger and better things. Mr McELLIGOTT (Thuringowa) (5.45 p.m.): It is interesting to follow the member for Cooroora, especially as he spent about half of his time talking about Federal Government matters when honourable members are supposed to be debating the Financial Statement. At the outset, I make the point that it seems to me that the members of the National Party would be absolutely devoid of speech material if they did not take the opportunity to attack the Federal Government about a whole range of things. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a valid point today by way of interjection when he said that members of the Govemment who claimed to respect States' rights have in fact changed their strategy and are now respecting Federal ri^ts. They seem to be standing up for the Federal Govemment in regard to taking additional responsibility right across the board for health, education, roads and police—the whole box and dice. The Queensland Government now seems to be calling for more Federal Govemment involvement, whereas 12 months or so ago it was saying that these were all States' rights and that they ought to be handed to the States. The member for Cunningham dragged out the old hoary chestnut about Medicare funding. Certainly the Minister for Finance understands fully, as do all members of the Opposition, that if one adds together the allocation of general funds from the Federal Govemment to the State and the Medicare funding, one finds that Queensland has done very well indeed, and continues to do very well, in comparison to the other States. I have made this point before, as the Minister for Finance rightly says. For goodness' sake, if the Queensland Govemment has not been doing as well as it ought to in its relationships with the Commonwealth, it ought to be thinking about the people whom it sends to Canberra as negotiators. After all, in the past Labor State Govemments have not had the same problem with conservative Federal Governments and, similarly, conservative State Govemments have not had the same problems in dealing with Labor Federal Govemments. There is something wrong with the negotiators if Queensland is really doing as badly as members of the Government suggest. 1 agree with the member for Cooroora in a couple of respects. First of all, I agree with him in regard to the manning of our police stations. His is certainly not a new idea; it has been floated around for years. I, for one, do not understand why when one goes into a police station, one finds that the person behind the reception desk is a trained police officer and that the person answering the telephone is a trained police officer. It seems to me that those people ought to be out doing the job that they are trained to do. I think that the policemen and policewomen themselves would also prefer to be Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 831 doing that. Why it has not happened is beyond me. Perhaps the member for Cooroora can take that up with his colleagues. I also agreed with the previous speaker when he indicated that the priorities for State Govemment spending are in the areas of health, education and law enforcement. I think that all honourable members would agree that those are the priorities. The Opposition does compliment the Govemment on the fact that in this year's Budget there have been increases in those important areas. Whether those increases are sufficient to meet the requirements of our individual electorates and the State as whole, only time wUl tell. It does worry me when I read the Health allocations to note the lack of detail in regard to the funding of new positions. Again, the Budget papers refer only to hospital workers. There is no indication of just where those allocations are being made. Time will tell and honourable members will see whether in fact this year's Budget does do the things that it says it will do. I want to take up some of the points that the member for Cooroora made. It seems to me that he follows the traditional National Party line in that none of his friends ought to be paying tax, that it ought to be the old pay-as-you-eam tax-payer who pays taxes because he cannot afford solicitors, accountants and so on to point out ways of tax avoidance and, of course, that people involved in primary industry should be subsidised to the hilt. When honourable members talk about cuts in Govemment expenditure, they do not want them to affect their particular pet areas, of course. It should be somebody else who is having his funding cut. Clearly, that is not possible. It is time that members of the Govemment acknowledged that the national economy is now in the soundest state that it has been in for many, many years, and that that is the result of the very competent administration of the Hawke/Keating Federal Govem­ ment. If this State is going to benefit from a meaningful relationship with the Federal Govemment, then surely it is time that the Queensland Government started to talk about co-operation and not confrontation. I want to speak briefly about local govemment which, of course, is my shadow ministerial responsibility. This year, Queensland's local councils will receive some $ 108.3m in grants from the Federal Govemment. Unfortunately, this year's allocation continues to be based on principles formulated by the Federal Govemment because, again, there is this impasse between the Federal Govemment and the State Govemment in reaching agreement about the appropriate means of distribution in line with the objectives of the Federal Govemment legislation. The Federal Minister for Local Government, Senator Margaret Reynolds, has advised me that she acknowledged the Queensland Govemment's view on a number of key issues and adjusted the principles to (a) extend the phase-in period to 10 years, in order to provide more time for councils to adjust; (b) delay any further phasing-in of the Federal Govemment's methodology; and (c) phase in a recommended increase in grants to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils, which is necessary to ensure equity in accordance with the requirements of the legislation. In reality, the 1988-89 procedure incorporates 83 per cent of the Queensland Grants Commission methodology and 17 per cent according to Federal principles. Clearly, the Federal Govemment is going as far as it sees it can to reach agreement with the State but, for some reason or other, this State Govemment continues to adopt its confron­ tationist attitude, even in this most basic area of the allocation of grants to local govemment. Similarly, with World Heritage listing we are approaching D-day. Australia's sub­ mission to the intemational body in regard to World Heritage listing of the northem rainforest areas is to be submitted on 1 October. There is still a confrontation between the State and Federal Govemments, which wiU only result in the submission going ahead in accordance with the Federal Govemment's wishes and without the Queensland Govemment having had the opportunity to make its concems known in that process. 832 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

I turn to the extraordinary decision made by the Minister for Local Government to sack the Burke Shire Council. I say "extraordinary" because there have only been a very few occasions in the history of local govemment in this nation when local councils have indeed been sacked. One instance of which honourable members would be aware was in fact the Sydney City Council, which was dismissed by a Labor State Govemment in New South Wales. I am not adopting a party-political stance on this issue. It should be a very extraordinary situation that results in the dismissal of an elected council. Yet the Local Government Minister has chosen to dismiss the elected members of the Burke Shire Council on the basis of a deficit of some $230,000. As I pointed out in a question that I asked in this Chamber several weeks ago, the difficulties facing the Burke Shire CouncU date back to 1981, when newspaper reports at the time indicated that the shire was in deep trouble. One report on which I draw states, "Burke Shire is broke". Another report reads— "State Budget cuts in subsidies and grants to local govemment had forced the Burke Shire Council to consider closing operations for six months, the shire clerk, Mr Alan Choveaux said yesterday. 'That could mean the death of Burketown,' he said." Another article, under the headline "Burke can't get head above water", states— "If things are crook in Tallarook they're definitely short of cash in Burke. In fact they're short of $230,000." That report appeared in the press in 1981, yet the Minister, who admittedly has held the Local Government portfolio for only short period, dismissed a council that was elected to office only six months ago. In this context it is interesting to read the report of the Local Govemment Department that was tabled in the House today. Under the headline "Financial Plight of Local Authorities", the Director of Local Government stated— "The year saw a deterioration in the general financial position of Local Authorities, due in part to significant cuts in funding from extemal sources. In particular, there was a continuance of significant reductions in road funding so that the amount of fuel excise returned to road fundings has declined by 300 per cent since 1983. As a result of this and other pressures on funds to Local Authorities, many Authorities face financial difficulties, and in the absence of substantial changes in policy with respect to funding in the near future, some may find it difficult to survive. The Department has advocated, in conjunction with the Local Government Association, the implementation of immediate measures to redress this situation. Investigations have commenced into the expected financial position of Local Authorities over the immediate future so that the Department can highlight the situation and recommend options to the Government." Clearly, the Director of Local Government understands the difficulty facing local authorities, particularly the smaller councils in westem areas. He suggested that appropriate investigations be conducted to assist those local authorities, but the Minister waded in and sacked the duly elected council. Some of the facts that are worth considering in regard to the Burke Shire Council's position are, firstly, that its deficit of $238,000 is less than 6 per cent of its 1987 income of $4m. This year, the council will receive $332,668 from the Federal Govemment as its entitlement under the Local Govemment (Financial Assistance) Act. The Queensland Government recommended that the Federal Government allocate only $296,513 to the Burke Shire Council in financial assistance grants. As I said previously, the deficit has existed since 1981, yet the current council was elected only six months ago. I make the point again that if local councils cannot be sure of their permanence and their future as elected members of local government, then the whole local government Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 833 system in Queensland will grind to a halt. Under the Act, the State Govemment has a responsibility—of course, we argued this matter during the debate on the referendum questions—to maintain a viable system of local govemment in this State, and certainly not subject a democratically elected council to the sort of pressure that has been exerted by the Minister. Dealing with the local govemment scene, there are a couple of matters to which I wish to refer. Although the system of local govemment in Queensland is very well stmctured and has certainly been praised in the past, deficiencies that are occurring within the system need to be addressed. One of the worst examples of what I would claim to be a breach of the democratic process has recently occurred in my own local authority area of Thuringowa. Following the resignation of an ALP-elected alderman, a vacancy occurred in Division 1 of that authority. I do not speak in support of that alderman. He ran into some sort of difficulty with his employment, left the area and resigned his position. Of course, under the Local Govemment Act the council was required to fill that position. It certainly did that in accordance with the Act. Instead of appointing to that position the person who finished next at a local govemment election held only six months ago, it appointed the person who in fact finished ninth in a field of nine candidates at that election. I should have explained that there are three positions in that division. The person who finished fourth was both the next highest polling candidate and also the next highest candidate of the political party, that is the ALP, who contested that election. The variation in voting was such that Mr McCarthy, who was the Labor Party candidate, finished fourth, polling 1 032 votes. Mr Preston, who has been appointed to fill the vacancy, polled 593 votes. I think that at an election only six months ago the people of Division 1 made it very clear who was their preferred candidate. So strongly did the people of the division feel about the matter that they recently conducted a petition of voters in Division 1. That petition, which was signed by over 700 voters, has been presented to the Thuringowa City Council, calling on it to review that appointment. Having made the appointment, there is no provision under the Local Govemment Act for that council to dismiss the person it has appointed to that vacancy. That reveals a deficiency in the Local Govemment Act. I make the point that that democratic process would surely require that the choice of the people—that is, the person who finished next in line at the most recent election—ought to be given that position. That clearly wUl not happen in this instance. I understand that the petition will go to the council at its October meeting. My clear impression is that because of the deficiencies in the Act and because of the attitude taken by the council to date, the Thuringowa City Council will continue on its present basis. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m. Mr McELLIGOTT: Before the dinner recess I was referring to a number of local govemment issues. I now wish to raise another matter that was referred to in a letter that was addressed to me by a resident of Greenmount. That letter states— "At the March 21st Local Govemment Elections for the Shire of Cambooya I was concemed with the manner in which the counting of votes was carried out and by whom. As I was a Scmtineer and was required to sign the necessary form to carry out such duties I was amazed and dumb-founded to find that the newly elected Shire Chairman, Thomas Stratford Newman entered the Tally Room and commenced opening Ballot Papers and was allowed to count votes. The Shire Chairman was himself a Candidate who being unopposed was automatically declared elected and was in fact the Shire Chairman elected for the ensueing 3 year period the day of the counting.

80545—30 834 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

To my amazement in the aftemoon the Retuming Officer called for assistance from the gallery to count votes. A Councillor, John Thomas Scotney, who had just been declared elected for Division 3 of the Cambooya Shire Council voluntered his services in front of other CounciUors. He then took up a position in the Tally Room and commenced counting Votes for the election of Councillors for Division 1. I referred these actions which are offences under the Local Govemment Act to the Director of Local Govemment in Queensland and was told that I must seek my own Legal Advise asto the most appropiate course of action available." Mr Austin: Why did he write to you? Mr McELLIGOTT: This is probably why he wrote to me. He continued— "Maybe, the fact, that the Shire Chairman who is a prominent Member of the Wyreema National Party Branch has something to do with the sweeping of the matter under the carpet." The final matter to which I wish to refer is the decision to reduce subsidies to local govemment. I am afraid that the Premier and Treasurer has embarrassed himself, because at a recent dinner of the Local Govemment Association he announced that additional local govemment subsidies would be included in this year's Budget. In response, the chairman indicated that local govemment throughout Queensland would be looking forward to the good news. There is no good news. Mr Austin: We have enhanced the subsidies. Mr McELLIGOTT: The Govemment has not done that. It has reaffirmed the decision that was made three years ago to reduce local govemment subsidies to 20 per cent for water and sewerage projects and 10 per cent for roads and drainage. Because of the outcries from local govemment and to deflect criticism, the Budget continues the existing rates of subsidies on projects that were approved prior to 30 June. That relates only to a relatively small number of projects throughout the State, particularly in relation to roadworks, and will contribute to the difficult financial situation that has been referred to by the Director of Local Govemment. I tum now to what I believe is a rort within the Transport Department. It is certainly occurring in my electorate, and I would be interested to hear whether it is happening across the State. It has become very obvious that a young person who applies for a driver's licence is refused a hcence at his first attempt. Before a person can reapply for a driver's licence he has to pay an additional $20 fee. That practice is occurring so often that it cannot be a coincidence. Most of those people are paying $30 or $40 to be taught to drive by trained driving-school instmctors. Either the driving schools are hopeless or there is something going on in the Transport Department. I understand that people who have been taught to drive on farms and can operate tmcks, tractors and so on are being failed when they front up to the Transport Department to get their driver's licences. Clearly, there is something going on in an endeavour to raise revenue in the Transport Department. I tum now to the proposed enterprise zone in north Queensland. Although the proposal was presented with much fanfare, somewhere along the line it has certainly lost direction. It was not well received by local authorities in the region, who felt—as I do—that it was a lot of froth and bubble. As I predicted, nothing much has been heard of it since it was first proposed. For many years there have been proposals to attract industry to north Queensland and this is just the latest version. Unless some more details can be obtained on the proposal, I am afraid that the people of north Queensland will dismiss it. No announce­ ment has been made as to who will provide the finance for the rate concessions and the Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 835

cheap land that have been talked about. Councils are assuming—quite rightly—that they will have to foot the bill. If the Govemment is serious about this proposal, it should come up with something much more definite and appealing. The main problems that detract from north Queensland's suitability as a site for industry are the relatively high cost of power and the shortage of water. Upon completion of the pipeline from the Burdekin, the water supply problem will be reduced. However, it must be pointed out that Burdekin Dam water will be very expensive. If industry that requires large quantities of water is to be established in north Queensland, it will have to pay dearly for it, unless some subsidy arrangements can be agreed to. The people of north Queensland want to know who is going to finance those subsidies that have been spoken about. Recently, a proposed 10 per cent increase in rail freight was announced. We need details about subsidies and where the money is going to come from. All we have been given so far is a promise of increased rail freight. The proposed gas pipeline, which Curtain Brothers have expressed a very strong desire to finance, has created a lot of interest in the north of the State. My colleague the honourable member for Townsville East referred to that proposal this moming. It appears that the honourable member for Townsville and his National Party Govemment are at odds in that regard. Today the Minister skirted around the proposition of private enterprise actually constmcting that pipeline and carrying all the risks involved in the project, which would be a source of cheap power to north Queensland. I cannot understand why a party that claims to be a free-enterprise party has rejected what appears to be a very sound offer. Mr Beard: You voted against it, too. Mr McELLIGOTT: No, I did not vote against it. Mr Austin: The Minister said this moming that he had not received an offer from them. Mr McELLIGOTT: If the Minister was serious about development in north Queensland, he would have taken a stronger attitude and would be leading the way towards enabling Curtain Brothers to go along with the proposition that has been spoken about. Another matter that is causing grave concem in north Queensland and Townsville in particular is the loss of jobs in the Railway Department. Frankly, I was amazed at the ministerial statement made this moming by the Minister for Transport in which he made no excuses other than to say that it is the responsibility of the Govemment to face economic realities. I believe that this Govemment has allowed the Queensland railway system to mn down and has certainly deliberately redirected business, particularly parcel business, in the direction of road transport. Some suggestions have been made, which I certainly cannot confirm, that some members of the Govemment have interests in some of those road transport companies. However, it certainly appears that the Govemment is making a deliberate attempt to direct business in the direction of road transport. If the Govemment is serious about continuing a viable rail system, I cannot understand why it should not be doing things such as upgrading the standard of railway stations throughout the State, providing passenger lounges and so on, instead of paying people off. It always amazes me that when the Govemment speaks about rationalisation and loss of jobs it says that nobody will be sacked. Although that may be tme, of course, it represents a substantial loss of job opportunities. In a place such as Townsville, which has had a long dependence on the presence of the Railway Department, that will make a significant change to the local economy. Certainly that is the case even more so in some of the smaller towns in the north that are virtually only railway towns. Although it may be tme that the present incumbents in those jobs will not actuaUy be dismissed, those jobs will nevertheless disappear. 836 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

I will now refer to a couple of matters relating to health. This moming my colleague the member for Townsville East raised the need for a definite allocation of places for nurse trainees at James Cook University. My understanding is that a commitment for 225 places for students in 1991 is the sort of figure that James Cook University is looking at. So far the predictions are for only 150. If the entry is reduced to 150, that will provide for only 386 nurses in training, which is about 169 fewer than are present in north Queensland now. I appeal to the Govemment, as did my colleague, to make a definite decision in regard to the number of nurse trainees that will be allocated to James Cook so that that university can commence the very detailed planning that it has to carry out in anticipation of receiving those student numbers. I have also been contacted by the north Queensland occupational therapist's group who are concemed at the loss of an occupational therapist position within the Division of Community Medicine in Townsville. My understanding is that previously there were two full-time positions at the community medicine centre in Townsville. One of them disappeared along the way. Until recently, the other was filled by a part-time appointee working six hours per week. That person has since resigned and the position, I understand, will not be filled. The group quite rightly is concemed on two grounds. The first is that the community, through its community medicine service, at present has a negligible occupational therapy service. The second is that every indication is that that situation will become permanent. The other health matter that I refer to concems ward lOB at the Townsville General Hospital, the psychiatric unit that has in recent times become quite infamous for its treatment of patients. The Minister for Health has made considerable noise about the task force that she introduced to review its operations and the changes that have been made. Unfortunately, comments are coming back to me again that nothing has really changed; that the medical staff who are presently operating the unit are not qualified and no psychiatrist on the staff is a member of the Royal Australian College of Psychiatrists, and therefore that college will not recognise 1 OB as a training college. It was with grave fear that in recent days I heard an announcement that the Townsville coroner had decided not to recommend a coronial inquiry into the death of one of the two persons who have been referred to who died under doubtful circumstances at ward lOB. That is a very serious matter. The inquiry into the death of the first person cast doubts on the efficiency of the Townsville Hospitals Board and the executive of that hospital. In my humble opinion, the death that is not to be inquired into was the more serious of the two. That again raises doubt about who is hiding what in regard to the operation of ward lOB at Townsville General Hospital. I am sad to say that, because it has been a source of great concem to the north Queensland community. The Health Minister gave an assurance that ward lOB would become the model for the treatment of psychiatric patients in Queensland. Unfortunately, if that is the model, we can only be very, very fearful about what is happening in other psychiatric units throughout the State. In closing, I would like to impress upon the Govemment my concem about the safety of bike-riders in my electorate, particularly young schoolchildren. I am sure this is a problem that exists Statewide. For some reason, most of our State schools are constmcted alongside major roadways requiring children to cross them or travel along them to reach their schools. Those young cyclists are facing danger every moming and aftemoon travelling to and from school. I think that the solution is for the State Govemment, which has the responsibility, to encourage local authorities to plan and implement bikeway programs in their areas. It is not just a matter of laying down pathways and encouraging kids to use them. It will require alterations to the Traffic Act and so on, because at present no single Govemment department accepts responsibility for bikeways. It is the old story of the local authority trying to pass it off to the Main Roads Department and that department saying that it is not its responsibility but it is the council's. So it goes round and round. In the meantime, children's lives are at risk. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 837

Victoria seems to lead the way in this area. It has a very, very detailed bikeway plan that incorporates all the authorities, both State and local, and they seem to be able to put in place the planning and the necessary finances to ensure that a proper bikeway plan is a priority for all councils in the State. I strongly suggest that this should be done in Queensland. As I said, almost daily throughout the State young children are being killed or seriously injured. Unless somebody is prepared to take up the cudgel, that situation will continue. Over a 20-year period, I understand that bicycle sales in Australia have increased from approximately 500 to 4 000 units per 100 000 people. Bicycle accidents comprise over 5 per cent of all reported accidents and research indicates that 15 per cent only of bicycle accidents are reported. Approximately 12 per cent of all cyclists have an accident that requires a doctor's attention to their injuries. Nearly two- thirds of reported accidents involve cyclists under 18 years of age. As I said earlier, the State Govemment has a major role to play in education and enforcement. In addition, a number of State Govemment departments—including the Main Roads Department and the Department of The Arts, National Parks and Sport— could be involved in the provision of cycle paths. A major gap exists in the system in regard to the safety of cyclists. There is no legislative requirement on the Main Roads Department or the Education Department, or even local authorities, to provide safe areas for cyclists. To their credit, a number of councils have taken it upon themselves to establish bikeways and have achieved some outstanding results. I think this matter is so important that it ought to be promoted by this Govemment and it should be promoted on a Statewide basis. Mr HINTON (Broadsound) (7.45 p.m.): It is with great pleasure that I rise tonight to support the first Ahem Budget, which I believe is a very excellent document. Its excellence is demonstrated by the editorials published throughout the State in many newspapers, most of which have been very supportive of the Budget and have recognised that it provides two major ingredients. Firstly, it provides a long-term planning and economic strategy for the State that is beginning to come into effect. Many items contained in the Budget reflect that strategy. The Budget also contains some short-term palliatives, such as the tuming round of the decline in State services in many fields which was very necessary. The Govemment had to bite the bullet by taxing some products to achieve those long-term goals. Both Budget ingredients have received very considerable acclaim. It is very noticeable, of course, that neither opposition party— Queensland's coalition in opposition, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party—has been able to find major faults with the Budget Speech. Mr Beard: You have not been listening. Mr HINTON: I have been listening very carefully. I have to say that when I listened to Mr Goss' speech earlier today I thought he was really only saying two words, "Me, too". Mr Sherrin: He put his own side to sleep. Mr HINTON: I noticed that members of the Opposition were slumbering. I can assure the honourable member for Mansfield that I was not slumbering. I was listening very closely to what Mr Goss had to say and I was trying to find some valid criticism of this Govemment's economic strategy and Budget in his speech. I have to say that the only thing I heard him say was, "Me, too", and, "We would like more of the same." That is really all his speech amounted to. The Opposition Leader spoke about new frontiers. I suggest that honourable members listened to a speech about the oldest frontiers in Queensland. Mr Sherrin: The only new frontier we will see in the Opposition will be a reshuflfle of the Opposition front bench. Mr HINTON: And it would be about time, too. I think I could reshuffle some of the members of the Opposition to great advantage. I would shuffle most of them out the door, to be perfectly frank. 838 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the oldest frontiers in Queensland because much of what the Opposition put forward was National Party policy, which is incorporated in this Budget. Honourable members listened to stories of how Queensland had sub­ stantially benefited from increased mineral production throughout the State. The Leader of the Opposition praised the increase in agricultural expansion but, of course, he was really praising the effect of National Party policies over the last 30 years. Agricultural expansion came from such innovative schemes as, for example, the brigalow area scheme. That is where the great production came from that the Leader of the Opposition believes is a natural part of Queensland's heritage. It is not natural heritage. It was created by firm, strong, progressive policies that brought prosperity to this State. They are the new frontiers that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to. His speech contained new ideas tacked onto the end of National Party policy. The Leader of the Opposition in fact supported most of the Budget. He said that not enough was provided, but he supported the major thmst of the Budget. I suggest that that is quite a remarkable tum of events as far as the ALP is concemed. Of course the Leader of the Opposition also said that the Government had mismanaged the economy. He said that household income was being reduced. Who could argue with that? Household income has decreased over the last five years since the Hawke Govemment came to power in this country. It has decreased substantially, but not through problems associated with production. The problems have been caused by the excessive and cmshing taxation burden that the Hawke Govemment has inflicted on the people of this country. That is the major problem, and in addition new taxes have come into effect. Since the Hawke Govemment came to power, in five years, revenue from income tax has increased from $40 billion to $80 billion, an increase of 100 per cent. Although the Hawke Govemment talks about reduced taxation, bracket creep is making sure that every family is going backwards. Each family would need to receive $56 a week more to merely retrieve the standard of living that it enjoyed in 1983. I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that these are the problems and that they are the reasons for the decline in living standards. Members of the Opposition should send a message to their Canberra colleagues very quickly. The second major reason is the discrimination by the Federal Government against Queensland in financial allocations. The Leader of the Opposition referred to an additional $528m to be allocated to the Health portfolio. On one side of the ledger, that statement is tme; but on the other side of the ledger, the Federal Govemment took the funds away again, so Queensland was no better off. That fact needs to be clearly understood by members of the Queensland community. On the one hand, the Federal Government provided funds to improve its image and make it look good, but on the other hand that $528m disappeared by virtue of the small print. The cost of Queensland's free hospitals system, if it is to be maintained—and the system most certainly will be maintained— will continue to be shouldered by Queensland tax-payers. The Leader of the Opposition also referred to the inflow of people to Queensland and to the outflow of people from Queensland. He conceded that a substantial influx of people into Queensland has occurred. Mr McEUigott: Where did you get your nursing home in Yeppoon from? Mr HINTON: I will come to that. I am sure that the honourable member would be the first person to admit that it was obtained through very good representation. I work for my electorate, and the honourable member should make no error about that. Mr McEUigott: It was Keith Wright and the Commonwealth Govemment. Mr HINTON: I will come to that matter when I refer to capital works and the honourable member need not worry about it. The Leader of the Opposition also mentioned that young people in the 15 to 25 years age group are leaving Queensland. I scratched my head for a couple of minutes Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 839

and wondered why that would be, and, after looking at the honourable member for Mansfield, I was reminded. It was because they have to go south to get reasonable opportunities for tertiary education. Today a young person in Queensland needs a TE score of about 925 to get into the kind of course that in New South Wales would require a TE score of 850. The reason for this is that Queensland's funding has been cut back substantially. If the funding to Queensland were equalised, this Govemment would be able to provide 4 000 extra places in this State. Considering the fact that the Federal Govemment took over tertiary funding in 1983 with a promise of riches, it is remarkable that a State Govemment has to make an allocation of some $ 15m to make up that shortfall because of the Federal deficit in that area. That is a disgrace, and I hope the Federal Govemment will move to relieve this State of picking up what is the Federal Govemment's financial burden. Mr Goss said that this Govemment has no economic strategy. I suggest that he has a good look through the Budget papers, where he will find that this Govemment has an excellent economic strategy. He advocated more manufacturing industry in Queensland, and this Govemment is providing that. I am pleased to see that the honourable member for Port Curtis is in the Chamber, because there will be an explosion of manufacturing industry in his electorate as a result of the building of the gas pipeline and the establishment of ICI. One day there might even be a steel-mill in that area. I can assure honourable members that this will not come through any initiative on the part of the Labor Party; it will be a National Party initiative, and the honourable member for Port Curtis will most certainly be the beneficiary. Mr Goss talked about the establishment of more value-added industry. It is part of the Govemment's Project Pay Packet initiative to provide the skills and training necessary to give young people the capacity to develop the technology for the establishment of value-added industry in this State. Mr Goss is quite right. He is simply emulating the National Party policy that this Govemment is putting into effect. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the need for free enterprise in this State and claimed that that should be the major criteria. Whilst I was listening to him I thought that Dr Evatt would tum over in his grave. One could almost say about the policy of the ALP, "Whatever happened to the worker?" The ALP is changing to a National Party philosophy; to providing the prosperity for free enterprise and competition in this State so that people can enjoy a higher standard of living and the social benefits that will flow from that prosperity. Throughout the years the Labor Party and the unions' policy has always been incessant wage demands, mn up a welfare bill and a major State or national debt, and wonder how they will pay for it afterwards. That is what the Labor Party has done. That trend seems to be changing and the Labor Party's policy is now becoming, "Let's copy the Nationals." This moming, Mr Goss said that Job was right and he was great and terrific. That is quite remarkable. Joh certainly did a very good job with Queensland's economic policy. Mr Goss said, "Count us in." It was a "Me, too" statement from the Leader of the Opposition and, in fact, an endorsement of this Govemment's policies. Mr Goss criticised the cigarette and beer taxes and the increase in car registration fees, but at the same time he called for yet more teachers and police. This moming he called for an additional 1 200 police to be allocated to Queensland all in one go. He seems to forget that the training institution in Queensland can only cope with 200 trainees at a time. I do not know how the figure of 200 police per annum put forward by the Queensland Govemment can be exceeded. Mr Goss was calling for massive increases in services and Govemment spending whilst at the same time criticising increased taxes. He was not prepared to state where that increased revenue would come from if in fact the Labor Party was in Govemment in this State. I assure the members of the Labor Party opposite that this Govemment will not be increasing taxation, because it intends to retain Queensland as the low-tax State in Australia. That is one of this 840 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

Govemment's major criteria, one of its claims to fame and it intends to protect that reputation. The Leader of the Opposition also mentioned the Queensland debt, which he claimed would require $1.6 billion a year to service, being approximately twice the required repayment rate. He endeavoured to convey that the money was spent on uneconomic State capital ventures, whereas in fact the moneys that are borrowed by this State are utilised for revenue-eaming opportunities in this State. A good example is the electricity grid that is currently being established across Queensland for the coal industry and the electrification of the railway line from Brisbane to Rockhampton. This will be a vast cost-saving exercise because, instead of having to import oil and fuel into Austraha and Queensland at massive cost, Queensland will use its natural resources of coal and this State will save millions of dollars. I wish to quote an editorial in the Australian dated Monday, 26 September 1988, which states— "The States should borrow only if the loans can be used productively—that is, for projects that will later generate income. Only Queensland, which is otherwise heavily indebted, has borrowed to produce revenue. Because its debt burden is therefore manageable, it will not impose a crippling burden on future generations of the State's taxpayers." The editorial states that every State except Queensland carries a debt burden that will be a burden on future generations. Queensland will service its debt burden from the revenue-eaming initiatives that this Govemment has taken. This moming Mr Goss chose to ignore this Govemment's employment strategy. Mr Austin: Mr Goss stumbled because in his speech he got mixed up with the economics. He was quite uncomfortable with it. He is better off with the Law Society or something like that. Mr HINTON: I say to the Leader of the House that the man is looking decidedly pale. He has looked very pale since he thought he might have had to contest a by- election for the seat of Ipswich. Having observed that the Labor vote has fallen dramatically in all by-elections since the last State election, he did everything he could to avoid a by-election in Ipswich. That is what has made him look pale, but I take the point that he looked a bit shaky earlier today. Mr Sherrin: They even white-anted their own man. Mr HINTON: Yes, that is quite tme. I am told that a great party was held for Mr Hamill at which he shook hands with all his friends, and that, when he left, he cleared his desk; but now he is filling up his desk again because the Labor Party was too frightened to face a by-election. Mr Austin: They tell me he bought a round of drinks as well. Mr HINTON: I do not think Mr Gibbs was there enjoying the drinks. I shall mention the major employment initiative of the State. Part of Queensland's long-term strategy is its value-added industries and the trained people who can contribute to them and also bring them into effect. The $35m package called Project Pay Packet is a major initiative that has been praised by the media and well accepted by the public. It will be very effective for our young people. The ingredients of that project are an $ 11 m Commitment to Youth Program to help young people who have been unemployed for six months or more, $10m over two years to provide a total of 3 000 associate diploma places in TAFE and an expansion of the Australian traineeship system. As the Premier and Treasurer pointed out, 3 250 young people will start traineeships in 1988- 89 and half of aU junior level entry positions in the State public service wiU be converted to traineeships. An additional $4m has been provided for self-help employment initiatives, $7.4m for staffing new TAFE colleges to facilitate the training of these new graduates, $400,000 to provide a 10 per cent real increase in funds for practical training of country Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 841 apprentices and a 50 per cent expansion of group apprenticeship schemes. What that amounts to is that any young person who now rings the number that has been provided will be offered a job or a traineeship. That is quite remarkable and I am certain that the young people and the parents of young people in this State will very much appreciate that. I shall now mention a matter that is not addressed in the Budget, but I have no doubt that it will have to be considered in the future, that is, pensioner rebates on local authority rates and charges. Queensland has a 20 per cent rebate but Victoria, Westem Australia and the ACT have a 50 per cent rebate. As the State's resources improve, there is a real case for increasing that rebate. I make it quite clear to my electorate, which has a very large pensioner population, many of whom are on well below average fixed incomes, that it is certainly something that I will be pressing and something that I am sure the Govemment will give consideration to. I note that the ALP has never entered into this field and has never thought about the plight of pensioners. Mr McEUigott: What rebate does your council give? Mr HINTON: The major local authority in my electorate is the Livingstone Shire Council, which provides a rebate of 50 per cent, with the extra 30 per cent being provided out of its own resources. I commend the council for that. However, not many councils can afford to do that. Certainly that places a very heavy burden on the Livingstone Shire Council. I believe it is a State Govemment responsibility that should be picked up as the State's finances become stronger and as the economy of Queensland continues to improve. I shall now touch on the building industry, which is the surest indicator of the strength of the economy. In the 12 months ending July 1988, dwelling approvals in Queensland were 36 577, a 58.8 per cent increase over the previous year's figure of 23 032. The total value of Queensland's building approvals increased from $2,887m to $4,664.2m, a whopping increase of 60.9 per cent over the period. I will compare that to the performance of the Labor States. The increase in New South Wales was 37.7 per cent; Westem Australia, 37 per cent; Victoria, 32 per cent; and South Australia, 20 per cent. The Australian average was 36 per cent. The 60 per cent increase in Queensland shows the dynamism of the State's economy and how Queensland compares more than favourably with the other States. I put it to the Committee that there is no better indicator of the state of the economy than the building industry and that Queensland is certainly streets ahead of any other State. For a few moments 1 shall speak about roads. Because of Commonwealth road- funding cut-backs, Queensland roads are deteriorating. As I have a large electorate with enormous road distances, that is of great significance to my constituents. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Local Govemment is nodding his head. He is in the same boat. As I inherited much of my electorate from him, he well knows the road problems I have. My constituents, particularly those in the coal-mining towns of Dysart and Middlemount, are furious about the Federal road-funding cut-backs. No wonder the members of the miners' federation in my electorate voted overwhelmingly to disaffiliate from the ALP. Honourable members can rest assured that I have been putting before them very forcefully the ALP's attitude to road-funding. Federal road funds provide 49.19 per cent of State Main Roads revenue. Since the ALP became the Federal Government, the amount has decreased by $28Im in real terms. That is enough money to build 1 000 kilometres of new highway. The Federal Government balances its books by hiking up taxes and charges and by slashing the programs of others, that is. State Govemments and, as has been seen recently, local government. The Federal Govemment's new road-fiinding program, the Australian Land Transport Program, which follows the bicentennial program, is changing all the mles by placing the greatest emphasis on population rather than need. Honourable members will appreciate what a policy of that type will do for central Queensland with its major industries of 842 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) coal, beef and grain and a small population. What that will do for the residents of Dysart and Middlemount who live on the end of the most infamous road in central Queensland, the Dingo-Mount Flora road, I cannot imagine. That road is a narrow-bitumen, single- lane beef development road that is being widened and upgraded by the State Government at my insistence, despite the savage cut-backs to Federal road-funding. It is an arterial road, and the Federal Govemment has announced that it is cutting arterial road-funding from $450m to $445m, which is a drop of 8 to 9 per cent in real terms under the new program. A national arterial priority funding program is to be introduced, and the Queensland Govemment has recommended that the Federal Govemment give the Dingo- Mount Flora road that priority. In my area, the Federal member is the ALP's Keith Wright. He has certainly gone to ground on the issue. I challenge him tonight to come out of his burrow and ensure that the Dingo-Mount Flora road is designated for national priority. I can assure honourable members that so far he is not doing too well. In May this year, just before Mr Keating made his May mini-statement, Mr Wright called together aU the councils in his area. He had a road-funding summit. He said that he would ensure that road- funding was not cut in central Queensland and that, indeed, it would be enhanced. Mr Randell: We haven't heard from him since. Mr HINTON: No. He has gone into his burrow on this matter. He has really disappeared. He is talking about every other fanciful thing, but he is not talking about roads any more. However, within one week of that road summit, Mr Keating announced that road-funding to all Australian States, including the main arterial roads across Mr Wright's electorate, would be substantially slashed. So Mr Wright did not do very well. Since that time, he has called a couple of summits of the councils and they have all refused to go along. He certainly got the message. Tonight I am challenging Mr Wright to make sure that that road receives priority funding when the Federal Govemment announces the roads to be priority funded under its arterial road system. If he does not get that, I can assure honourable members that the people on the western side of my electorate from Middlemount and Dysart will let him know all about it. Mr Prest: Some of those smokies you put on the rolls. Mr HINTON: We know where all the smokies on the roll were. They were all in the seat of Capricomia. That was documented in this Chamber. When I found out about the number of dead people who had voted and the number of people who had voted twice in Capricomia, I asked the Justice Minister to check the roll for my electorate of Broadsound within Capricomia. He gave this Chamber an assurance that not one person had voted twice and not one dead person had voted in my electorate. It does not look too good for Mr Wright. It makes his election look very fishy indeed. Mr Prest: But you got caught with your signature on the enrolment form. You were putting the dead ones back on. Mr HINTON: The honourable member has not even read the newspapers properly. I wUl not accept his interjections until he gets his facts straight. When he does that, I will take him on any time he likes. I will return to the subject of roads. What is the State Govemment doing about the Dingo-Mount Flora road? It is shouldering the burden. A stretch of 7 kilometres north of the Mackenzie River has been constmcted, a stretch of 5 kilometres south of the bridge is currently under constmction and tenders have been called for a stretch 8.2 kilometres north of the Middlemount turn-off at a cost of approximately $2m. My electorate is getting its fair share, but the cake is dwindling. Up to 60 per cent of the State's road-funding revenue goes on upkeep, whilst 40 per cent is available for new constmction. As that accounts for only about 3 per cent of the State's road system per annum, honourable members can appreciate that the roads Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 843 are wearing out faster than they can be replaced. Therefore, the State Govemment must apply maximum pressure to the Federal Govemment to make sure that it holds up its end on this particular job. Mr Schuntner: Does that cause trouble with McCafferty's bus service through Clarke Creek? Mr HINTON: The buses do not go through Clarke Creek. The honourable member is a little out of touch. In fact, McCafferty's buses do not go through Clarke Creek. A new road has been built down through St Lawrence, and that is the bus route. If the honourable member for Mount Coot-tha was on that bus, he was lost. The State Govemment has had to increase its registration fees by 11 per cent to meet the Federal Government's short-fall. That is higher than the inflation rate. Regis­ tration fees make up some 42 per cent of the State Govemment's debt revenue. It is certainly a burden on the Queensland people, but they have no choice. Most motorists will feel no pain as that is offset by the decreasing compulsory third-party insurance premiums. People who own four-cylinder cars will be paying $5 less. Mr Prest: What about motor bikes. Mr HINTON: The honourable member never gets his facts straight. He should not intermpt. People who own six-cylinder cars will be paying $1 less. Although the Govemment will be receiving considerably increased revenue towards its roads from registrations, in fact most motorists will not be worse off. In conclusion, I would like to congratulate Mr Ahem and Mr Austin on the exceptional job that they have done in producing the Budget. Mr Beard: You are not bucking for promotion, are you? Mr HINTON: My word I am. The honourable member is very jealous. This Budget is one of the reasons that he will continue to sit on the opposite side of the Chamber. The Budget has been very well received by the Queensland people. It nearly drives the honourable member mad that he has been unable to provide any satisfactory and credible criticism of the Budget. As I said in the opening part of this address, the major thmst of the Leader of the Opposition's speech was. "Me too. We will do the same, only we would like to do more of it." However, he could not demonstrate to the Chamber how he would pay for it. Mr SHERRIN (Mansfield) (8.15 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to follow the member for Broadsound in expressing my whole-hearted support for the first Budget of the Ahem Govemment, a Budget that will set the scene for further strong economic growth in this great State. I think one of the most encouraging signs is the way in which the Budget was formulated, which has seen a marked deviation from the way Budgets have been put together in Queensland over the last 25-odd years. For a start, this Budget has been firmly grounded in the three sohd reports that have been prepared for the Govemment over the last six months. Of course, I refer to the State Economic Development Strategy, which is currently taking shape. I know that some of the significant findings contained in that report have been carried out by the appropriate section under Doug Rowell and the Premier's Department. In addition, overseas experts have been providing intemational advice to the Govemment to enable it to enhance this State's share of the overseas market. That State Economic Development Strategy has provided firm groundwork for the formulation of the Budget. A number of speakers have alluded to the analysis of employment growth within this State. That report, commissioned within the portfolio of the Minister responsible, Vince Lester, also provided a significant grounding for formulating the Budget. Hon­ ourable members have seen part of the outcome of that, such as Project Pay Packet and 844 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) some of the tremendous initiatives that will provide a guarantee of work for our young people^this State's most valuable resource. I suggest that the Govemment's committee of inquiry into higher education funding has also provided a basis for some of the Budget formulations that honourable members have seen and in which the State Govemment has taken the initiative and stepped in to fill the tremendous vacuum left by the underfunding of higher education in this State. Of course, there has been a change in the way in which the Budget has been prepared. In the past, the Budgets have been prepared to a very great degree by Treasury. I think that the success of the State today is a tribute to the tremendous work that the Treasury officers have been able to bring to bear in the formulation of the Budgets. However, I dare say that the input in the past from the elected representatives certainly has not been as great as that under the first Ahem Govemment. Tribute should be paid to the work of the Budget committee and to the Cabinet as a whole, working under the relevant subcommittees. For the first time honourable members have been able to see a tremendous shift in the responsibility for formulating the Budget. Honourable members should not overlook the work of the Budget committee, under the chairmanship of the Premier and also the Finance Minister, Mr Austin. They have done a tremendous job. I had the pleasure of appearing before the Budget committee, along with the Education Minister, Brian Littleproud, to argue the case for some additional funding for the tertiary sector. I was very impressed by the way the meeting was conducted by the Premier and also by the extent of advice that was provided at that meeting by John Hall and Doug Rowell. If that is the way the Queensland Govemment is going to manage the Budget strategy, it certainly bears great testimony to the way in which the State will be managed in the years to come. I want to draw attention to some of the wild and extravagant allegations that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition, particularly during the earlier few weeks of this session. The Opposition made great play of the position of the State debt. It was very interesting to read the Weekend Australian last week-end, which contained an independent analysis of State debt. It is interesting that this analysis was carried out in the lead-up to the Victorian State election. I will quote selectively, if I may, from that article. As I have told our friends and colleagues in the Liberal opposition party in this Chamber when they have criticised this State, let us not measure a party by what it says it will do when it is in Opposition. Let us have a look at how that party is practising when in Govemment. It certainly proves interesting in the case of the ALP. The ALP has criticised this Govemment on the extent of the State debt. Let us consider what the ALP does in Government. It has certainly had enough time in Govemment in Victoria as a political party to manage that State and to bring the debt down to a respectable level. The article in the Weekend Australian headed "Vic debt burden nation's worst" states as follows— "With one week to go in an election campaign that has highlighted economic management as the central issue, Victoria has been found to have the heaviest debt burden of all the States." That was found by an independent group operating for the Weekend Australian. The ALP Govemment in Victoria, which has had two terms—and that State Parliament has four-year terms—has the largest State debt in the nation. Victoria has the highest gross State debt, the second-highest ratio of gross debt to gross State product and the lowest ratio of liquid assets to meet that debt. The ALP in Victoria also has the highest net debt per head of population of all the mainland States, the highest interest bill on its outstanding debt and the highest debt service ratio measured as the ratio of the total net interest paid to total revenue for that debt. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 845

That is how the ALP operates in Govemment. I am sure that the people of Queensland would not want the ALP, if it were ever to gain Govemment in this State, to mortgage the future of their children, as the ALP has done in Govemment in Victoria. According to the latest figures from Moody's, the intemational credit-rating agency, Victoria's debt service ratio is hovering around the 21 per cent mark. The same figure appears in a trail-blazing publication put out earlier this year by the South Australian Treasury but which has been largely ignored until now. Victoria's figure is relatively high when compared with the average for all States, which is only 12.7 per cent—and it must be remembered that the figure for Victoria is 21 per cent—and this has always been the case, as is shown by the 1981-82 figures, when the debt burden was only 12.1 per cent. So the ALP Govemment in Victoria has blown out that State's debt service ratio from 12.1 per cent to 21 per cent. That is a tremendous thing for the ALP Govemment in Victoria to be proud of Mr Davis: There's no car registration fee down there. Mr SHERRIN: Of course not. That State has a fiiel tax. I have criticised the ALP Govemment in Victoria, but I will not criticise it without examining the comparable figures for the other Australian States. Gross debt as a percentage of the debt service ratio in Victoria is 30.8 per cent. The debt service ratio, which is a percentage of the revenue needed to cover its net interest costs in Victoria, is 20.9 per cent; in New South Wales, 14.6 per cent; in South Australia, 15.5 per cent; and—wait for it—in Queensland, 10.2 per cent—the lowest. That blows straight out the window the criticism that the Leader of the Opposition has brought to bear on the Queensland Govemment, which has very successfully managed the Queensland economy and has not mortgaged away the fiiture of our children by imposing upon them the responsibility of paying off a tremendous debt burden, such as the excessive one that the ALP Govemment in Victoria is leaving to its young people for many years to come. Mr Hinton: The Queensland debt is nearly all on income-eaming assets. That's pretty good. Mr SHERRIN: Exactly. The honourable member read my mind. The Australian editorial of Monday, 26 September, followed up this case. I should like to comment on it. To be fair, I must add that the editorial was critical of all States for the extent of their borrowings. I take up the point made by the member for Broadsound. Let us have a look at the extent of that debt and what the debt is being use for. The editorial-writer makes this point— "The States should borrow only if the loans can be used productively—that is, for projects that will later generate income." That is the difference between the debt that is incurred by the Govemment of Queensland and the debt that is incurred by the Govemment of Victoria. The Victorian Govemment's debt has been incurred almost exclusively on grandiose schemes that do not eam revenue, which contrasts with the income and revenue-eaming schemes in which the Queensland Government has invested a large proportion of the amount represented by the State's debt. The editorial-writer further stated, as recently as yesterday— "Only Queensland, which is otherwise heavily indebted, has borrowed to produce revenue. Because its debt burden is therefore manageable, it will not impose a crippling burden on future generations of the State's taxpayers." It should be understood there one can read "as will be the case in Victoria under the ALP Govemment". Future generations in Victoria will have to pay off the enormous debt that the Govemment has mn up over the years. I hope that once and for all that puts to rest the carping criticism that the Leader of the Opposition has levelled in recent 846 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) weeks. He has been found out once again. He may have been a leading light in the Labor Lawyers Association, but as an economist he is a dismal failure. I tum to the overall strategy that underlies the Budget that was presented in this Chamber. The Budget contains a number of key objectives, each of which is worthy of comment. The first matter to be noted is that the Budget is balanced. Just as happens with a household budget, the State Govemment spends only what it gets in. The Queensland Govemment is not going to mn up a large debt. It is a responsible Govemment. That has been its Iiallmark for many, many years. Keeping very consistently with that long-established practice, Queensland will not spend more than it cams. The Govemment is minimising any new debt by maximising transfers from its recurrent programs to its capital programs. By judicious transfers of funds, exposure to any new debt will be minimised, consistent with the comment made by the editorial- writers in the Australian to which I have just referred. The Budget is one that cares for people. The best way to provide help for people is to provide jobs—to give them the dignity of work. From that they can create their own personal wealth, security and individual happiness. The Budget increases job opportunities by continuing the Govemment's commitment to its Capital Works Program and by increasing funding for employment and training, to which I shall refer later. The Budget is one that delivers smaller and more accountable Govemment that looks at commercialisation and marketing of appropriate Govemment activities. It improves Budget management and control through decentralisation of decision-making and a more comprehensive monitoring process. I shall discuss that in greater detail later. Finally, the Budget improves the economic and business outlook through less Govemment intmsion, through a greater support of the private-sector initiatives, particularly through the Department of Industry Development, and through the development and imple­ mentation of a strategy for the economic development of our great State. It is also interesting to understand that one matter that required a great degree of oversight by the Budget committee was the cut-back in Commonwealth Govemment assistance, which usually represents about 46 per cent of the State's Budget resources. The State Govemment had to increase its revenue capabilities by well in excess of $100m just to maintain services at the level provided during the last financial year. Full credit needs to be given to Cabinet and to the Budget committee on the way that it was able to do that and further enhance the delivery of services to the people of Queensland despite the Commonwealth/State financial relationships that had deteriorated because of the cut-back in Commonwealth Govemment funding. I tum now to some of the highlights and initiatives of the Budget, in particular as they apply to the people of Mansfield. On the revenue side—the Govemment certainly needs to be commended for its initiatives with pay-roll tax and the rebates that will be introduced on a sliding scale. The Govemment must definitely be commended for the full tax rebate for all apprentices and trainees. That is an area that the State needs to develop further, not only to get more young people into traineeships and apprenticeships but also to fiiel the economic development of the State. As to stamp duty—one matter that has been very well received in the electorate of Mansfield has been the exemption of the transfer between spouses of the principal place of residence and the commitment given by the Govemment that electricity charges to consumers will not rise during the next 12 months. I am very confident that within the next 12 months to 18 months electricity charges to Queensland consumers will be the lowest in mainland Australia. That will bring great credit to the Queensland Govemment. I have a particular interest in education. The Govemment needs to be commended for its enhancements in that area. The increase of 11.2 per cent over the comparable 1987-88 allocation is a significant increase in a key area of the Budget. Since the transfer of TAFE out of the Education portfolio, education accounts for about one-fifth of the Budget. Education receives one of the largest allocations in the State Budget. One of the Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 847

key features is the provision of an additional 522 teachers for 1988-89, which will cater for the growth within the education system and for those students with special needs. About a month ago a complaint was brought to the attention of my colleague the honourable member for Mount Gravatt and me regarding class sizes in one of the schools in our district. The point was made by the p. and c. of that school that approximately 80 classes were above the size recommended by the parliamentary select committee. That was a very large increase Mr Schuntner: Shame! Mr SHERRIN: My colleague and I were concemed about that. Upon further investigation it was determined that the decision to increase class sizes had been made at the local school level. I have no doubt that tomorrow every class could be made to fit the class size recommended by the parliamentary select committtee by issuing a very simple edict that the number of subjects offered in high schools should be reduced and that classes below a certain number should be curtailed. The decision was made at that particular high school to grant additional preparation time to certain teachers, to lighten the class loads of certain teachers, to make them year co-ordinators and to put them on half-teaching loads. The school to which I am referring is staffed in exactly the same way as is any other school in the immediate area on the south side of Brisbane. Although that particular high school is not situated in my electorate, I am aware of many high schools in my electorate that do not contain one class that is above the recommended number of students. Hundreds of classes in my electorate are undersized. The teachers and the administration of that school decided that they would offer a broad range of subjects. Some of the classes such as modem languages and Asian languages contained only six or seven students. As all honourable members would be aware, if there are classes with small numbers at one end of the scale there must be larger classes at the other end. That decision is best left to the local school community. The decision was made by the school community that approximately 80 classes would each contain 27 or 28 students instead of 25. When that position was explained to the p. and c. members, they understood it fully and their concems evaporated. That is the point that has been lost in this debate about class size. The initiatives that have been foreshadowed in the Budget, namely, that greater staffing control wiU be given to the local school, the principal and the p. and c, should be warmly endorsed and strongly supported. Mr Hinton: Do you say that the Queensland Teachers Union really acts as a branch of the Queensland ALP in respect of certain information? Mr SHERRIN: Absolutely. It is just another local branch. I hope that the initial 522 teachers will not be fed into the system to be deluded. One of the first initiatives should be the consideration of the staffing mix in schools in order to provide a greater flexibility. I am pleased that the Minister for Education has already stated that that will be a key issue. I am sure that my colleague the honourable member for Fassifem will support that proposal. During his period as a principal of one of the largest schools in this State, there was a degree of flexibility in that he had an option as to whether he wanted a subject master for resources, a science subject master or whatever. That system should be further developed so that a school is told how much staff it can have. It is up to the principal and the school community to decide the type of staff that they want; whether they want more aides, resources teachers, speciaUsts or additional administration staff. In that way a school would be given a certain bundle of resources and would have the power to decide how those resources are used. If they wish to have more resource staff and take teachers out of face-to-face contact, the compensation will be that some class sizes will increase. If they feel that class sizes are so vital and important, they can curtail the numbers of specialist teachers and resource 848 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) people and reduce class sizes. That is a very important principle. The local school community should be able to make decisions on all the information that is at hand. In the particular school to which I am referring, all of the information was not readily disseminated to the parents by the principal and the administration. Mr McEUigott: What do you mean by the school community? Mr SHERRIN: The school community is the administration team, the teachers and the parents. Mr Schuntner: What about industry and employers? Mr SHERRIN: I am talking about the local school community. Mr Schuntner: Would you also include the students? Mr SHERRIN: The people who are immediately affected are the parents, the teachers and the administration team, and perhaps the students to a certain extent. That is a leaming phase that we have to go through. It will make the system much more accountable. As to curriculum initiatives—I am pleased that an additional half a million dollars has been provided for further curriculum initiatives, particularly the P-10 Curriculum. An additional $200,000 has been provided for the progressive implementation of the human developments education course. The feedback that I have received indicates that the trial period for that course has been highly successful. That relates in no small measure to the excellent teachers who have been provided in the introduction of that course. It is a tremendous credit not only to the Govemment and the department but also to those people who have been selected and appointed to the team. They have handled a very difficult subject with a tremendous degree of sensitivity. An additional $20m has been provided to promote technology in education. An amount of $3.1 m has been provided for the establishment over the next three years of business education leaming centres in a number of Queensland secondary schools, which will provide a range of office experiences. It has always interested me—and I am sure that it would interest you, Mr Temporary Chairman—that this State has led Australia in technology, particularly in the introduction of personal computers. But in the commercial arena we had typewriters that went back to World War II. Technology did not cut across into the commercial field. Although this State led the rest of Australia in the introduction of personal computers, we still seem to be lagging 20 or 40 years behind other States in the commercial sector. This step is long overdue. The Govemment and the department certainly need to be con­ gratulated on the large amount of money that will be provided. In the area of primary leaming and computing, an additional $400,000 will be provided to introduce computing into the lower school. The electronic learning centres, where they have been introduced throughout the State, have been a tremendous success. There are about five of them. They provide a walk-in shop atmosphere which allows people to walk in off the street and ask questions. A small businessman may say that he is thinking of introducing a PC into his business—it may be a family business—and he wants to know what to do. Unlike a representative of a major computer company who may be trying to force a sale, the staff will give independent advice on the needs of the business, whether a computer is needed, and if so, what would be the best type to install. I know that the ELC operating at the Ithaca TAFE college has been an outstanding success with the many hundreds of people who are registered there. A person can attend that centre, use software, have a look at it and actually be trained in its use. That has been a tremendous initiative. The practical computer methods and information-processing and technology courses wUl be further funded with another $lm. This will actually allow the Queensland curriculum in the subject of computing to continue to lead the rest of Australia. It is a Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 849 joint initiative. The Board of Secondary School Studies and the Department of Education have developed both of those courses and they are being progressively implemented right throughout the State. One point that has been consistently referred to by other speakers in the debate has been the review of grants to schools. Starting in the 1989 year, a new school grants scheme will be available to schools. Basically, it will consolidate into a single allocation the present specific purpose grant—I think about 40 of them have been made available to the schools—and roll it up into one grant. Grants such as petty cash, the administration and the art account, science and so on will all be rolled up and made available as one. Also, it will be increased by 50 per cent. This has been an area in which the Govemment has attracted some criticism by parents and citizens associations in that part-way through the year the grants have mn out and the p. and c. association has been approached by the principal to buy equipment that the parents have felt should have been provided by the Govemment through that grants scheme. When I worked in the office of the Minister for Education, it was always interesting that when this criticism was made, the department used to provide very speedily to the p. and c. a copy of all the grants that were made available to the school so that the p. and c. could see the total amount of funds that were provided to the principal to be spent on the school. In almost all of those cases the p. and c. had absolutely no idea of the extent of funds provided by the Government to the principal. I think this is an indictment of some of our principals who like to have a large say in how the p. and c. spends its money, but in many of our schools the p. and c. has very little say on how the principal operates the school accounts. Although I will certainly acknowledge that some of the criticism on the level of those grants to schools is fully justified—and that is why I support the 50 per cent increase—I believe that as part and parcel of the new development there should be a much greater say by the school community in how the principal will spend those grants if the principal wants to retain a say in how the p. and c. will spend its funds as well. What I would be looking for at the end of the day would be a total school budget that would involve grants made to the school, as is seen in the single grant, and the p. and c. funds. They would be two line items. The p. and c. would advise the principal on the best way to spend that money so that he would be in tune with the goals and objectives of the p. and c. and the school community as well. I do not believe it will be a success if the amount is just increased by 50 per cent and the principal, with his own priorities and objectives, goes back to the p. and c. and says,"This is want I want to do with your money." That is a very important step that has to be taken if people are to become involved more in p. and c. associations and have a say in what happens in the school rather than coming along and saying, "Who is going to run the chook raffle next Saturday down at the local hotel?" That is a very important step that should not be overlooked. The one matter in which I have a great degree of interest is the report into higher education funding. On behalf of the committee, I thank the Government for accepting its recommendations and for providing an additional $25m over the next three years, $ 15m of which will be provided to progressively fund additional higher education places on a tender basis from the colleges. I am very confident that by using the tendering system the colleges will be able to lower the actual amount of the per capita costs in a bidding process to provide many thousands of extra places. $6m will be provided to fund the Queensland Education Foundation. It will provide funds on a doUar-for-doUar basis and encourage industry participation. Part of the criticism that was made under the Commonwealth Government's White Paper is totally justified because the history of industry participation in higher education in this country has been lacking. The experience overseas has been that the industry has certainly accepted its responsibilities in a much greater way. I do not believe it is the sort of thing that Govemments can bring about by legislation or coercion by saying, "You will contribute." I believe it is a partnership and that encouragement needs to be given. I believe that this is exactly the way to go about it—on a doUar-for-doUar basis—so that if an industry group comes 850 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) along and says that it needs more graduates in a particular area such as computer- programming, and that it is prepared to fund out of its own resources so many hundreds of thousands of dollars, the foundation can match that and actually train those additional graduates. I believe that when the results of that system are seen, other industry groups will come in. Of course, an additional $4m will be provided for a pilot decentralisation delivery system, particularly using videotapes, which have proven to be very successful at Capricomia. As a matter of fact, the actual results for students using the video material at Capricomia have surpassed those using the actual formal lecture system at Capricomia. Much greater work needs to be undertaken in this very important field. In closing, I once again congratulate the Minister for Finance and the Premier and Treasurer on a excellent Budget, a Budget that certainly gives me a great deal of pleasure to whole-heartedly support. It is the first Budget of the Ahem Govemment. I believe that it is a landmark Budget that will set the scene for much greater economic and further development of our great State. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (8.44 p.m.): Having listened to the honourable member for Mansfield, I think it is fair to say that his contribution could be summed up—if it could be called a contribution—in terms of Thomas Carlyle's famous statement— "The greatest of faults I should say is to be conscious of none." That statement aptly sums up the member for Mansfield. Since last December, the people of this great State of Queensland have listened to a great deal of hyperbole and could have expected the first Ahem State Budget to be different from previous Budgets. Mr Sherrin interjected. Mr BEANLAND: Honourable members have heard the contribution made by the member for Mansfield, which was sadly lacking on all fronts. His contribution indicates that he is not conscious at all of the faults that lie within the Budget. What the honourable member had to say contained matters raised by other honourable members and his speech also contained a good deal of plagiarism. It is clear that the new Ahern Govemment—which has 13 of the 18 Cabinet Ministers who were previously in the National Party's Bjelke-Petersen Govemment— has gone to exceptional lengths to try to create the perception that it is a new so-called conservative Govemment and that it is setting a new trend. Of course, the Budget is merely more of the same National Party policy. It is not a Budget that gives a lead to all conservative Governments in this country, as one would have expected it might be. The role of the leading conservative Govemment in Australia has been left to the Greiner Liberal Govemment in New South Wales. The people of Queensland could have expected a Budget that was oriented towards encouragement of private enterprise, accountability and the provision of adequate funding for those essential bread-and-butter issues that fall within the jurisdiction of this State Govemment, such as law enforcement, education, road-funding and health. Moreover, the people could have expected a Budget that would have undertaken major restmcturing of the State's finances with a view to achieving much smaller government than is the case at present. Instead of that, the people of Queensland have everything except small government; they have big government right across the board. Privatisation is an activity in which this Govemment could have been involved to the great benefit of the people of Queensland; but, of course, it has done absolutely nothing. No significant privatisation program has been brought forward at all, which was another factor glibly passed over by the honourable member for Mansfield. Instead of being innovative, the Budget is what might be called a dud; it is an utter failure. The Budget highlights that the people of Queensland are being presented with policies that are similar to the policies presented when Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen was Premier, except that there is no-one to deliver the goods. Presently, the State Budget is Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 851

all talk, but no delivery. The member for Cunningham indicates his affirmation by nodding his head. The State Budget is all talk, but no delivery. A most important feature of the Budget is an additional tax. Honourable members can no longer claim that the State Govemment imposes no additional taxes. The tax to be imposed is not an insignificant one. It will bring in $45m this financial year, yet the revenue will be frittered away. Only $lm from the tobacco tax wiU be spent on Health and the remainder will be spent across the board on a whole host of Govemment activities—one of which will no doubt be the Premier's growing media office. Having said that, I point out how interesting it is that not one word in the Budget mentions waste or inefficiency. Everything is supposed to be wonderful in the new Ahem Govemment's camp, but nothing could be further from the tmth. The current members of the Ahem Govemment were never those who took any action. They always left the decisions to the previous Premier. Now that they are being confronted with problems, they are resorting to more of the same National Party policy. That is what the people of Queensland are being given—more of the same. I am reminded of the wonderful statement made by John Stuart Mill— "No great improvements in the lot of mankind are possible until a great change takes place in the fundamental constitution of their modes of thought." I wonder whether the member for Nerang heard that. Mr Beard: He did not understand it. Mr BEANLAND: He does not understand about modes of thought and the change in thought pattems, which are exactly the nature of the problem with the current Govemment and its back-benchers. They have undergone no change of thought pattems whatsoever. The New South Wales Govemment is certainly setting the pace for conservative Govemments in Australia. The Govemment in New South Wales comprises not only Liberal Party members but a National Party component as well. I have noticed how quickly the Queensland Govemment has tried to distance itself from the New South Wales Govemment because it knows that the New South Wales Govemment is getting on and doing the job. No doubt the Queensland Govemment feels much closer to the socialist Govemments in Labor States. The report published by the Commission of Audit in New South Wales is a very interesting document. It contains a number of very important factors that the Queensland Govemment ought to take note of The member for Lockyer in particular should take notice of it. The key elements suggested by the Commission of Audit include— • a significant downsizing of Govemment, based on a review of Govemment services and activity in which the Govemment should be engaged; • an immediate move to corporatise Government operations in order to improve retums from these operations and prepare the way for privatisation of the business operations of appropriate authorities; • move to restrict the debt levels of those which can be justified by the size of the gross State product and sustainable cash flows of the State; • a program for reduction in debt, to be met in part through an asset realisation program including disposal of surplus properties; • increased emphasis on balance sheet management, including significant improve­ ment of the management of the State's property assets; and, most importantly, • the adoption of a system of comprehensive disclosure to the community of the financial affairs of the State. All of those elements are sadly lacking in the administration of the State Govemment in Queensland. Members of the Government in this State ought to hang their heads in shame because they have had many years in which to take up the various factors that have 852 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) been highlighted by the New South Wales Commission of Audit. I can assure this Govemment that it has missed the boat as the New South Wales Government sets the pace for conservative Govemments in this country. That is something that this Gov­ ernment certainly does not try to emulate. It has been most interesting to listen to the debate conceming the State debt. There is so much debate about the State debt, without getting to the cmx of it, because of this Govemment's accounting figures and documentation. The Queensland Govemment is the only State Govemment that does not abide by the national accounting system. The Govemment of Queensland has its own special system that only the honourable member for Nicklin supports. All the other State Govemments try to abide by the national system so that people can have some meaningful discussion about the real debt and liabilities of State Govemments. I refer to the matter of accountability. Some 43 weeks have now passed since the Ahem Government took office, and where is the public accounts committee? It is nowhere to be found. In fact, it is no closer to fmition today than it was 43 weeks ago. Queenslanders were promised that the very first thing that would occur under the new Ahern Govemment would be the establishment of a public accounts committee. That was back in Febmary and honourable members will remember that there was a special meeting in December the day after the Ahem Govemment came to power. There has been no public accounts committee legislation at all. Mr Beard: They are not fair dinkum at all. Mr BEANLAND: The Govemment is not fair dinkum at all. The honourable member for Mount Isa is correct. The Queensland Government sent two members—one of whom was Mr Alison, the honourable member for Maryborough, who is on the record as being very strongly opposed to a public accounts committee—around the nation to look at public accounts committees. Last year a number of members in this Chamber from both the Liberal and Labor Parties went to New South Wales and elsewhere to look at the operation of public accounts committees across the nation. There is a great deal of knowledge about public accounts committees in this Chamber, and no-one needs to go gallivanting around. Last year Sir Joh said, "Don't go", and Govemment members did not have the guts or courage to go. One can see the concern on the faces of Government members, because they are not quite sure what they are letting themselves in for in establishing a public accounts committee. I turn now to look at other activities related to accountability. Now 20 per cent fewer questions are being asked in this Chamber than during a comparable period last year. The reason for this is that Ministers give long-winded and waffling answers to questions in order to fill up question-time. They do not want to face the one tme test for Ministers under the Westminster system; that is to front up and be questioned during question-time. The Ministers of this Government have decided to hide because they know that they do not have the knowledge or fortitude to come to this Chamber and answer questions. The accounting documentation signifies that all is not well in this State so far as the Budget is concerned. The Greiner Liberal Government is again leading the way with the national accounting format. Again Queensland is the odd man out. The Queensland Government is ashamed to produce the figures and make them available. It is much better instead if these figures are shuffled around. The last group that I was involved with that shuffled the figures around was the Labor Party at City Hall. It was hiding tens of millions of dollars and all sorts of activities that it was undertaking, such as constmction work and other funding arrangements, that it did not want to talk about. That administration was hiding, and this Government is doing exactly the same. The accounting documentation is misleading. No-one has any knowledge as to what guarantees this Government has given conceming the liabilities of statutory authorities or any other guarantees given by this Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 853

Govemment. None of these items have appeared in the balance sheet, because no balance sheet is prepared in this State. This is another shortcoming of this State Govemment. This requirement will be met in the future by the New South Wales Govemment and the matter has been gone into in great depth by the Commission of Audit in New South Wales. It is high time that this State had a commission of audit. Mr FitzGerald: It's a coalition Govemment in New South Wales. Mr BEANLAND: I am pleased that one of the members of the National Party has finally woken up. As I indicated before. New South Wales has a Liberal/National Party Govemment. That Govemment is moving forward with the times. It has nothing to hide in New South Wales. Why does this Govemment have so much to hide in Queensland? Why are there such long-winded discussions about the debt stmcture of this Govemment? Mr Stephan: Mr Beanland Mr BEANLAND: The honourable member for Gympie has joined us. I am pleased to see that he is here in the Chamber awake, and joined us at long last. Mr Stephan: Do you realise you are leadership material? Mr BEANLAND: I thank the honourable member. At least I am not like the honourable member for Gympie. He goes around making public statements to newspapers saying that he is in competition with the honourable member for Cooroora for the position of next Premier of this State. This is the sort of nonsense that Queenslanders have to put up with. It is fair to say to the honourable member for Gympie that it is the nature of every man to err, but only a fool perserveres in error. That is most appropriate in this instance. There has been a great deal of discussion in this Chamber about currency fluctuations. Many statements have come from the Government and the Minister for Finance but no real worthwhile documentation has come forward. Mr Austin interjected. Mr BEANLAND: The honourable member for Nicklin is talking about knifing leaders. He is the one Minister in this Chamber whose word is not his bond and whose word cannot be believed, whether it is written on a piece of paper or not. Now that the Minister has joined in the debate, I will mention the toUway on the Sunshine Coast. A motorist can travel through the electorate of the honourable member for Nicklin without having to pay the toll. A toll has to be paid in the Landsborough electorate and also in the electorate of Cooroora. However, a person will be able to travel all the way through the electorate of Nicklin without paying a toll. Very carefully the Minister for Finance has knifed the Premier and the member for Cooroora. If we are going to look at who does the knifing, I am sure everyone remembers who knifed the previous Premier—it was the great knifer himself. We all know who did the job. I suggest that the member for Nicklin retire from the debate before he gets himself into further trouble. He is on very shaky ground. Quite clearly the Government is concemed and wants to hide behind the skirt of the Budget documents that were presented in this Chamber. Those documents are not worthy of this State Govemment or any other Government in the nation because they lack accountability on so many fronts, many of which I have outlined tonight. I hope that in future the Chamber will be presented with a worthwhile set of Budget documents. When a Govemment has to get down to putting in pretty pictures so that its own back bench can understand the Budget documents, that speaks for itself That is what we have here, a lot of pretty pictures, but they are not there so that the community at large can understand things because, quite frankly, the documentation contains nothing worth while. All it contains are a lot of pretty pictures for the back-bench members of the National Party to look at and to show to people in their electorates. They can say that the Government is constmcting another building here, another road there, and so on. 854 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

The lack of accountability goes further than just the Budget documents that we have before us. It also flows through to Ministers, their own personal actions and ministerial expenses. I will not go through the actions of the Minister for Health and the Premier who have stonewalled for some time on the guide-lines relating to ministerial expenses. It is the most disgusting performance of this session. Clearly the Minister for Health ought to resign, but we know that that will not happen. However, this is not the first time that this sort of thing has happened with the Minister for Health. We all remember how, as a back-bench member, Mrs Harvey was involved with the Queen Alexandra Home at Coorparoo and how she had trouble there sorting out cheques that were drawn and deposited through personal accounts. I am also led to understand that now she has taken up residence in the Parliamentary Annexe and is renting her own home at Holland Park. Clearly that is the sort of lack of accountability that we have come to expect from all members of the National Party Ministry, which tries to hide things, fails to bring forward guide-lines and hides behind the paperwork that it presents in this place as Budget documents. Mr Casey: They tell me she rented the house at Holland Park because she wanted somebody to mow the lawn. Mr BEANLAND: That is probably so because photographs of that property have appeared in the press. It is a disgrace. I am sure that, if it was anybody else's property, that person would be roundly and soundly condemned by the State Health Department before the council could have a go at him. I shall move on to accountability in relation to taxes because this Govemment hides its method of increasing taxes. For a number of years taxes have been increased according to the CPI. In some cases, as happened this year with motor vehicle registration fees, the increases were more than the CPI increase. Although every Minister relies on the terms of the Financial Administration and Audit Act to justify increasing charges, what should be happening is that Ministers should be looking at their various areas of responsibility and saying, "Must we have these increases? Why can't they be kept down?" To my recollection, this sort of thing first commenced back in 1976-77 when the Brisbane City Council, which was then a Labor council, decided that it would tie rate increases to the CPI. However, rates increased IVi times the rate of inflation. Since the Liberal council has been in office, that ripping-off of the general public has been stopped and rates have increased by half the rate of inflation. If nothing else, I call on the Minister for Finance to show just how good he is at cutting out waste, extravagance and inefficiency by having his Ministers look at each individual item to ensure that increases in charges are not in terms of the CPI but are necessary increases, whether they be for material costs, wages costs or whatever. All the increases do is add further to the increases in CPI, which has a multipUer effect. All members know about compound interest, which is what happens with these increases. They are increases on increases, and those increases continue. The Govemment has made no attempt whatsoever to try to rein in the taxes and charges that it levies. Last year the Govemment made no attempt to increase the threshold for pay-roll tax. This year the Govemment has made out that it has done a great service to small business by increasing the threshold for pay-roll tax, but all the Govemment has done is to catch up on its failure last year to give some sort of relief to small business operators. As I indicated then, if the Govemment was serious about increasing employment, it would increase the threshold to $lm. There is no better way to increase employment in this State than to do that. I believe that the State Government has the funds within its control to do just that. Last year I indicated that land tax was the rort of rorts because in south-east Queensland the average valuation had increased considerably. In the Brisbane city area the average increase was 164 per cent. However, all the Government has done is double the threshold. Of course, that was considerably less than what was required. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 855

Instead of increasing in conformity with the CPI or some other figure, land taxes zoomed up by some 18 per cent, and this year they are set to increase by 21 per cent simply because no change has been made to the land tax threshold figures. It has meant that, because of the annual valuations that have now been brought in across the board by the State Govemment through the Valuer-General's Department, the State Govemment is the big winner. I always said that it would be, and it has come about. Of course, it has been portrayed that that will alleviate the huge increases that the property-owners receive every five years. However, that has been only one of the small offsetting factors. The real reason that the Govemment brought it forward was to ensure that the land tax collections would increase significantly each year. In the last three years, land tax has far outstripped other taxes with which it was comparable. For example, three years ago the Gold Lotto tax and land tax collections brought in roughly the same amount. Land tax collections are now almost three times that from Gold Lotto. It is clear that the Govemment will receive huge amounts in the foreseeable future from land tax collections. When one examines the State's cash accounting system, again one finds that it has been highlighted by the Commission of Audit in New South Wales that there is a great need for Govemments to get on a commercial-practice footing in relation to their accounting procedures. To do that, one needs to look at accmal accounting, which is obviously foreign to this Govemment. No attempts have been made at the moment to bring in an accmal accounting system, which will help to clean up those areas of concem and lack of information and achieve an understanding and reliability of the accounts, a relevance, a timelessness, a consistency and a comparability. They are all important factors that must be considered when one is talking about accounts in this place or when members of the public are picking up the Budget and accounting documents. But what a joke it is to expect members of the public to pick up the Budget documents, take them away and follow them through! The member for Nicklin does not believe that they have a hope in Hades of doing that, and neither does anyone else. It is all very well to say that the Budget documents are there for some other reason, but the prime reason why those documents are presented is that they are there not only for members of Parliament but also for members of the public. The community at large should be able to pick those documents up and read through them, which they cannot do at present. If one examines the various other aspects of govemment that I mentioned earlier in which changes should take place, one has to look at privatisation and smaller govemment. That is something which, as is apparent in the current Budget documents, the State of Queensland is not getting. The Budget does not contain anything to suggest that the State Government will move in the way that the New South Wales Government has moved and the way in which the Federal Govemment is talking of moving, even though it be a Labor Govemment—in the direction of greater privatisation. The Queensland Govemment should be looking at many areas. One Sunday several months ago, honourable members heard the Premier say that he was going to look at privatising Suncorp. After shooting from the hip, he was obviously told by somebody that Suncorp contributed $28m a year to the State's revenue and that, if he privatised Suncorp, he would have to recoup that $28m in State revenue from elsewhere. I have not noticed any discussions taking place between the State Govemment and the Federal Government on ways and means that that might be overcome. I look forward to the Minister for Finance giving some information on the discussions that State Govemment is having with the Federal Govemment to attempt to overcome the problem so that in future, if the Govemment does move to privatise Suncorp and it starts paying taxes, those taxes can come back directly to the State Govemment. It is not only the State Government of Queensland that is involved; it is all State Govemments. I know that other State Governments are having that type of discussion with the current Labor Federal Govemment. 856 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

Queensland has a large reservoir of statutory authorities which could be privatised, whether it be in the area of harbours, electricity and so on. All of them leave themselves open to privatisation. One cannot help but notice in the latest Port of Brisbane Authority's annual report, tabled today, that the State Govemment last year picked up $2.3m by way of Government levies from the authority. The Govemment might think that by having the port authority pay it a levy, it is working towards privatisation. It is clearly not at this stage, unless the Govemment is moving to corporatise the harbour boards. It has given no indication that it will do that. Far from it. It has been portrayed as another levy—another tax—by the Govemment, in this case on the exporters of this State—the harbour operators. That is another area of Govemment activity in which the Govemment is reaping an additional tax. No discussions in this Chamber would be complete without mentioning road- funding. Not only has the State Government reduced local authority road-funding from 15 per cent to 10 per cent, but also the Federal Government has cut severely the funding to State Govemments in relation to road-constmction work. The State Government has not picked up the ball at all, because there has been a $ 13m reduction in real terms for roadworks in Queensland. If the Govemment were to look at its areas of Govemment operation and get into areas of priority and prioritised Govemment operations, honourable members would see that funds would be forthcoming for road-funding. Of course, the Minister for Finance has not got the courage or the guts to tackle the hard problems. He wants to sit there and throw his weight around with his usual bully-boy tactics. Mr GATELY (Curmmbin) (9.14 p.m.): What a lack-lustre speech the member for Toowong has just made! He did not even know where the boundaries of the South Coast electorate were. He was five kilometres outside the boundary attempting to take the seat of Nerang when he should have been five kilometres south in the electorate of South Coast. What would he really know? Mr Casey: You've made more speeches about Tweed Heads than you have about Coolangatta. Mr GATELY: That is indeed tme, but tonight I intend to speak about a few matters pertaining to Ipswich and the honourable member for Ipswich. I am sure that the Australian voters would be deeply apprehensive about the actions of the Governor-General designate, Mr Bill Hayden, who was reported in the media as having sent his wife along to vote in the recent pre-selection, after he thought that he had the numbers well and tmly sewn up in a vote for the seat of Oxley, which he vacated. It is interesting to note that the member for Ipswich The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Campbell): Order! This is a very far-reaching debate, but I ask the honourable member to get back to the Budget. Mr GATELY: Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. The costs involved in budgetary matters and in holding elections are vast—and they spread as far as Ipswich, I believe. According to Mr Wran, Balmain boys do not cry. However, judging from the immature and pathetic approach adopted by Mr Hamill, it would be tme to say that Bremer boys do cry. That is a shame. 1 now turn to matters of more importance. This Government receives severe criticism about the cost of motor vehicle registration in this State and other matters. I want to take a few minutes of the Committee's time to talk about registration fees and why the Queensland Govemment has found it necessary to increase them. Why did the Queensland Government have to increase registration fees? Simply because the Federal Government, which is controlled by the Labor Party, has ripped off Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 857 this State for millions and millions of dollars over the last three years. It intends to do it for the next two years, and would probably do it for the next 10 years if it were lucky enough to stay in power. However, the people of Australia have determined that the Labor Party Govemment will not be in power after the next election. There is no doubt in my mind about that. The public and even the birds are singing it. I will make a comparison between the registration fees for one class of vehicles in this State and those of similar vehicles in other States. First of aU, I will consider the heavy vehicle industry. It is very clear to me, and it is easy for me to understand, why owner/operators and tmcking companies are fed up to the eye-teeth with the excessive charges being imposed upon them and the unfair taxes that they are being called upon to pay. I wiU take the example of a rigid tmck. The registration fee in Queensland is $1,513. In New South Wales, the registration fee is $2,550 Mr Casey: They've got better roads. Mr GATELY: If I were in the honourable member's shoes, I would not make very much noise about that State having better roads. The greatest goat-track in Australia is to be found between Tweed Heads and Newcastle. The member for Mackay would not know every bump in that road. He has never been south of the border. Mr Casey: I go to the Tweed to play the pokies. Mr GATELY: That is probably all the honourable member is good for. He knows all about pokies. He was mentioned in relation to some funds and the poker machine lobby. If the honourable member wants to go on, I will give him some more. Mr Casey: Why did you leave the police force? Mr GATELY: Members of the Opposition cannot handle the tmth. It starts to hurt them. As I was saying, the cost of registering a rigid tmck in New South Wales is $1,000 over and above the cost in Queensland. That is not where it ends. New South Wales also adds on a fuel tax. That makes a total of $2,694. What a great State! Members of the Opposition in this Parliament continue to bleat that this Govemment is ripping off the motorist. There is no doubt at all about who is being ripped off, and it is not the people who register their vehicles in Queensland. I cite the example of a road train type 1. In Queensland, the registration fee is $2,747. In New South Wales, it is $5,161. I leave you to be the judge, Mr Temporary Chairman. Who do you think is being ripped off? It is the motorists in New South Wales. When fuel tax is added on, the cost of registering a road train type B in New South Wales goes up to $8,062. In Queensland the figure is stiU $2,747. I ask you, Mr Temporary Chairman: who is really being ripped off? It is certainly not the motorist in Queensland. That is why fmstration is evident in people who are trying to eke out a living driving tmcks. That big investment helps to keep other people employed. Those tmcks have to be supplied with parts, fuel, oil, and so on. Again, the Federal Govemment is ripping the nation apart. I tum to the figure for B doubles. In Queensland, the registration fee is $2,716. In New South Wales, it is $12,650. Again, I ask: who is being ripped off and by whom? Who spoke earlier today in this Chamber about taxes and the way in which the Queensland Govemment was ripping people off? It certainly was not a member of the Govemment. It was a member of the Opposition. I am pleased to see that the Opposition has some numbers in the Chamber tonight so that the bells do not have to be mng during my speech. I love to hear bells at Christmas-time, not in this Chamber. Mr Comben: You hear them every night from a bottle. 858 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

Mr GATELY: The honourable member hears them from a bottle? Mr Comben: No; not me. Mr GATELY: With due respect, the honourable member cannot hear them for the fuzz around his ears. He is a protected species—a bearded galah. I will not worry too much about him. I will get on with the matter at hand. Recently I raised some issues in regard to people who are not being given a fair go in this world. I know that I might have deeply offended some people in the development area and that they might get a bit of a guilty conscience about it. I do not mean to be disrespectful to developers. They are entitled to make a profit. I have always stated clearly that development is needed in this State. It is the motor that has made this State what it is today. Developments are occurring in many areas. In some instances the people who get hurt as a result of developments are those who can least afford the costs involved in human terms. Of course, Mr Casey would want to walk away. He would not want to hear this, but that is okay. I am talking about the little people who are displaced as the result of developments. Having raised the issue recently, I had the opportunity of talking to some developers about it. They have agreed that the people who can least afford development are pensioners, supporting parents and young people on low incomes. Today, more than ever, the demand for land and services is great. It is incredible that members of the Labor Party do not want to hear about the little people who are hurt when excessively high taxes start to hit them; they want to walk out of this Chamber. They will probably want the bells to be mng again. Mr Prest: You drive them away. Mr GATELY: Let us be realistic about it. The honourable member is easy to drive, though. The facts of the matter are Mr PREST: Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I draw your attention to the state of the Committee. Quomm formed. Mr GATELY: What a despicable performance that was by Opposition members. They were standing outside in the corridor like little Mr Elliott: Like mongrel dogs. Mr GATELY: Like mongrel dogs in the dark. They ought to be left out there, the light tumed off and the whip put to them. They would have to be the weakest characters who were ever let loose in this place. In fact, they are a disgrace to their electorates. Mr Comben: Who? Mr GATELY: I include the honourable member, who walked out just for the fun of it. I tum now to some other matters pertaining to the Budget, such as licence fees. It is interesting to note that tonight there will be a welcome-back shindig in the Members' Bar. That will no doubt contribute towards the licence fees of this State. I understand that the member for Ipswich is having a welcome-back drink tonight and that Mr Hamill has invited the member for Wolston to the shindig in the function room so that some liquor can be consumed. I understand that the reason for inviting Mr Gibbs is that Mr Gibbs will be Mr Hamill's mentor and future minder; he will guide Mr Hamill down out of the clouds and then teach him to keep his feet on the ground. Would it be tme that Mr Gibbs will be eminently more suitable as his mentor than Mr Hayden was in guiding the brash young colt along the path towards helping the needy miners in his own electorate rather than attempting to float off into the majestic Chamber of the greatest waste of public moneys—Parliament House in Canberra, which is an indictment Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 859 against the wanton waste perpetrated on this nation by union wastage and rorts. It is incredible. Mr Austin: You would think a Rhodes scholar would know how to count, wouldn't you? Mr GATELY: Yes; but he cannot. His mate did the numbers for him and he had it all stitched up, but something went wrong. Mr Austin: I think he might be a main roads scholar. Mr GATELY: The trouble was that he could not even make the main road. Mr Hayden's missus was sent down to straighten out the matter and she beggared it up. Now the people of Australia know exactly that there is no chance or semblance of his being impartial. Mr Austin: Do you think Mr Comben has improved his image now that he has had a haircut? Mr GATELY: Being a galah, he has to be looked after. He has to be protected. Mr Comben: The bald eagle needs to be protected. Mr Austin: No protected species. Mr GATELY: Protected species, too. To retum to the subject of people being displaced and suffering the inconvenience and the problem of trying to find suitable accommodation when all the cheaper housing has been taken away and they have no abode—who gives a damn about it? Really, no- one gives a damn. Quite rightly, the developers make their profit. The worst feature of it is that they do not make any contribution towards helping to rehouse those people. Why does Queensland have a shortage of low-cost housing? That is a very simple matter that even the most simple-minded Liberal or Labor member of this Assembly would understand. When the Govemment in Canberra glibly says to the public of Australia, "We will have a $5.5 billion surplus," it does not sound much; but even the simplest-minded Liberal or Labor bloke in this Chamber surely must understand that that means a $5,500m surplus. I call upon the friendly Labor members in this Chamber to start giving some thought to the needs of people who are displaced as a result of development and to give some thought to seeking a remedy from their colleagues in Canberra. Their colleagues are so heartless that I doubt whether a person would get through to them if he had a cold chisel and a sledge-hammer to have a go at them. They have a hide that is thicker than the steel in the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Mr Hawke said that by 1990 no child would be living in poverty. No! I wonder how he thinks they are going to be living and how he thinks they are going to be housed when he continues to rip this nation apart, take the funds and keep them in the coffers so that he can do some pork-barrelling, as his Labor colleagues did recently before the New South Wales election. They got caught out giving cheques to their Labor candidates to distribute instead of giving them to the elected representatives to present to the recipients. Mr Sherrin: Shame! Mr GATELY: Yes. The High Court had a bit to say about that and it pulled them up over it. I am concemed about the people in this State who are unable to obtain low-cost housing. The Federal Govemment is so heartless that it could not give a damn. I demand that this Federal Government release forthwith funds out of that $5,500m surplus to create more low-cost housing, which is urgently needed right across the nation and, more particularly, in the State of Queensland, which has been ripped off in that regard. 860 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

In real terms, 40 per cent of road-funding is no longer available in this State. That has been the case for the past three years. So that the public can move around with safety on roads that are commensurate with the type of vehicles that are available, this Govemment has had to build toll-roads. That is a despicable situation. Bill Hayden, the Govemor-General designate, has said proudly on many occasions that the wealth of this nation will be redistributed. The Federal Government is robbing this country. It is time that everybody in this nation tumed his vent and his anger against the Federal Govemment. I listen to the teachers, the police and the people in the Health Department who say, "Why can't we have more police? Why can't we have more teachers? Why can't we have more people servicing the health sector and the sick of this nation?" The reason is that the Federal Govemment is ripping them off. I ask them to walk with us; to demand that the Federal Govemment starts giving the people of this nation their rightful dues and stops hiding behind the mantle of a $5.5 billion surplus. The Federal Govem­ ment should tell the tmth and say it as it is—a $5,500m surplus—and let the public of Australia understand what it is doing to them. That is why people cannot afford to spend money on groceries. That is why people cannot afford to pay the excessively high interest rates that are being demanded of them in this nation. That is why people cannot pay for their houses. That is why they cannot go on the holidays that they used to go on. People should not let anyone kid them. The Federal Govemment is causing the problem—no-one else. What did Mr Hawke do? In July he perpetrated the greatest rort by jumping on a plane and flying to America under the guise of doing something to help the primary producers of this nation. He went over there claiming a great heap of tripe about the Americans supplying Indonesia with 115 000 tonnes of wheat under the export-enhance­ ment program. People talk about why this State is short of funds. Why indeed! The Prime Minister's visit to America demonstrated his hypocrisy. He raced around and came back claiming a victory on behalf of the Australian primary producers. However, it was a hollow victory indeed. It was not a victory at all. Why was he not protesting vigorously against the restrictions on beef and sugar imports from Australia into the United States? The Prime Minister would rather be kidding everybody that he is a great statesman. That is what he would rather be doing over there. One wonders why the people of this nation— particularly the primary producers—have no faith in him at all. My waming to every primary producer in this nation is: do not ever tmst the Federal Govemment again. In the recent election in New South Wales the Labor Party was thrown out unceremoniously by a vote that was never thought possible. Mr Hallam is now mnning around trying to recover the ground that he has lost for ever. The primary producers of this nation will never again put up with it. The Federal Govemment has made further attacks on the dairy-farmers. The Labor Govemment has planned to bring forward to 1990 restrictions on the import of dairy products from New Zealand. The directive from the Prime Minister to John Kerin to renegotiate the wheat Act will have the result of deregulating the domestic wheat market and removing the last vestige of support to Australian farmers by taking away the assistance of the Australian Wheat Board. It is expected that Egypt's failure to meet its economic commitment to the Australian Wheat Board will have disastrous economic effects on our wheat-producers. My advice to primary producers is: do not be hoodwinked by the supposed great white knight, or the silver bodgie—whatever one likes to call him—Mr Hawke. Once again he is trying to con the primary producers. When I first raised those issues, I called upon the people of Australia not to let the Federal Labor Govemment put it over them and to vote, "No", "No", "No", "No" to the four questions in the referendum. Mr Davis: You are claiming full credit for it. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 861

Mr GATELY: No, I am not claiming full credit, but I am pleased that Mr Davis has given me some credit for it. I have played my part, and I will continue to say to the people of Australia, "Don't be kidded and conned by the Labor Party ever again, either in the Federal sphere or any State sphere. Members of the Federal Govemment cannot be fair dinkum with you. They are nothing short of democratic socialists." Mr Davis: You were a member of the party. Mr GATELY: I ask the honourable member to speak up. I cannot hear him. That is a shame. Mr Sherrin: It was the Liberal Party, too, that tried to mislead the people of Queensland. Mr GATELY: On the referendum? Mr Sherrin: Yes. Mr GATELY: Yes. I will take that interjection. The next week, the Labor and Liberal Parties were bleating about the fact that they were going to have one vote, one value. What they were really saying was that they were not prepared to accept the referee's decision. The referee, being the voters of Australia, overwhelmingly rejected it and said, "We want zonal systems so we get a fair go. The fact is that the people in the far-flung country areas of this nation have been dealt the severest blow that any people in any nation could ever have dealt to them, in that they are compelled to pay excessively high freight rates for any item that is sent to their property. They are then expected to pay freight to send their produce to the markets to fill the bellies of those who want to kick their heads in. The day will come when those who have been perpetrating this rort on the primary producers will suddenly realise that it is the hard workers who produce the wherewithal that fiUs their bellies and helps fill the nation's coffers. However, they are also ripped off by unions rorting the system and by unfair practices on the wharves. I could spend probably three or four hours talking about that. Mr Veivers interjected. Mr GATELY: Yes, Mr Veivers, I will pick that one up, too. It is interesting indeed to note that all the do-good little splinter groups and elements that decide that they do not want any logging here or any logging there or any sand- mining somewhere, jump on little bandwagons—and I mean "little" because they are only little bands for little people. The fact of the matter is that they are little in mind as well, because they are failing to understand that this nation's exports eam the funds that save this nation. It is because of their wanton disregard for those people who want to be able to eam an export income that Australia now has the overseas deficit that is burdened not so much upon us as upon our children, our children's children and their children's children for many years down the track. When this sort of stupidity is displayed, Australia is a long way from balancing its budget. I now refer to the great attempts by two parties which suddenly found themselves thmst into the South Coast by-election. They came to that area and spoke about what they were going to do about the sand by-pass at Tweed River. They were going to do all sorts of glorious things. Mr Greiner came up from New South Wales, but he was a bit late. The matter had already been dealt with. Deputations had met with the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services and the Premier and things were put in place. Subsidies were given for sand to be pumped onto beaches. I am not yet convinced that in some of the areas the methodology is right. I am certain that at the end of the day it will stand some questioning. However, this Govemment is committed to making 862 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) sure that Queensland will have beaches capable of ensuring that tourists who come to the Gold Coast can enjoy the golden sands of the electorate. I am indeed thankful to this Govemment for the amounts of money that have been spent in increasing the capacity of the Curmmbin State School and also the Tallebudgera State School with some new class rooms for the benefit of the ever-increasing number of students that the Gold Coast is expected to cope with. I listen continually to the bleatings of my colleagues opposite in this place. They waste so much time. They are not even loud enough to be heard. The fact of the matter is that they bleat so often about how badly this State is doing, I wonder whether they have ever stopped to think about the tremendous amount of development that is in fact taking place not just along the Gold Coast, but right along the eastem seaboard. As I have referred to the eastem seaboard, I must say that one matter that is very near and dear to me is the right of every person in this State and nation to be able to walk freely down to the beach and swim as and when he wants to. I wish to place on record once again my displeasure, and in fact my continued disapproval, of developers attempting to take unto themselves the right to have direct access onto a beach. I refer specifically to a project at Kirra, which is causing a great deal of concem to many people. The members in this Chamber who want to yap and take up time ought to stop and listen, because this is something which has far-reaching ramifications. If any council gives a developer the right to have free and unintermpted access to develop right up to the beach line or tells the people that the development will be put in such a position that roads, parks and open space will be created Mr Davis: You should resign. Mr GATELY: The honourable member can sort that out for himself I know what I am doing. In my view, no person should be allowed to develop right up to the beach or to take roads, beaches and parks so that his development excludes others. If that were done, a precedent would be created, and similar applications would be rife from the bottom end of Queensland at Point Danger to the tip of Cape York Peninsula. If that happened, no part of any beach in this State would be safe from any development, whether or not it was a good one. I am personally in favour of development. I have placed on record before that I am fully happy with developments, provided they are aesthetically pleasing, of a balanced type, in places in which low income eamers are able to live and in the confines of the developer's own property. That is where the development should be: on the developer's land, not on the public's, not on roads and not on parks. All those matters should be taken into account. It is one thing to have development; it is another to have development that fits into the environment and is suitable to and accepted by the public. The public is saying that it does not want roads taken and it does not want parks taken. It wants the development, but with proper guide-lines. Mr WELLS (Murmmba) (9.44 p.m.): Mr Temporary Chairman, it must be a source of pleasure for you that when you assumed the chair earlier this evening, a thunderstorm broke and vast bolts of lightning lit up the sky. There is probably some significance in the fact that when the honourable member for Curmmbin reached the high point—such as it was—of his speech, a bolt of lightning dimmed the lights in the Chamber. It was not until towards the end of the speech made by the member for Curmmbin that the lights started to come on again. I think that the moral is that the honourable member for Curmmbin can try the patience of Providence. This moming during question-time, the Honourable the Premier made an admission that has very serious consequences for every Minister in this Parliament. Later I wiU spell out what those consequences are and quote figures in respect of each Minister that relate to those consequences, which will include one nice little nine-figure number relating to all Ministers. Firstly, I wish to remind the Chamber of the questions and the answers. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 863

Both references are very brief and will not try the short concentration span even of honourable members opposite. Mr Davis: You will have to speak slowly for these people. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Brisbane Central for his usual wise advice. The question that I asked the Honourable the Premier this moming was— "With reference to The Courier-Mail of 26 August in which the Minister for Health is quoted as saying that the payment of function attendances, including National Party fundraisers, by departments was a regular occurrence throughout the Ministry— Will he either confirm or deny this statement?" The Honourable the Premier could have said either "Yes" or "No". What he said amounts to "Yes", and it reads— "Each year the Parliament appropriates money to each Govemment department for expenditure under various headings. In the case of the Health Department, an annual amount in accordance with the Estimates is allocated to Chief Office, Salaries, Administration Expenses, etc." 1 ask honourable members to remember that word "etc.", because they will hear it referred to many times during my speech. The Premier's answer continued— "Ministerial expenses to attend an official function in an official capacity would be charged to this heading." That comes close to an admission that all Ministers are doing what I alleged some weeks ago was being done by the Minister for Health when I tabled certain cheques drawn against departmental funds that were made out to the National Party. The next question that I asked the Premier was— "With reference to the Statement by the Minister for Health in The Courier- Mail of 26 August— (1) When he was Minister for Health, was the use of departmental funds to pay attendance at National Party functions a regular occurrence? (2) Is it now a regular occurrence in the Premier's Department?" The answer appears to be "Yes", because the answer that the Premier gave was— "Admission fees to official functions in my official capacity are paid through the Chief Office Vote of the department from allocations approved by the Parliament for that department." Money might be approved by the Parliament for a particular department, but it is not approved for payment of funds to National Party branches or for attendance at National Party functions. However, I thought I would follow the lead given to me this moming by the Premier. I ask honourable members to follow me through a certain amount of detective work relating to expenditure of funds in various departments. Firstly, I wish to show the Chamber how the money that the Premier referred to is tabulated in the Estimates. The Estimates I quote from are contained in the Estimates of Receipts and Expenditures 1988-89 which were circulated in the Parliament on Budget day. For example, I refer to the Estimates for the Department of Justice—a department that is very close to my heart because I expect to be administering it soon under the Goss Govemment which will take office next year. Government members: Ha, ha! Mr WELLS: The honourable members opposite who are purporting to laugh will laugh on the other side of their faces when they lose their seats. 864 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

A number of items are listed under the heading "Department of Justice". For example, "Salaries" are listed under "Chief Office"and so are items such as "Publicity— Legal Affairs", "Coroners Act—Allowances to Witnesses, Post-mortem Fees, Burial of Deceased Persons, etc.", and "Incidentals and Miscellaneous Expenditure". These items are under the heading "Administration Expenses, etc." 1 ask honourable members to remember the word "etc.", because in these Budget papers it is performing sterling service. I would not say that the total Chief Office expenditure of $8,973,000 in respect of all those items was the sum of money out of which the Minister would take amounts referred to by the Premier this moming. No, it would not be that sum of money or that category; it would be under, "Incidentals and Miscellaneous Expenditure", a sum of money that is not accounted for and not itemised in this document Estimates of Receipts and Expenditures 1988-1989; nor are such sums of money itemised in the accounts of any departments. Let me look into some other department's accounts to give honourable members the general idea of the procedure that I will be using. At random, I select the department of Family and Youth Services. Under the heading "Family Services", a subheading "Salaries" appears. "Chief Office and Regions" is mentioned. Under the subheading, "Administration Expenses, etc.", "Chief Office and Regions" is mentioned also. Under the same subheading of "Administration Expenses, etc.", the "Queensland Blind Industrial Centre" is mentioned, but the money does not come out of that allocation. "Residential Care Facilities" and "Intellectual Handicapped Services" are mentioned but the expend­ iture would not come out of those allocations either. The items that I am looking into and that I will be listing later are not items, and clearly are not sums of money, from which the Minister could have taken money for the Minister's slush funds. They are items covering amounts from which the Minister could have taken funds because they were not sufficiently itemised. The items have not been listed because this Government is treating this Parliament and this State with contempt by not being prepared to indicate how Ministers spend public money. Now might be the time to inform honourable members exactly what sum of money is involved. The sum of money over all the Ministries which is not itemised, of which no account has been given but which could have been spent on anything whatever as far as the tax-payer knows—because it is a slush fund available to Ministers at their discretion, or lack of it—is $119,915,000. I will inform honourable members how I arrived at that figure of $119,915,000—the Queensland National Party's slush fund figure. I arrived at that figure by going through each account in the document Estimates of Receipts and Expenditures 1988-89. I wish to examine the sums of money allocated to the Honourable the Premier and Treasurer. These Estimates are not very well itemised but under the heading "Chief Office", the subheading "Salaries" appears and the only other component that is listed appears as "Administration Expenses, etc. Incidental and Miscellaneous Expenses". In 1987-88 that amount totaUed $8,341,000. However, the Premier is not content with that and in the Budget year 1988-89 he will need $10,455,000, which is an increase of more than $2m. Mr De Lacy: 25 per cent. Mr WELLS: I thank the shadow Minister for Finance for his very quick reaction, which justifies his elevation to the position that he will hold when Labor takes over the Treasury benches at the end of next year. The next item relates to the Estimates of the Deputy Premier. He is also the Minister for Public Works, Main Roads and Expo and Minister for Police. Mr Smith: At the present time. Mr WELLS: As the honourable member for Townsville East says, at the present time. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 865

The sum of money that the Deputy Premier has in his slush fund is a httle unclear. This moming the Premier gave honourable members to understand that there would be a Chief Office allocation, but this Minister has not even deigned to give a Chief Office allocation. All that is shown is an allocation for salaries and administration expenses, etc., for the whole of his department. It is a vast sum of money. Last year that department spent $7,513,000 and this year it wiU spend $8,996,000, which is a moderate increase of $ 1.5m. The Premier and Treasurer is not prepared to tell this Chamber the purpose of this extra $1.5m and this Chamber will not be debating these Estimates. I do not allege that that Minister will spend all of that money on payments to the National Party; however, he could, because there is nothing to prevent him. The Minister for Corrective Services was in the Chamber a little while ago. I am sorry that he has left the Chamber, because he is the best of a bad lot. He is the one who has the smallest unitemised expenditure of the whole Ministry. Last session his department spent $648,000 on administration expenses, including travelUng expenses, printing, stationery and incidentals and miscellaneous expenses. Next year his department will require even less. In these Budget papers the Minister states that he wiU require $527,000. What a moderate man! I am not prepared to believe that paper clips and stationery would amount to $648,000, but it might go a reasonable proportion of the way. Travelling expenses would include taxi and bus fares for his office staff and might go some of the way towards that figure as well. 1 would not be surprised if there was a very small rip-off component contained in that Minister's portfolio. I would not be surprised if that Minister was not making out very many cheques to the National Party. It is quite possible that there are some Ministers who, when they attend a National Party function, are prepared to pay for that function out of their expensive office allowance. It is quite possible that when some of them attend a function in their electorate, they are prepared to pay for it out of their electoral allowance. These figures show that there is an enormous amount of money that is unaccounted for and which could have been used by these Ministers on those particular services. I tum now to look at the Estimates of the Minister for Education, Youth and Sport. In 1987-88 this Minister had a component for general administration of $3,122,000, and in 1988-89 he will require $3,154,000. There is not much of a change there, and it is "Steady as she goes" for that Minister. I would like to hear what the honourable member for Mansfield is saying. Mr Sherrin: That covers all of the postage for head office, it covers all of the expenses by the Minister, the permanent head of the department, the directors and I also think the Director-General of Education. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Mansfield for advising the Chamber that stamps worth over $3m can be paid for Mr Sherrin: Wake up to yourself Mr WELLS: The honourable member for Mansfield had just enlightened the Chamber that it all goes in stamps. I am prepared to believe that $119,915,000 that is unaccounted for in these Budget papers is all spent on stamps. The honourable member for Mansfield is the authority for that proposition. Mr SHERRIN: I rise to a point of order. Once again the honourable member is misleading the Chamber. In his ignorance he is confusing the issue. I did not say that, and I ask him to withdraw it. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Alison): Order! I ask the honourable member for Mansfield whether he is personally offended. Mr SHERRIN: Yes, I am. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member for Mansfield is personally offended by these comments and I ask that they be withdrawn.

80545—31 866 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

Mr WELLS: I thank you for your suggestion, Mr Temporary Chairman. Speaking to the particular point of order raised by the honourable member for Mansfield, I would suggest that he has sensitivities that are so delicate that they are inappropriate for a member of this Chamber. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I believe it is the words "all of the money has been spent on postage" that the honourable member wishes to have withdrawn. I ask that those words be withdrawn. Mr Goss interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I do not need any advice from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr WELLS: I respect that mling and advise that I understand that the honourable member for Mansfield is saying that not all of that money is spent on postage. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member will withdraw the words. Mr WELLS: Yes, I do so. Mr Davis: A former public servant. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Brisbane Central for pointing out that I am now dealing with a former public servant who would know a great deal about postage. I now tum to the Estimates of the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs. There is an oddity in this department because this Minister does not have what is called a Chief Office. Instead it is called the Division of Finance and Administration. There are a number of departments within that Division of Finance and Administration, such as the Industrial Inspection Branch, the Office of the Govemment Statistician, the Industrial Court and Commission and so on. In the general expenditure of the Division of Finance and Administration a figure of $1,448,000 was expended last year, and this year the department is bidding for $2,952,000—a modest kind of an increase. In the Estimates of the Department of Environment, Conservation and Tourism the sum of $13,055,000 was expended on administration expenses last year and a figure of $13,011,000 is required for the coming year. There is no Chief Office here, which probably accounts for the fact that this department has a big expenditure. This figure appears to relate not just to the Chief Office but to the entire department. Nevertheless, it is a sum of money that is unaccounted for and that the people of Queensland do not get to hear about. It is part of a slush fund that is at the discretion, or lack thereof, of a Minister. Mr De Lacy: Is there an item there for trips to Paris? Mr WELLS: No, there is no item for trips to Paris. I understand that the Minister likes Paris in the spring-time, but he probably did not have that in mind when the Budget was drawn up. Mr Goss: And in summer, too. Mr WELLS: I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I tum now to the Minister for Family Services and Welfare Housing, a very, very moderate person. Last year the figure was $7,393,000, but this year he is bidding for $6,999,000.1 am not sure whether that reflects the moderation of the particular Minister or the optimism of the public servants who drew this up hoping that things would not be so bad in the coming year. Where a department has made a smaller claim for the forthcoming financial year than the sum expended in the previous financial year, I think it reflects a sanguine attitude among public servants who are only hoping that their Minister will go straight. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 867

The Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Premier and Treasurer has a figure for "Administration Expenses, etc." I ask honourable members not to forget the "etc." because that is worth a thousand words. There are also "Incidental and Miscel­ laneous Expenses" and "Miscellaneous Services", which last year totalled $5,499,000. Mr Austin: Is that all? Mr WELLS: It was $5,499,000. Mr Austin: I will double it next year. I thought it would be much more than that. Mr WELLS: I thank the Minister for Finance for that helpful interjection. The Minister will be terrified to hear that for this financial year he has bid too low. He has bid for only $4,709,000, which means that he is prepared to forfeit neariy $800,000. Mr Austin: I am setting an example. Mr WELLS: I thank the Minister for saying that he is setting an example, but I ask him: what is it that he is giving up? Mr Austin: Absolutely nothing. Mr WELLS: I take that interjection. The figures relating to the Minister for Health will be of some interest to the Committee. For the last financial year the figure was $6,240,000 and for this financial year the claim is for $10,138,000, an increase of approximately $4m. That is the biggest increase of the entire Ministry. Mr Elliott: She can't get it from the Feds so she has got to get it from the National Party. Mr WELLS: That is really very interesting—that even in the context of all these figures being quoted and in the context of this enormous slush fund, which would build thousands of houses for the Housing Commission, which would employ thousands of nurses or doctors for health services, which would build much bigger and better trains for Queensland, which would provide much better services across the board and which would improve the education system of the State of Queensland—and in the face of $119m—I get an interjection like that: blame the Feds. The National Party wants to blame the Federal Government for its own financial incompetence and blame the Feds for the fact that it is ripping off money by the millions and not giving an accounting to the people of Queensland of how it is being spent. What sort of an interjection is that? What sort of a pathetic contribution is that to political theory? I was about to tell the Committee about the Minister for Industry, Small Business, Communications and Technology. In 1987-88 there was an expenditure of $5,316,000 and for this financial year the estimate is $6,604,000, a moderate increase of $ 1.3m. Mr Ardill: Do you know that, amongst the mainland States, Queensland has the worst ratio of administrative costs to services delivered? Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Salisbury for his very interesting observation. If incompetence is piled on top of graft, it gives a pretty ineffective Govemment for this State. I have a feeling that the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General is not such a bad bloke, because for 1987-88 his "Incidentals and MisceUaneous Expenditure" amounted to only $4,099,000 and for this year we are told it will be reduced to $3,899,000, a moderate decline of $200,000. I will now consider the Land Management portfolio. No Chief Office is listed. What contempt that shows for the people of Queensland to not even list the expenses of the Chief Office! Nevertheless, what is listed is $747,000 for "Other Administration Costs, etc." For this year the figure is estimated to be $751,000. 868 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement)

The Minister for Local Govemment and Racing shows no Chief Office Vote, but the "Administration Expenses, etc." include travelling expenses, printing, stationery and incidentals. If all of those things are taken together they might come to $2,843,000, without very much left over. I suspect that, if there is any Minister who actually bothers to pay for National Party functions out of his own electorate allowance, that would be the Minister for Local Govemment and Racing. For this year he is asking for only $2,815,000, a very, very smaU decrease. Mr Davis: There might be a few barbecues there. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Brisbane Central. Last year the Minister for Mines and Energy spent $1,947,000 on corporate services. Under "Administration Expenses" there is no Chief Office, which again shows contempt for the people of Queensland. He is not saying how much it costs to mn his office. For 1988-89 he is asking for $1,062,000. If honourable members thought that those statements represented contempt for the people of Queensland, how about this one? For the portfolio of Northem Development, Community Services and Ethnic Affairs, last year the figure was $1,819,000, but no estimate has been put in for this financial year. Either that Minister does not intend to spend any money out of his Chief Office at all next year or he has not bothered—I think this is the tmth—to tell the Committee what he anticipates he will spend. He simply intends to take it out of unforeseen expenditure and continue to behave like all his ministerial colleagues, except that he is worse. They treat Queensland as if it was their own feudal fief to be plundered at their will. The next one is the Primary Industries portfolio, which again has no Chief Office Vote. The department shows very large administration expenses, because they cover the entire department, of $34,877,000. There is no itemisation of the administration expenses and nothing is accounted for. The supreme contempt is that, although $34m was spent last year, the department did not even bother to put in an estimate of expenditure for this year. That is what the Minister for Primary Industries did. I refer to the Minister for Transport. Again a similar situation exists of no obvious Chief Office. However, a close examination of the accounts shows that there is an entry for Chief Office. It is not divided into salaries and administration expenses, but last year $12,165,000 was expended, and this year $12,268,000 is claimed. Some component of that might be salaries, but it would have been nice if the Minister had bothered to tell us. After all, that is the only information that the people of Queensland have on those items. One would like to think that the department would fill in the basic matters that the rest of the departments fill in. I refer now to the portfolio of Water Resources and Maritime Services. Again, there is no Chief Office. However, last year the expenditure was $2,843,000, and this year $3,141,000 is required, which is an increase of $300,000. They are the unitemised sums that have been listed in this document. Of course, an honest Govemment might do it differently. I will give the Chamber an indication of how an honest Government does it. The Govemment to which I am referring is one which was maligned earlier in this Chamber by certain individuals. I am referring to the Govemment of Victoria. In the document Budget Summary and Program Budget Expenditures 1987-1988 for the State of Victoria is an itemisation of what goes on in the Chief Office. It sets out the operating expenses, which are similar to administration expenses in Queensland. It itemises everything. It itemises travelling and subsistence, office requisites, books and publications, postal and telephone expenses, motor vehicles, fuel, light, power, incidental expenses, electronic data processing, consultants and special projects, stores, equipment, materials etc., sessional payments to visiting instmctors and honorary probation officers— reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 869

That is how expenses are itemised in other places. When a Govemment itemises expenses in that way, as this Govemment does not, it is interesting to look at the unaccounted expenditure. The answer is that one gets incredibly small amounts of unaccounted expenditure in comparison to what one gets in Queensland. In Victoria, the Attomey-General's Department had unitemised expenditure of $111,000 for incidentals under Chief Office. However, in Queensland the Attomey- General has a figure of $3,899,000. That is a difference of a factor of 30. The Premier of Victoria has unitemised incidentals of $ 189,000, compared with the Premier of Queensland with $10,455,000. The Department of Primary Industries in Victoria has unitemised incidentals of $178,000 compared with $34,877,000 in Queensland. The Department of Health in Victoria had a figure of $ 1.045m compared with $10.138m in Queensland. One might gain the impression that in Queensland the whole system was completely rotten. I have great pleasure in informing the Chamber that it is not. If honourable members examine the Estimates of the Department of the Auditor-General in Victoria, they will find that some people in Queensland can do just what they do in Victoria. The Estimates of the Department of the Auditor-General show no incidentals, no miscellaneous and no etc. What are listed are salaries and administration expenses, itemised into travelling expenses, postage, printing, stationery, and so forth. The Auditor- General is able to give a complete account of how the money is spent in his office. Why cannot the Ministers in this Govemment make a complete account of how the money is expended in their offices? The answer to that is very simple. If one has something to hide, one needs a possie to hide it in. What Ministers are doing is hiding unduly large sums of money for administration incidentals, and so forth. The Premier's admission this moming that every Minister in his Govemment was doing exactly what I alleged a few weeks ago that the Minister for Health was doing is on the record and it is clear cut. It shows that very large sums of money are being expended by Ministers on their own personal fripperies or in terms of payments to the National Party. One might wonder what the Ministers are doing with their electorate allowances and their expense of office allowances. It is not as though they do not receive plenty of money for that sort of thing; they do. They would rather plunder the bottomless pit of the tax-payers' money as represented in departmental appropriations then take one penny out of their allowances to spend on the purposes for which those moneys were voted to them. The people of Queensland are beginning to realise that we have not just one "joke" in Queensland, but a second "joke". I have been talking about Queensland's other "joke", a "joke" which stretches not right up to the top but in a horizontal band across every Minister in the Cabinet. Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (10.13 p.m.): I wiU not waste a great deal of time on the speech of the member who preceded me, but I do not believe that his speech will go down in history as his greatest effort. When some of the statements that he made are analysed, it will be found that he has made a laughing stock of himself However, I want to say something about the speech by the Leader of the Opposition, because he is in the Chamber. One of the things that made his task particularly difficult this moming was that he has not been able to stir up any animosity against the Budget. This moming he spoke on the Budget for 46 minutes, and this is how he is received in the media— "Goss yearning for retum of Job's era." The speech of the Leader of the Opposition was such a lack-lustre effort that that is the best that the media could get out of it. It would have to be the worst effort that any Leader of the Opposition has ever made in this Chamber. If the Leader of the Opposition is yeaming for the retum of Joh, Neville Warburton did not know anything about it, because during my years in this place, if ever there was 870 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) a pet hate of Leaders of the Opposition, it was Joh. Now the only thing the Opposition can say is, "We wish we could get Joh back." Whether the Opposition wants him to lead the ALP or not, I do not know. I never thought the stage would be reached at which the only thing a Leader of the Opposition could say is, "I wish Joh would come back and lead us." The Leader of the Opposition will have plenty of opportunity to carry on with that line if he wants to. I want to talk about something much more serious. The Leader of the Opposition made the insulting remark that there are pictures in the Budget papers because they are the only things that National Party members can understand. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks that that will go down well with the public, I have news for him. That is a very insulting remark, and it will make him and his colleagues look very foolish wherever they go. Mr Elliott: A bit like his last speech. Mr BOOTH: I was not going to talk about his last speech. I thought that other people would have analysed what the Leader of the Opposition said and perhaps Mr De Lacy: He would have excepted you from that. Mr BOOTH: I take the honourable member's interjection. I am glad of that. I do not think many members of the Opposition would have said what he did. I think that the honourable Leader of the Opposition will live to regret it. The Leader of the Liberal Party was much more restrained in his comments. I do not think that Mr De Lacy: Have you ever heard the things said by Leo Gately? Mr BOOTH: I am not here to defend the honourable member for Curmmbin; I am here to defend myself 1 was speaking about what the Leader of the Liberal Party had to say. I think that he did try to make some genuine criticism of the Budget. Perhaps some of his comments were constmctive. He was fairly critical of it, and perhaps he had some reason to be. However, I do not think that he got his message across very well. Certainly he was much more tolerant than the Leader of the Opposition. During this debate the Opposition has tried to isolate each issue. Members of the Opposition have said things like, "You should have a much greater number of teachers. You should have a much greater number of staff in health, and a much greater number of police." As I said, I do not think one can isolate every issue. I think that the Ahem Govemment Budget was brought down with the idea of trying to improve management and trying to provide much better services without placing an impossible burden on the people. This moming the Leader of the Opposition spoke for 46 minutes. I would say that he spent 45 minutes in knocking. He did not have one word to say about where he would get the extra money to pay for all of these teachers, police or health staff. He did put forward one proposition, which I will deal with later. The Leader of the Opposition said nothing about management. That is one area in which the Government has been trying to improve performance. Mr Smith: You have got a long way to go. Mr BOOTH: Some improvements might still need to be made. I will accept that criticism. When people put forward a proposition for extra people here, there and everywhere and do not say one word about where the money is to come from, surely there must be something wrong. One cannot just pull money out of the air. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 871

I was particularly pleased with the improvements to education contained in the Budget Mr Vaughan: What improvement? Mr BOOTH: I cite the example of the number of small grants that used to be given. A previous speaker has analysed that to some extent. There were so many grants that no-one knew what half of them were for and people could fool around with them. The grants have now been consolidated. I think that that is a good idea. It wiU be easier to understand what the grants are for and it will be possible to move them around a little bit if one area needs extra funding. This moming there was a lot of criticism of education, health and police. However, not one word was said about a lot of other areas. I did not hear much about the road system. Mr Vaughan: There's not much to be said about it. Mr BOOTH: That is a fooUsh remark. I am surprised that a man of the honourable member's ability would say something like that. Honourable members want to see the roads improved and maintained. If there is to be a reduction in the number of fatalities on the roads, the standard has to be kept up. If the stage is reached at which that standard cannot be maintained and nothing can be done about it, we will be in trouble. I am not saying that our roads are first-class Mr Vaughan: They're sure not. Mr BOOTH: They are not super-roads, but they are not bad roads. However, if the Opposition had its way and spent all its funds on other things and did not even give roads a mention, they would be much worse. That surprises me. I just cannot believe that the Opposition would go ahead with that. Very little was said about public works. The Leader of the Opposition did have one theory. He outlined a theory of reducing capital expenditure by 30 per cent and said that he would spend that money on extra services. If one has a police force, I think one has to have capital expenditure. Is the Leader of the Opposition going to have a police force without cars? What is he going to do? Is he going to give police officers a whistle? Mr Vaughan: You're going to cut back on them. Mr BOOTH: Is that the story? I could not quite understand what the Leader of the Opposition was going to do, but he said he was going to reduce capital expenditure by 30 per cent, and Mr Vaughan: You weren't even in the Chamber when he spoke. Mr BOOTH: I was. Mr Vaughan: No, you weren't. I looked around, and you weren't here. Mr BOOTH: Yes, I was. I was here for about 90 per cent of the time. Mr Vaughan: What! Mr BOOTH: Yes, I was, and I heard the bit about the 30 per cent. I will be interested to find out where the Leader of the Opposition is going to get it from. There have been substantial increases in the amounts of money made available for education. Perhaps it is time to have a closer look at expenditure on TAFE colleges and to see what else can be done in that regard. People have to be trained, and I do not mean only young people. What happens to a man in his early 30s or even in his early 40s who has a small business which fails? If that man cannot be retrained, it is just 872 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) impossible for him to get off the ground again. The Govemment has to spend more money on TAFE colleges. The TAFE colleges in Queensland have only recently been expanded. For that reason, perhaps the Budget for this year is sufficient. Mr Davis: I hope you're not going to talk about TAFE colleges. I've heard it three times. Mr BOOTH: That is pretty good. I have been very bored with the honourable member's references to Steele Rudd, but I still appreciate them. I have a soft spot for the honourable member in that regard. Now that the honourable member has reminded me about it, I will say something about the TAFE college that the people in my electorate are pleased to have. I have some criticism of TAFE colleges. I think that the Govemment is playing around with a few too many fiddly courses that will not provide people with the wherewithal to eam a livelihood. I think that some longer courses of perhaps two years' duration are needed so that people can be trained and given a ticket to say that they have been trained. I hope that that will happen. I am not going to make a major criticism of the college yet because that is perhaps what is envisaged. Nevertheless, at this stage I hope that TAFE colleges can move forward to some extent. Mr Davis interjected. Mr BOOTH: It was not my intention to speak about it tonight. Towards the end of my speech I will say something about it. Mr Palaszczuk: You wouldn't oppose general TAFE colleges, though, would you? Mr BOOTH: I know that we would not cast out the TAFE college; we will expand it. An Opposition member: A milking course? Mr BOOTH: We are going to have a shearing course there. We might be able to give some haircuts to Opposition members. I tum now to police numbers. Because of the Fitzgerald inquiry, I can understand why morale in the police force is down at this stage. If I was in the police force, my morale would be down, too. That does not mean that anybody would have liked to have seen the Fitzgerald inquiry stopped. Perhaps that is why the Leader of the Opposition wanted Joh back. However, I am not sure about that. Morale is down, but that does not mean that it wiU be down for ever. Once we get rid of the inquiry—it probably has been a necessary exercise—we might be able to proceed to build up staff numbers. Mr Palaszczuk: Texas/Australis Incorporated—back to normal again. Mr BOOTH: Back to normal again, yes. Hopefully, it will not be what was called "normal" before. Extra staff have been provided for the Probation and Parole Service. Since I became a member of this Assembly, I have never been particularly happy with that service. Before I became a member I did not understand the parole set-up. Some prisoners find it very difficult to lodge an application for parole. That should not occur. If a person reaches the stage at which he beheves his good behaviour warrants an application for parole, I think that it should be lodged. Mr Davis: You would agree that they should be able to appear before the board? Mr BOOTH: That is exactly what I am hoping. I am also hoping that there will be greater staffing when prisoners are on probation so that they can be checked on. It might be possible to get a large number of people out of the prison system. I have been very disappointed with what has happened with the Probation and Parole Service. I will be looking forward with interest to changes in that area. Mr Palaszczuk: There have been rorts. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 873

Mr BOOTH: I would not use the word "rort", but there have been great difficulties in that area. I hope that we have tumed the comer and that the Govemment will try to improve that service. Mr Comben: Your speech is about interjections, isn't it? Mr BOOTH: If the honourable member wants to interject, he can do so. In view of the honourable member's form in this Chamber, he would do much better if he sat down and kept quiet. People know that the honourable member gets lost very easily. For a number of years population growth in Queensland has been increasing. Population growth in Queensland has been greater than that in other States. The Queensland Govemment has had to do something about that. Increased population growth places a financial burden on the State and will continue to do so. Opposition members might enjoy what I am going to say because I am going to be a bit critical of the two luxury tax areas in the Budget, namely, the tax on tobacco and increased licence fees for hotels. Mr Hamill: Both dear to your heart. Mr BOOTH: They might be. Although I am now a non-smoker, for many years I was a smoker. Many people like to smoke, particularly those who live on their own or anyone who has a nervous disposition. I do not think that the tobacco tax can be increased every year. If that happens, Queensland will probably finish up without a tobacco industry. Provision is made to soften the blow to the tobacco industry. It is not fair that people who smoke occasionally or even those who smoke heavily should have to bear the whole tax burden. Whilst I am worried about that, I am more worried about what is happening to hotels, particularly those in country areas. Mr Hamill: Fewer watering-holes. Mr BOOTH: I am not saying that there should be fewer watering-holes; I am pretty happy with what I have got. I can travel round and even in the smallest hotels in the smallest towns I can obtain a hot meal at meal-time at a reasonable price in pleasant surroundings. Throughout the day I can obtain a snack. Hotels therefore provide a service. It is not right that hotels are fair game for a tax increase. Tax increases are starting to hurt hoteliers. About a fortnight ago I met a group of hoteliers in my electorate. They were fairly upset. Some of them have reduced their staff to half the number that they had two or three years ago. I know that the RID campaign was responsible for some of that reduction in staffing. That could not be avoided because it is necessary to keep the roads safe. There are times when I wonder whether we are not issuing, for want of a better word, too many minor licences. There seems to be beer on sale wherever one goes no matter how few people may be present. Sometimes I wonder whether that is necessary. If we keep issuing minor licences, Queensland will finish up with fewer watering-holes, as the honourable member for Ipswich said. Whilst that might not matter a great deal if they are regarded only as grog-dispensers, if hotels are closed and no longer provide meals, inconvenience will be caused to travellers, and that will not be in the interests of Queensland. I am well aware that hotels and motels provide a great deal of work. Since the beginning of Expo, most hotels and motels in Warwick have been booked out every night. As a result, a number of people have gained employment. I do not wish to discuss the problems in detail. However, I issue a note of waming that next year we will have to find someone else to do it. Everyone should pay his share of tax. We should not be too selective as to who pays tax. I turn now to the tape recording and perhaps videotaping of interrogations. If someone is guilty of an offence, he should pay the penalty and be brought to book. I do not want innocent people being put in gaol. That is most unwise. I am concemed about verballing in cases of theft or violence, but I am more concemed about child abuse. Something should be done quickly if a person is abusing a child. However, it is 874 27 September 1988 Supply (Financial Statement) a shocking state of affairs if a person is put in a position in which his neighbours think that he is guilty of a crime simply because he has been verballed. If someone wants to min a person's character—it could be a member of this assembly—all he has to do is take a couple of detectives and welfare officers to visit that person and talk to him for a couple of hours. I am sure that, by the end of the day, everyone in that street would know that that person had been interrogated. If that interrogation is necessary, that is fine. However, if it is carried out hastily without adequate research, a person's character could be dealt a dreadful blow and could be damaged for the rest of his life. I am in favour of the tape recording of interrogations. That is a move in the right direction. I tum now to roads, which are the life-blood of the country people. A heavy burden is placed upon the people in the country when anything is done to make road maintenance difficult or impossible. I am not 100 per cent in favour of increasing the speed limit on the open road by 10 kilometres per hour. I do not believe that it will succeed. Last night, I left Warwick at about 10 o'clock and drove down to Brisbane. I travelled at approximately the speed limit. Almost every car that came up behind me succeeded in passing me. Those cars must have been travelling at 110 kilometres per hour or more. If the speed limit on the open road is increased to 110, people will travel at 120. That is fine while everything is going all right. However, in an emergency it is fairly difficult for heavy transports to brake at high speeds. That is when jack-knifing occurs. Greater priority should be given to roadworks. Although Queensland does not have super roads, if they are not looked after they will become much worse. We have good roads but they are not super roads. We should be trying to build roads that last longer. The honourable member for Brisbane Central will probably say that I am repeating myself However, I have already spoken about the need for greater research into roads. Something has gone wrong with road constmction. Either the vehicles travelling on them are overloaded Mr Vaughan interjected. Mr BOOTH: They could be overloaded, or there could be something wrong with the constmction of the roads. Mr Davis: Don't forget your Govemment got rid of $43m six years ago plus another $3'/2 for maintenance of roads. They got rid of all that tax. Mr BOOTH: Would the honourable member have kept it on? Mr Davis: I would have kept it on. Mr BOOTH: The honourable member can wear that one if he likes. 1 have been told that one of the factors that causes the greatest difficulty is the fact that natural gravel is no longer readily available. As a result, manufactured gravel is used in road constmction. Mr Hamill: We used to have lots of gravel when Russ Hinze was here. Mr BOOTH: The honourable member knows that that is not fair. That was a foolish remark. We still have as much gravel as we had when Russ Hinze was here. The fact is that gravel has to be manufactured. A number of different elements have to be incorporated into the gravel, which is not holding as well as we had hoped it would. Perhaps the roads have been built satisfactorily but are carrying too much weight. Nevertheless, the absence of natural gravel is one of the problems. I tum now to local govemment which, I believe, gives of its best. Mr Scott: You've just taken it away from the Burke Shire. Supply (Financial Statement) 27 September 1988 875

Mr BOOTH: Because I do not know much about it, I do not intend to discuss the Burke Shire. I would be quite happy to let the honourable member tell us all about the Burke Shire. Mr Scott: As soon as the referendum was lost you moved, didn't you? Mr BOOTH: No. I do not know a thing about it, so I do not intend to comment. Local govemment subsidies are insufficient in some areas, but I do not think that it would be correct to say that they are insufficient in every area. I am concemed about the subsidies or grants for sewerage works. Because small towns are usually scattered, councils find it difficult to install sewerage in them. As well, the installation of sewerage is too expensive to be warranted. Pensioners and people on limited incomes cannot afford to pay the sorts of fees that would be required. That makes it difficult. As to rural industries—I was interested to hear about the $50m that has been allocated over three years for property rationalisation and farming expansion. Because 1 am not in possession of the guide-lines, I am a little in the dark about that aspect. However, some funds have been made available for mral industries. Mr Davis: The Leslie Dam? Mr BOOTH: The Leslie Dam has been completed. I am happy to inform the honourable member that that dam has overflowed three times in the last month. Mr Elliott: He said it would never fill. I was sitting here one day when you made a speech, and he said it would never fill. Mr BOOTH: The honourable member for Cunningham knew a number of engineers who thought the same. They have been proved wrong. They have said it is a fluke. I do not think it is a fluke; I think it will fill about every five years or so. At least I have had a win there. I am interested in the scheme for property rationalisation because it is my opinion that a number of farmers have become too small or perhaps too old and a way will have to be found for them to leave the industry with dignity. I think that about the only way in which they can leave the industry with dignity is if they are able to sell out. Mr Davis: I will be in the market next year myself Mr BOOTH: I might be able to sell the honourable member something. He should not grieve for too long. I do not want to continue in the vein of the mral industries for too long, but I say to those people—they are mostly on the other side—who say that the mral industry is finished and that nothing should be done about it that they are wrong. Mr De Lacy: Nobody on this side has ever said that. Mr BOOTH: I think this moming the honourable member's leader said that. I might be wrong. It might have been the Leader of the Liberal Party. Yes, I believe I might be wrong. I am sorry about that. No industry can continue for ever without any change. Some changes have to be made. I guess people have to be game to make them. In the mral industry that has to be faced up to. In relation to secondary industry—I am a great believer in trying to decentralise and keep as much as we can in the country. For that reason, freight subsidy should be offered to anyone who is prepared to manufacture in the country. After all, if a subsidy is not given, all the manufacturing will be carried out on the seaboard. That makes it difficult. 876 27 September 1988 Adjoumment

Mr Palaszczuk: How are the Mary Falls getting on? Mr BOOTH: At the moment they are going well. They could not help going well. In conclusion, I believe that the Budget was well received. The Opposition has not been able to work up a shred of opposition to it. That is the reason why the best it could do this moming was invite Joh back. Progress reported.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Nicklin—Leader of the House) (10.41 p.m.): I move— "That the House do now adjoum." Reported Case of AIDS at Brisbane Women's Prison Mr PALASZCZUK (Archerfield) (10.41 p.m.): The matter I wish to raise tonight concems the AIDS vims and how it can affect life in the Queensland prison system. I also wish to comment upon the double standards put into operation by the prison administration when dealing with AIDS-infected prisoners. The Minister for Corrective Services has confirmed in this House that one AIDS prisoner is on remand in the Brisbane Women's Prison. In his ministerial statement to this House on 7 September this year the Minister, Mr Cooper, said that the prisoner volunteered the information that she was in fact suffering from the AIDS vims. This of course she did not have to do, but she did anyway. It has come to my attention that the AIDS prisoner is housed in the maximum- security section of the Brisbane Women's Prison. This I cannot understand for, let us face it, she is in the second stage of the AIDS vims. She is therefore in need of proper medical care and attention. I firmly believe that this is not being given to her. Just recently all female prisoners and prison officers were lectured together—and the operative word here is "together"—on how to deal with prisoners suffering from AIDS. The basic instmctions consisted of reassuring all present—that means prisoners and staff—that AIDS prisoners should be treated no differently from other prisoners, provided there is no possibility of the transfer of blood. They were straightforward, down-to-earth, commonsense instmctions. No sooner had those instmctions been issued than the prison officers were taken aside for a remedial lecture by the superintendent. The new instmctions were diametrically opposite to those issued previously. Prison officers were told by the superintendent that the AIDS prisoner was required to wash her own clothing, to wash her own utensils and not to be given any assistance by prison officers unless a medical officer was present. Unfortunately, this prisoner is so weak that she is finding difficulty in fulfilling the requirements imposed upon her, meaning, of course, that she cannot wash her own clothes and she cannot wash her own utensils. A crisis point arose when the prisoner convulsed, expectorating blood. Because of the previous instmctions by the superintendent, which were contrary to the lecture that was given to prisoners and prison officers by the other person who spoke to them about AIDS, she was left in that sad and sorry state on the floor of the kitchen until medical help arrived some 30 minutes later. Prison officers looked on helplessly. I firmly believe that this prisoner should not be held on remand in the women's prison. At her stage of AIDS, she should be in a hospital. Whatever her crime, Mr Deputy Speaker, she is already under a sentence of death. This is a problem that must be addressed. It is a problem that will not go away and I intend to make sure that it does not go away. The Minister for Corrective Services should immediately issue corrections to the instmctions given to prison officers by the superintendent of the Brisbane Women's Prison. A factual, honest and compassionate in-service course dealing with AIDS prisoners should be initiated as a matter of urgency. Adjoumment 27 September 1988 877

The Minister must act, and he must act now. For reasons that must be painfully obvious, he must get the AIDS prisoner out of the maximum security section of Brisbane gaol. He should instigate immediately an AIDS course for prisoners and prison officers to ensure that all people working in the prisons system know how to deal with AIDS prisoners. Driver-training and Road Safety Education Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (10.46 p.m.): I take part in this Adjoumment debate to continue with comments that I made during the debate on the Financial Statement in connection with driver training, particularly road safety. I believe that insufficient emphasis is given to driver training, bearing in mind the amount of time that people spend in vehicles and the loss of life and injuries that occur as a result of attitudes adopted by people to driving, and to responsibility for behaviour that can be observed at various times. I believe that safe driving habits and an attitude of responsible road use and behaviour should be developed throughout every aspect of the road-use system, that is, in passengers, pedestrian, cyclists and drivers. It is particularly important to engender responsible attitudes in children as they develop. The ability to recognise potential hazards and to take correct action should be developed in young people. Decision-making skills—such as speed selection and adjustment of safety margins—should also be developed. Among the matters that need to be examined are road laws. The Govemment should ensure that road laws are able to be understood in a practical sense, including an understanding of the rationale of the law, knowledge of safety-related mechanical aspects of vehicles, understanding the use of controls such as starting, stopping and steering, and simple driving skills, such as leaving and retuming to the kerb. Attention also should be given to traffic skills, such as the ability to deal with adverse conditions, open-road skiUs such as understanding the limitations of vehicles, slow speed manoeuvring, and safe vision habits with a view to taking in the whole scene and not just a few yards in front of the vehicle. I believe that education in road safety is one of the most important aspects of safe road use. Education in road safety is often thought of as a countermeasure—a pre-crash human factor. That definition may be tme, but it leaves out many aspects that ought to be included. Attempts have been made—successfully and otherwise—to influence the behaviour of schoolchildren as pedestrians and pedal cyclists. Education is relevant also to human factors in the in-crash and post-crash phases. Examples of that relevance can be given. Safety of children can be enhanced by attempts being made to influence guardians and supervisors via school students. Medium-term benefits involve an evaluation of the "slob" drink-driving campiagn that resulted in a recommendation to the effect that the knowledge and attitudes of the target group—young drivers—could be more cost effectively influenced through school education of children. However, publicity is very expensive. Education is not as expensive as publicity, and is beneficial if it aims to assist teaching rather than intmding. The class room situation and the teacher/student relationship seem more suitable for getting a complex message across more convincingly. In this way, attempts can be made to influence various aspects of road-use behaviour of young people in the years after they leave school. Unfortunately, behind-the-wheel driver training has not been successful in high schools. One interpretation of the evidence is that motivation is more important than skill in producing safer driving performances. Important determinants of the influence of motivation are the needs, attitudes and values relating to road use that exist in society at present. Long-term benefits include an integrated program of road safety education that should be implemented throughout a young person's school life, from kindergarten or even pre-school onwards. From my own experience, I can attest to the importance of this particular aspect. It is important to educate children at a very early age and continue 878 27 September 1988 Adjoumment their education throughout the years that they spend at school. If that program could be implemented, the long-term benefits might be much greater than the short and medium-term benefits. Theory and evidence exist to support this approach and the program deserves respect. Expectations of success appear, essentially, to depend on common sense and hope. Therefore, it remains important to try to achieve short and medium-term goals. Long-term measures and countermeasures relating to vehicles and equipment and traffic environment may be more effective than those that depend on road-user behaviour. However, these engineering and planning measures depend ultimately on human decisions. The human factor in making decisions is very important and attitudes and responsibilities should never be underestimated. Education demands will be most effective in promoting safety to the extent that members of the public are able to acquire the relevant knowledge. Time expired.

ICI Chemical Plant, Yarwun Mr PREST (Port Curtis) (10.51 p.m.): It must be serious when Concemed Citizens for Industrial Control have to lodge an appeal to the Local Government Appeal Court against the Calliope Shire Council's grant of approval for ICI to establish a chemical plant in the Yarwun fmit-growing district. I support the group in its appeal because its members are merely exercising their democratic right to appeal against the council's decision. Having exhausted all other avenues to obtain satisfactory answers to their queries about their fears in relation to the establishment and operation of this chemical plant, they are now being forced into a costly process of obtaining legal representation and taking the matter to the Local Govemment Appeal Court simply because this Govemment has closed the door in the faces of these concemed citizens. I ask why the Premier, Mr Ahem, and the Minister for Industry, Mr Borbidge, have refused to meet this group in an endeavour to come to an agreement in relation to the proposed ICI chemical plant in the Yarwun area. If an agreement could have been reached, it would have saved the parties up to three months in preparing their case to go before the Local Govemment Appeal Court. This would also have allowed the company the extra time it needed to start the constmction of this plant. However, the Premier and his Minister have refused to talk to this group of objectors. I wonder whether the reason for this refusal to meet the objectors is that the Govemment is getting cold feet and needs more time for the constmction of the gas pipeline. In addition, is the Govemment concemed as to the effects that these chemical companies might have on the environment? Is the Govemment having second thoughts and stalling for time? Is it looking for a way out and would it love to be able to blame the Concemed Citizens for Industrial Control for the delay or even for the change of mind by ICI or Minproc? I am certain that the group that has lodged this appeal is genuine in its concem at what might happen to the environment and their livelihood. I am certain that if that group had received an assurance that an improved monitorinj system would be introduced within this area, it would be satisfied. One must certainly be concemed as to environmental and clean air control in this State over a long period of time. Queensland only has two officers to supervise the whole of this State. One officer is based in Gladstone and the second is in Townsville. If an escape occurs into the atmosphere it could be a week before an officer reaches the area to monitor the situation. A big improvement in environmental control and monitoring of industrial plants in Queensland is needed. 1 repeat that I support any concemed group, such as the Concemed Citizens for Industrial Control, in the exercise of its democratic right of appeal and right to be heard. Mr Borbidge: Do you support the ICI plant? Adjoumment 27 September 1988 879

Mr PREST: I support the ICI plant. I am concemed that this Govemment has closed the door and has driven this group into the Local Govemment Appeal Court. This Govemment does not want that group to be heard. The group has been told that it does not have the money to fight the big companies. If this State has reached the stage at which people must have money before they can appeal against any council decision or proposal, then the democratic right of people to object is being taken away and they have lost everything. Because of the problems that have occurred over the length and breadth of Queensland over a long period, there is no doubt that this Govemment cannot be satisfied with environmental control. Mr Borbidge: What does Mr Courtice say? Mr PREST: I am not a bit concemed with what Mr Courtice says, because no matter whether there is serious debate or not, someone wants to tum it into a circus. The clowns want to perform, take over centre stage and have everyone applaud. They mn to the press to get the publicity that they are looking for because they believe that any publicity at all is good publicity. One of the things that concem me—and it should concem the Minister—is the taking-away of the democratic rights of people in this State to lodge a lawful appeal and exercise their democratic right to be heard in an appeal court. It must not be said that because a person does not have the money, he does not have the right to be listened to. Time expired. Primary Industry Productivity Enhancement Scheme Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (10.56 p.m.): I wish to continue with a matter raised by myself and my colleague the honourable member for Warwick during the debate on the Budget Speech. This relates particularly to the Primary Industry Productivity Enhancement Scheme that is spelt out in the recent Budget. Most people looking at that scheme would think about farm build-up and trying to assist people to leave the industry. However, the scheme has another side; an enhancement towards efficiency. In the Darling Downs area there is a very serious soil erosion problem, and it is interesting to note that the grain-growers gave tremendous support to the new scheme. For a long time there has been a need to assist grain-growers and farmers generally to do something about soil erosion. Many farmers have done a great deal off their own bat in respect of soil erosion and have put a lot of their own money into it. This scheme will assist through financial borrowing capacity and realistic interest rates to ensure that farmers do something about soil erosion and pasture improvement. There are many areas of land which should never have been broken up by grain- growing and cultivation. Possibly the percentage of slope of the land was too high or the soil very erodable, but much of that country would have been better retained as pasture improvement land for stock, etc. This is an interesting facet of the scheme. This scheme will work in well with the new TAFE college at Warwick, which has been designed—although not exclusively—to give a great deal of emphasis to mral job training. I understand that there will be courses for shearers, etc., and the honourable member for Warwick indicated that during his speech. If all these things are tied in together, it is a step in the right direction. The funds and the programs are available to assist people in the management of soil erosion and pasture improvement. At the same time, the young people who are having problems gaining permanent employment could be put through the TAFE courses to assist them to understand the various management practices. 880 27 September 1988 Adjoumment

I was interested in the composition of the board. I think my colleague indicated that one of the Erasers from the transport company will be involved. That is a family of long standing who certainly understand livestock haulage, in particular. Perhaps some work could be done on experimental farming, although I admit that at this stage it has gone beyond the point of being experimental. I am talking about no-till farming and the use of some of the biodegradable chemicals such as Roundup to assist as a management tool and to encourage people to conserve soil. As a practical farmer, I have done a measure of that on my farm and I can see tremendous applications for it. I simply wish to say how pleased I am that those things are contained in the Budget. They will be of great assistance to the farmers of the Darling Downs, not just in my electorate but also in the electorate of Warwick. Time expired.

Children under Government Care, Victorian Report Mr WHITE (Redchffe) (11.01 p.m.): I wish to raise the whole issue of problems facing young people today, particularly juveniles. I refer members of the House to last year's annual report of the Department of Family Services, which shows that 4 548 children came to its attention. Of that number, 739 were under total care and control, 2 920 were under total care and protection and the next largest body of young children who came to the attention of the Department of Family Services were those who are commonly known as foster children. I think it is fair to say that, since the fostering program was introduced here in Queensland, it has been a remarkable success. The lives of so many young children have been fulfilled and foster parents have played a significant role—a role that I sometimes feel that the community at large, whether it be Govemments or community organisations, has not adequately recognised. I recently read a report that the Victorian Government commissioned into the whole subject of child care into coming to grips with new programs, including conselling, and particularly into more innovative ways of dealing with the difficulty of juveniles today. I say to honourable members that 4 548 children is a very large number of children who are in trouble in Queensland at the moment. Of course, they are only the children who have come to the attention of the Department of Family Services. One of the things that came through in the report was a recommendation that I hope the Govemment will consider, that is, to ask parents to accept some degree of responsibility for their children. I refer to parents who have the wherewithal to support their children. If a decision is made that it is in the best interests of the child to be separated from the natural mother—in many cases it is a single mother—and if she is in a position to make some financial contribution, that ought to be done. In this country we have got to the stage that a considerable number of people who parent children opt out of their responsibility or abdicate it almost entirely. It is only reasonable that those people make a financial contribution so that in turn those children have a better quality of assistance through the fostering program, through counselling programs that can be offered by private agencies and, of course, through the Department of Family Services. One has only to look at the reports over the last decade to find that the numbers are increasing dramatically. But for the fostering program, we would really be in trouble. Many of the foster parents do an incredibly good job under very difficult circumstances and with very limited finances. The report contains a wide range of other recommendations that are under consideration not only by the Victorian Government but also by the New South Wales Govemment. This ought to be looked at in a non-partisan way because, when children are being dealt with, politics should not enter into it. The report ought not be set aside simply on the basis that Victoria, which commissioned it, has an ALP Govemment. The recommendations of the report call upon the parents of State wards and children put into foster care to be required to pay for their upkeep. The report, which is called Future Directions in Foster Care, was prepared in conjunction with Adjoumment 27 September 1988 881

foster-care people, care-givers and natural parents themselves. So it is not just a Govemment-initiated report. One of the recommendations that makes a lot of sense to me is the introduction of a sliding scale of parent contributions for all voluntary placements. Parents whose children were placed in care under statutory requirements—that is, where the department has mled that they are incapable of caring for the child—would be asked to contribute on the basis that they are able to do so. I believe that for too long parents have been able to hand their children over to the Government—in some cases they have virtually dumped them with the Department of Family Services—and wander off to get on with their lives without taking a great deal of interest in their children. It is a serious matter and problem that is difficult to face up to. The Victorian report is worthy of consideration by the Government and I hope that the Minister, Mr McKechnie, will give it serious consideration. Defence of Australia Mr McPHIE (Toowoomba North) (11.06 p.m.): In the last week of sitting, in the Matters of Public Interest debate I spoke about my concems on the possibility of an agreement being reached to enable the Russians to fish Australia's offshore waters, especially along the Queensland coast. My concem goes a lot further than fishing; I am concemed about defence, which I mentioned in that speech. Mr De Lacy: What about the Olympic Games? Mr McPHIE: The member for Caims should keep quiet and listen. If he has an interest in the well-being of this country and this State he might be concerned about the developments that are occurring in matters of defence. Mr Hamill interjected. Mr McPHIE: The member for Ipswich has the Amberley air force base in his back yard and knows what a great job is being done there. However, he will never be the member for Oxley, so he should not be concerned about defence matters. Recent announcements have appeared in the press about capital works projects that will be carried on in Queensland. The Federal Government has announced that an aerodrome will be constmcted at Weipa which will service the space station. A large radar system is to be installed at Oakey. Facilities for the Blackhawks will be installed at Townsville. Money will be spent on many other facilities in Queensland and the rest of Australia. An amount of $40m is being spent in Singleton on capital works for the army. Those initiatives look good on paper, but the real position is quite different. In the 1988-89 Federal Budget, there was a decrease of $160m in the defence Vote. That followed on a decrease in the previous year of $274m. Although inflation is rising, the actual amount of money being spent by the Federal Govemment on defence is decreasing. The record is not good. Those large projects that the Federal Govemment is skiting about are old. When 1 was in the air force in 1981-82, Weipa was planned to follow on straight after Derby South. Of course, the development of the Tindal air force base intervened in the meantime. All the basic work was done for the Blackhawks to transfer across at that time. We knew what facilities had to be built in those days. Those initiatives are nothing new. They are not a credit to Beazley and the Federal Government. I was involved in the Oakey radar. I handed over the operational requirements for the East Sale radar to the army and helped it write up its requirement for the installation at Oakey. Because of the cuts in defence spending, it has taken this long for the Federal Government to provide that facility. The capital equipment that has been provided is good. The professional standards of the defence forces are high, but the morale is at rock bottom, as Mr Hamill would 882 27 September 1988 Adjoumment

know if he had ever taken the care to go to Amberley—which I doubt. I doubt whether he would know where the front gate of Amberley air force base is. The morale is low. The resignation rate is well documented for the mid-level officers of all three services. Honourable members are very well aware of the problem with the pilot resignations. The air force cannot produce enough pilots to man one squadron of F-18s. There are even some F-llls at Amberley that have been put to one side and are not being used, and some Chinooks at Amberley are in mothballs, all because of pilot shortage. It is all because money is not being spent in areas in which it is needed. The mid-level officers who are resigning from all three services are not being allowed to do what they have joined up to do, that is, to practise the state of the art. Because of the penny-pinching policies of the previous Federal Govemment as well as the present Federal Govemment, the pilots are not receiving the amount of flying time, the sailors are not receiving the sea time and the soldiers are not receiving the track and gun time to exercise their abilities in the areas in which they have been trained. That is the cmx of the whole problem of the resignation rates of the mid-level officers. In 1978-79, when I was in the air force, those cuts were introduced as a cost saving to pay for more capital equipment. Annual reductions in funding have occurred. In 1982, when I left, funding was almost at rock bottom. It has decreased even further. The Federal Govemment should provide sufficient money so that the pilots can fly, the sailors can go to sea in their ships for reasonable amounts of time and the soldiers in the tanks and the gunners and infantrymen can exercise and practise the state of their art and do what they have been trained to do. They should be gainfully employed and feel useful and needed. If that happens, the Federal Govemment will not need to make massive hand-outs in an attempt to bribe the pilots to stay, the resignation rate will cease and the morale in the defence force will lift. Let those defence personnel do what they are trained to do and what they want to do—that is why they joined the services— and the problem will be overcome. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.12 p.m.