Legislative Assembly 1571 10 October 1991

NOTE: There could be differences between this document and the official printed Hansard, Vols. 319 and 320

THURSDAY, 10 OCTOBER 1991

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m.

PETITION The Acting Clerk announced the receipt of the following petition—

Child-care Legislation From Mr Beattie (51 signatories) praying that the Parliament will support the Child Care Bill 1991 and promote the development of associated regulations. Petition received.

PAPERS The following paper was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Report of the Department of Tourism, Sport and Racing for the year ended 30 June 1991. The following papers were laid on the table— Report of the Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation for the year ended 30 June 1991 Thirteenth Report of the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal constituted pursuant to section 20 of the Judges’ Salaries and Pensions Act 1967-1989.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Public Service Appointments Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts) (10.03 a.m.), by leave: Today, I am pleased to provide to the House and to the people of Queensland detailed information on appointments to the senior ranks of the public service in Queensland. I will table this information, which utterly destroys the repeated allegations by the National and Liberal Parties of cronyism on the part of the Government in its appointment of senior public servants. For nearly two years, these allegations have been pushed and promoted at every opportunity by the Leader of the National Party, by the Leader of the Liberal Party and, most notably, by those who covet their positions, namely, the member for Surfers Paradise and the member for Merthyr. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Surfers Paradise will cease interjecting. Mr W. K. GOSS: The general thrust of their allegations is threefold: that political patronage is rampant among appointments to senior public service positions; that appointments to those positions have been dominated by so-called southern imports—— Opposition members: The Mexicans. Mr W. K. GOSS: Yes, they are generally referred to as Mexicans. If I could digress for a moment, I note that Mr Cooper has promised that, after the next election, he Legislative Assembly 1572 10 October 1991 will clean out all the Mexicans. I presume that that includes the member for Surfers Paradise and, of course, Mr Stoneman. The third allegation is that the appointments have been overloaded with academics. The information that I will table today demonstrates conclusively the falsity of these claims. The information covers appointments to the Senior Executive Service, which comprises the upper ranks of the public service. The SES came into existence in July this year. To date, 274 of the 334 positions within the SES have been filled. All of the appointments have been made on the basis of rigorous merit-based selection standards and procedures, which previous National Party and National/Liberal Party Governments either never applied or conveniently discarded. The information that I table today shows 199 appointees to the SES drawn directly from the Queensland public sector. The vast majority in the SES—228, or 83 per cent—are Queenslanders. Ninety-one per cent of the SES appointees have tertiary qualifications. Seventy-one per cent have Queensland qualifications. Of the 274, there are five academics in the SES, four of whom are from Queensland. Allegations of political patronage and cronyism can be sustained only where it can be demonstrated that a person has been appointed to a position on the basis of his political affiliations; where a person is not selected on the basis of merit, but on the basis of political preference. It would be ludicrous to suggest that none of the 274 appointees to the SES has any political affiliation or preference—be it to the Labor Party, National Party, Liberal Party or any other party. In fairness to the SES, I table this information and say that, unless it can be shown that a person is not competent or qualified for the job to which he has been appointed, and that fair selection procedures have not been adhered to, then allegations of cronyism are nothing more than the bayings of the slur and smear merchants. I challenge the leaders of the National and Liberal Parties to demonstrate how any one of the 274 appointees to the SES does not have the relevant qualifications or experience for the position; in other words, does not have merit. The Government has nothing to hide in its appointment of senior public servants. As I mentioned earlier, we are pleased to have the full list of appointees and their qualifications open to scrutiny by anyone. I present to the House this detailed information. As a matter of courtesy, I will forward a copy of it to the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission, which I understand is looking at what might be described as a smorgasbord of smear from the member for Surfers Paradise. When it comes to Government appointments outside the public service—boards, authorities, corporations, commissions and other statutory bodies—again, the overriding principle is the same. Here, too, there will inevitably be some appointments of people with political affiliations both to the party in Government and to the parties in opposition. But, once again, appointment will be on the basis of qualifications, experience and merit.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Radioactive Waste Store, Esk State Forest Hon. K. V. McELLIGOTT (Thuringowa—Minister for Health) (10.08 a.m.), by leave: Last Friday, I released the draft environmental impact statement—the EIS—relating to the proposal to locate a low- grade radioactive waste store within the Esk State forest at a site 12 kilometres from the township of Esk. The draft EIS concluded— “The construction of the proposed radioactive waste storage facility and the procedures proposed to be adopted for this handling and storage of materials, will not present an unacceptable risk to public health and safety, nor will it result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.” Legislative Assembly 1573 10 October 1991

Since the release of the draft EIS, a number of people have embarked on a campaign to spread fear amongst residents of the Esk Shire and, indeed, the residents of Brisbane, particularly in relation to the safety of Brisbane's water supply. Prominent among them is the Leader of the National Party, Mr Cooper. As I pointed out yesterday, Mr Cooper has changed his tune somewhat since the days when, as Premier, his Government informed the community that there was absolutely no risk of leaks even if the material went under water. We are witnessing a ruthless campaign of fear being orchestrated by the Opposition Leader to scare the families and children of the Esk region. Mr Cooper stands condemned for his hypocrisy, because he knows that what he has been saying is untrue. Such a campaign has the potential to cause harm to the economy of the shire and to cause unnecessary anxiety to the people. Amongst the sea of politically inspired hysteria, we needed a statesman who was prepared to come out with the facts without political bias. Such a person is the editor of the Gatton, Lockyer and Brisbane Valley Star who, in an editorial yesterday, Wednesday, 9 October, had this to say under the heading “China Syndrome”— “Professor Thomas of the Queensland University of Technology summed up the tremendous dilemma facing the people of Esk with the proposed radioactive storage waste facility when, speaking on ABC television on Monday night, he said the risk factor was virtually nil. He also said the proposed site and building at Redbank would have been perfectly safe. That's about it. We have heard such outlandish cries in the past few months that the district has now been branded because of a problem that is merely a figment of the imagination. And it would appear that these unsubstantiated emotional outcries have only just begun. We had Esk Shire Chairman, Cr Jean Bray—in an effort to draw more attention—claiming that Brisbane's water supply was at risk. It shows how little she knows about the matter that is to be stored there. The matter doesn't dissolve in water and is not affected by it in any way. The storage site in Brisbane went under in the 1974 floods. There was also the claim that an accident while waste material was being transported across the dam wall could cause havoc. Why? It would merely sit on the bottom until it was located by monitoring equipment. Transports cross the dam wall daily carrying fuels and chemicals. The threat from one of these if it were to crash over the dam wall would be countless times greater. If the Esk Shire Council had been offered the munitions factory would councillors have knocked it back? What about trucks loaded with explosives leaving the factory—would they not have provided a far greater risk? And to make it even more unbelievable, some of the councillors who are against the facility were in favour of an abattoir and 5000-head feedlot at Coominya. What would be the relative risk factors there? The leader of the Opposition, Russell Cooper, who hopes to be the next Member for the region under the new electoral boundaries, was out there yesterday giving his support.” Mr Speaker, I desire that the next part of the quote be heard in absolute silence— Legislative Assembly 1574 10 October 1991

“Two of his party, the Member for Lockyer, Tony FitzGerald, and the Member for Somerset, Bill Gunn, in discussion with the editor of this newspaper—the first at the Gatton Show dinner, the second at the launching of Bill Blake's book—agreed the facility provided no risk whatsoever. Opponents to the facility have only one legitimate reason for complaint—it should have been put at Redbank where a facility had been constructed at a cost to all residents of Queensland. Those who do have a genuine complaint are real estate agents who have seen their businesses decimated by pedlars of inanities.” So all parties in this House can now agree that the facility will cause no detriment. Any member who seeks to do otherwise will do so only for party-political purposes and will stand condemned. Unlike the previous Government, the Goss Government has made all the relevant information publicly available, so there is no excuse for ignorance. I repeat: there is no excuse for ignorance. It is my intention to work closely with the Esk Shire Council and the community in reviewing the draft EIS to remove any untruths and distortions from the debate so that the people can get on with their lives.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Absence of Ministers during Question-time Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (10.14 a.m.), by leave: I have to inform the House that the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Education will be absent from the House during question-time.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (10.14 a.m.), by leave: Yesterday in this House, the Treasurer made false accusations that evidence I gave to the banking inquiry sitting in Charleville was inaccurate. I make the point that evidence given at that inquiry was given under oath and under parliamentary privilege. The Treasurer also made a point that no representation had been made to him by me personally on matters relating to the QIDC falling under his jurisdiction. I point out to honourable members that the reason why no such representation was made to the Treasurer is that we have been told on numerous occasions that political representation to the Treasurer on such matters constitutes, under the Goss Government, either corruption or cronyism. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will not allow the member for Warrego to debate that issue. He must state clearly how he was personally misrepresented. Mr HOBBS: The Treasurer made accusations. I have it here. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Get to it, then. Mr HOBBS: He has misrepresented me. On the other hand, if approaches are made, it is apparent that any representations will most likely result in the private business of QIDC clients being exposed to the public through the Parliament, therefore reducing the likelihood of that client receiving fair treatment. It was claimed by the Treasurer also that I raised a specific complaint about the Charleville manager of the QIDC. At no stage did I mention the Charleville manager of the QIDC. Further, the Treasurer stated that the maximum interest rate charged by the QIDC was 15.75 per cent. That is still 2.75 per cent above the base rate of commercial banks. No wonder the Treasurer returned $18.4m to consolidated revenue. The Treasurer has made that money off the parched bones of borrowers, and I get proof of that daily. Legislative Assembly 1575 10 October 1991

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1. HOME Scheme Mr BEANLAND asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government— “With reference to his HOME scheme with its fixed interest rate of 14.9 per cent while current housing loans are 12.5 per cent— (1) How many people have loans under the HOME scheme with their interest rate fixed at 14.9 per cent? (2) What is the average dollar value for loans taken out under HOME at 14.9 per cent? (3) What is the largest dollar value for a loan taken out under HOME at 14.9 per cent? (4) What is the smallest dollar value for a loan taken out under HOME at 14.9 per cent? (5) What is the difference between the monthly interest payment on an average dollar value loan taken out under HOME at 14.9 per cent and a similar average loan taken out at (a) 10.9 per cent, (b) 11.9 per cent, (c) 12.9 per cent and (d) 13.9 per cent?” Mr BURNS: As the answer is very lengthy, I seek leave to table it and have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. I thank the Honourable Member for this question as it will enable me to clear up the deliberately misleading statements that some Opposition Members are peddling. I say some Opposition Members for on returning to my office last week after Question Time in which the Liberal/National Parties tried to denigrate the H.O.M.E. scheme, on my desk was a letter from an Opposition Member of Parliament pleading that I help his constituent to get a H.O.M.E. loan quickly. He said his constituent was seeking finance to purchase his own home and so far had been unable to obtain a loan through the normal channels—banks, building societies or finance companies. Other Opposition Members are on record in local papers saying the big advantage of the scheme is the fixed rate of interest, which allows exact knowledge of what repayments will be each year. So whilst they attack the scheme here, they know their constituents need it to get a start. Its the only chance for many Queenslanders. Mr. Speaker, let me first lay to rest the claims by Liberal/National Party Members who have agreed to sell off Housing Commission homes and throw the tenants on the street that people are locked into the H.O.M.E. Scheme. When I first took over this portfolio I found a legacy of inappropriate, costly programmes with the true costs to the Government hidden in the books of the former Housing Commission. These costs had never been revealed, the lending growth never planned. One of my first tasks as Housing Minister was to bring together the former programmes into separate lending trusts so that the true costs of these programmes could be clearly seen. In the last year alone these old programmes have cost the Government $14 million to support; clearly an unsustainable and untenable position. Legislative Assembly 1576 10 October 1991

The Goss Labor Government decided that we should look at schemes throughout Australia that we could redesign or modify to give those who had no chance of borrowing to buy a home through mainstream financial institutions. The NSW Government was operating a low start fixed interest loan scheme and we used that as a basis for the design of Queensland's H.O.M.E. Scheme. H.O.M.E. is for families and single people who because of low income or low deposit cannot borrow enough from a bank or building society to buy a home. These people can borrow more with the H.O.M.E. Loan because it is a low start loan. This means that the initial repayments are less than the interest charged on the loan so in the early years the loan balance can increase before it decreases. This type of loan is now being adopted by Housing Authorities throughout Australia. Even the Victorians who held on the a variable interest type loan for a long while have recently moved to fixed interest lending. Fixed interest rates are essential if the H.O.M.E. loan is to work because if the loan interest rate were to increase borrowers could find that their loan never pays off or that their repayments increase to inaffordable levels. We recognised at the outset that our scheme after giving Queensland families their first ever chance of home ownership should not lock them into the scheme if after they became established in their home they felt they could do better elsewhere. Fixed interest loan schemes are operated by many banks and building societies and were operating in Queensland at the time we started H.O.M.E. All operate on the basis of the borrower paying a penalty (some of up to 3 months repayments) for borrowers who had a windfall and wanted to pay off the loan or who could refinance elsewhere. (That penalty can amount to 2 or 3 thousand dollars.) The Labor Government decided quite rightly that we should not penalise Queenslanders who wanted to borrow to get their first chance of a home of their own. So, let me say it again, no one is permanently locked into their H.O.M.E. loan, they can move to another financial institution at any time with no penalty. This is how the Government’s programmes should work, supporting people when they need the Government’s support but not inhibiting them from moving to the private sector when they can afford to do so. This is a point which is especially relevant to H.O.M.E. borrowers at 14.9 per cent; these people could not have borrowed enough from the private sector when they took out their loan. As I said fixed term loans are part of the regular home loan financial systems—to suggest the Government is alone in such schemes is completely untrue. In NSW the Greiner Government this year announced an increase in its version of H.O.M.E. to a total of 1500 million dollars. In fact the NSW Premier wrote to Queensland welcoming our initiative in the home loan area and offering to co-operate with us in a home borrowing programme. Mr. Greiner said in a letter to the Premier: “We have found a low-start fixed-rate product to be most suitable for the circumstances of lower-income people. “The fixed-rate shields borrowers from interest rate increases (if interest rates fall they are free to refinance), and the low start schedule significantly increases affordability.” Mr. Greiner lent like we did on fixed interest for 10 years. We selected a 10 year term because our scheme is a low deposit low start scheme based on repayments of a fixed percent of income. This allows a young couple with little funds on savings to sit down with a financial counsellor and work out what they will pay each week for the next 10 years with complete certainty and then plan their family budget around those repayments. Legislative Assembly 1577 10 October 1991

On 3 occasions during our processing of their applications they have explained the fixed interest provisions. The real risk is taken by the Government, because other lending institutions will not lend on $2,000 deposit to many of these families. I hope that helps Honourable Members to understand the scheme and why all sections of the real estate and building industry welcomed the Government's initiative because of the opportunities it gave thousands of Queensland families to try for home ownership which had been denied them previously. Specific answers: 1. Numbers of loans at 14.9% Home loans 893 (rate fixed for approx 10 years.) 2. Average dollar value of these loans. Home loans $70,000 3. Largest loan taken out $100,000 4. Smallest loan H.O.M.E. Loan $20,000 5. What is the difference between the monthly interest payment on an average dollar value loan taken out under home at 14.9% with a similar average loan taken out at each of the following interest rates? 10.9; 11.9; 12.9; 13.9 This question shows the lack of understanding of the programme. There is no “monthly interest payment” rather repayments start on a low start schedule and relate to the income of the borrower. Further there are no loans currently available from established landing institutions in Queensland at rates of 10.9 or 11.9 per cent. Longer term fixed rates (i.e. 5 Years) range from 13 per cent at the ANZ bank to 14 per cent at the Commonwealth Bank. In addition whilst current H.O.M.E. Loans are being approved at 13.4 per cent the average loan has increased to $80,000 reflecting higher property values and negating much of the individual benefit of the lower interest rate. The new H.O.M.E. programmes are now on a sound financial footing, funded under a formal funding agreement with the Queensland Treasury Corporation and managed by the Department of Housing and Local Government. They are funded through separate funding trusts so that the cost of the programmes is clearly evident. I have recently had one of Australia’s leading accountancy firms Coopers and Lybrand undertake a rigorous examination of the financial monitoring and control of the programme. Coopers have projected the programme 20 years into the future. The loans are funded in a way which matches the cost of funds raised with the return from borrowers. We are not wasting millions of dollars in interest subsidies but we are achieving a stable and accessible programme for the people of this State, not just in 1991 but for many years to come.

2. Mr D. Logan; Suncorp Mr LITTLEPROUD asked the Treasurer— “With reference to assurances given to him by the board of Suncorp that they would honour the recommendations of a review by Bob Gotterson, QC, into the Legislative Assembly 1578 10 October 1991

notice of termination of employment of the reigning Mr Suncorp, Mr David Logan and as the Suncorp board have not honoured this undertaking— (1) What action does he propose to take? (2) Will he ensure that the report is released? (3) Is he aware of the contents of the report by Mr Gotterson, QC, which reportedly includes major criticism of Suncorp’s management practices?” Mr De LACY: In response to the honourable member, I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. On 16 April 1991, Mr R.W. Gotterson QC was requested (pursuant to Section 15(5) of the Suncorp Insurance and Finance Act) to review a decision by the Corporation to terminate the employment of D.J. Logan on 28 February 1991. On 16 July 1991, Mr Gotterson submitted his recommendations in regard to his review. The Board of Suncorp Insurance and Finance, at its July 1991 meeting (held on 31 July/1 August in Gladstone/Rockhampton) considered these recommendations and resolved to adopt them in full. On 2 August the Corporation’s solicitors were instructed to proceed with the implementation of the recommendations immediately. Negotiations in terms of those recommendations have been continuing since 2 August between the Corporation's solicitor and Mr Logan’s solicitor. Of the five recommendations put forward by Mr Gotterson, recommendations one to four have now been agreed with Mr Logan. Recommendation five has not been implemented as Mr Logan’s solicitors have not yet provided the required information. The full Report has not been released as it was a Report to the Board of Suncorp and in accordance with the normal practice of the Board, will remain confidential to the Board. However, a copy of the recommendations was provided to Logan following their adoption by the Board, in accordance with a direction from Mr Gotterson on 14 May 1991. In undertaking the review, Mr Gotterson did not find it necessary to review the management practices of Suncorp. Mr Gotterson was informed as to the management structure of Suncorp as part of the review process, but it is both inaccurate and misleading to assert there was any major criticism of management practices. It was not relevant to the report and Mr Gotterson did not indulge in any such review or criticism.

3. Permanent Court of Appeal Mr LITTLEPROUD asked the Attorney-General— “With reference to an article in the Courier-Mail on 9 October referring to a permanent court of appeal within the Supreme Court and potential members of that court— Will he confirm that Justice Pincus and Justice Spender of the Federal Court are two of the Government’s preferred potential members of that court?” Mr WELLS: The answer to the honourable member’s question is: no, of course not.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Ministerial Code of Conduct Mr BORBIDGE: I ask the Premier: why is he refusing to table guidelines for his ministerial code of conduct as recommended by an EARC discussion paper on public Legislative Assembly 1579 10 October 1991 sector auditing and in accordance with his commitment to do so, which he made in this House on 6 March 1990? Will he table these guidelines today in order to disprove suspicions that his deliberate stalling tactics will allow him to retrospectively validate the actions of certain Ministers associated with current CJC inquiries? Mr W. K. GOSS: The matter of the EARC discussion paper is yet to be the subject of a report and recommendation to Cabinet and the Government. When it is considered by Cabinet, the member will then be informed as to what will occur following that. As for any connection between that matter and the CJC inquiry into the travelling expenses of members of the National Party, Liberal Party and Labor Party in the 1986-89 Parliament—there is no connection.

Producers Incentive Scheme Mr BORBIDGE: I ask the Premier: why did the Queensland Film Development Office within his department make available $50,000 on 6 June this year to one Rosa Colosomo, a resident of Victoria? Why were Queenslanders not given the opportunity for funding under the producers incentive scheme and when were applications called? Why has the Premier permitted $50,000 of Queensland taxpayers’ funds to be made available to an interstate producer, in addition to over $350,000 that has been made available to companies associated with Mr Michael Lake, a member of the film assessment panel? Mr W. K. GOSS: I do not have that information with me at present.

Drought Aid Package Mr PREST: I ask the Deputy Premier: can he inform the House how the $200,000 relief funds in the Government’s drought aid package will be allocated and does he agree with the Federal Leader of the Liberal Party, Dr Hewson, that welfare groups in Australia are more interested in building their own bureaucracies than in helping the poor? Mr BURNS: On Tuesday this week, we went to Toowoomba to announce, together with Lifeline, the package of $135,000 which is to be spent on counselling services for people in the drought area where families are in need. This is the first time a Government has spent money on people in drought areas in this way. None of the previous Governments ever did any family counselling. We have always spent money on fodder for stock, restocking and things of that nature, but we have done little about the families. I have met people who have been sitting on their farms with their head in their hands not knowing where the next meal will come from or whether they can pay their phone bill. The telephone is the connection that they have with the rest of the community and their link to get help. Some women are taking the last food off their plates to feed their kids and we have to do something about it. There is a lot of pride in the rural community and farming families. They do not want to come to town and say, “We have tough times. We can’t make ends meet.” I am very grateful to the Uniting Church because this Government has given it a very hard task. We have given it $100,000 and we are providing four cars from Ron McLean’s Administrative Services Department. Four counsellors will be put on the road for the next six months. Hopefully, the rains will come, but there will still be need straight after the rain. The drought will not go away the day after it rains. People must be put out there to help. I could not understand Dr Hewson’s attack on people such as Lifeline and other community welfare organisations. It was completely and utterly wrong for the Liberal Party to attack such organisations which are out in the community trying to help. It is typical of those silver-tails in the Liberal Party. They do not see the problems down at grassroots level. They regard these community groups as some sort of growth industry and worry about handing Legislative Assembly 1580 10 October 1991 out welfare payments. That is the reason why they have never looked at this problem themselves. People who receive welfare are not second rate. Noel Park and the people from Lifeline have established a substantial network of people, funding, clothes and other material that they have gathered together over years of service. They have people who will help train the counsellors and get them on the road. It is not a lot of money and that is why I say, “Thank you” to Lifeline. We really do not know what the problem is. This operation will give us an idea what we should do in future droughts and give us an opportunity to make some plans as to how we can help families in need in those locations. Hopefully, the counsellors can go to the farm gates and talk to mum, dad and the kids on the property. As Noel Park said the other day, if the few bob that we can hand out stops someone from shooting himself or doing something silly to his family, then we have achieved something. We are grateful to the support of Lifeline, and another organisation in Roma that will work in cooperation with Lifeline. This is a small amount of money but it is a task that we have to address. We will try to address it in the best way we possibly can.

Federal Opposition Policy on Unemployment Benefits Mr PREST: In directing a question to the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations, I acknowledge the concern felt in the community about the impact of unemployment, especially on the young people of Queensland and people in rural areas, and I ask: what would the impact be if these people were thrown off the dole after nine months, as suggested federally? Mr WARBURTON: I thank the honourable member for that very important question. This answer will follow very well behind the comments made by the Deputy Premier in this House today because, unquestionably, as a result of the recession—we admit it—and as a result of drought conditions in this State, young people and workers in the rural community are finding life very difficult indeed. The unemployment queues are growing; that is the truth of the issue, and there is no doubt about it. Any person who cares in any way whatsoever for those unfortunate people and who listens to the plans of the Hewson clique in this country would shudder. After Hewson got caught, the newspapers say that he indicated that he would change his dole plan in September this year. He has not changed it yet, and the clear policy of the Liberal Party and the National Party in this country at this stage is unchanged; that is, they would rip the dole or unemployment benefits off the unemployed workers in the rural sector of this State after a period of nine months. That is their policy, and at this stage it is unchanged. Mr Littleproud: You ask them if they’d like a job. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Condamine will cease interjecting. Mr WARBURTON: Of course they would like to work, and of course they would like a job. On numerous occasions in this Parliament, I have indicated to all members of the opposition parties that at least the State of Queensland is carrying out its obligations, to the extent that it is possible for a State Government to do so, to help Queensland’s unemployed people. I have told them that this Government did not put together a record TAFE budget of more than $400m for nothing. In the early part of this year, we did not go virtually cap in hand to the Commonwealth Government to arrange a deal worth $11.7m for nothing. We put the funds into training unemployed workers. While members of this Government are out in the community carrying out their responsibilities and doing what they can through TAFE and various schemes which are designed to help unemployed people and which are overviewed by my employment division, the Hewson people—members of the National Party and the Liberal Party in this State—are indicating that, irrespective of what the Labor Party does as a Government, Legislative Assembly 1581 10 October 1991 they will bludgeon the unemployed to death after nine months. Let me tell the House of the effect that that would have. Mr Randell interjected. Mr WARBURTON: If members opposite gave it some thought, they would realise that the effect on workers and their families would be disastrous for this State and this country. My response to the question is that yes, I am concerned. Everybody on the Government side of the House is concerned. I have no doubt that everybody on the Opposition side of the House is concerned about the impact on this country of unemployment; but, for heaven’s sake, if they have any feeling whatsoever for the hundreds and hundreds of people in the rural sector whom they purport to represent, they should do something about the Liberal Party’s Federal Leader and the people in Canberra who want to rip unemployment benefits off people after nine months.

Unemployment Mr BEANLAND: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to the answer given by the Minister to the previous question and also to the fact that the current recession was boasted about by Labor as the recession that “we had to have”. I refer also to the Treasurer’s frequent boasts about Queensland’s so-called strong economic recovery. In the light of the recession that Labor said we “had to have” and the Treasurer’s boasts, I ask: does he expect that there will be a substantial drop in the State’s unemployment figures that will be announced some time later today? Mr De LACY: I thank the honourable member for the question. Obviously, I cannot comment on today’s unemployment figures. Mr Beanland: Are they going to drop? Mr De LACY: Maybe the member for Toowong knows something that I do not know. Just let me say that I have never said that there is a strong recovery in Queensland. What I have said is that Queensland is leading Australia out of the recession and has been doing so for the last six months. If one looks across the whole range of leading economic indicators, the evidence is indisputable. If one analyses the whole range of unemployment indicators, it will be obvious that Queensland is performing better than the rest of Australia. Queensland is the only State that has created a net increase in jobs in the last six months. New South Wales, which used to lead Australia in employment, is coming back to the field and is coming back very quickly. I do not know what the unemployment figures will be today, but I am confident that they will continue the trend that shows to every disinterested observer in Australia that Queensland is performing better than every other State.

Queensland Police Service Overtime Mr BEANLAND: I ask the Minister for Police: can he table in the House details of all the overtime payments for the Queensland operational Police Service for the period 1 July 1991 to 1 October 1991 and of the previous overtime payments made for the same period in the preceding five years? Can he also explain to the House why his Government’s policy is to turn the Queensland Police Service into a Monday-to-Friday, 9-to-5 operation? Why are victims of crime being denied police assistance at weekends and given the explanation that no police are available because of overtime bans? Mr MACKENROTH: In answer to the member’s question—yes, I could table that information, but I do not intend to do so. I do not intend to waste the time of police officers in compiling the great mass of information that has just been requested by the Leader of the Liberal Party. In fact, if the honourable member was concerned about having police Legislative Assembly 1582 10 October 1991 out on operational duties, he would not have asked for such information. The reality is that under this Government, the numbers of police in Queensland, as at 30 June this year, have increased by 600. Under the previous situation, overtime was granted to different police stations within this State depending upon their establishment. No analysis was done of the need to work overtime. There was simply an allocation for the year, and overtime was worked throughout the year. Also, there was an allocation for penalty rates. The system of regionalisation, as recommended by Tony Fitzgerald, has enabled the Police Service to give budgets to each region. This Government has made the assistant commissioners in each of those regions responsible for their own budget. In doing that, they have looked at the way in which money is being spent within their regions. I have read in the newspapers about members of this Parliament and police officers complaining about the fact that there is no overtime in one-man police stations. Police officers in one-man police stations have never received overtime. They receive an overtime allowance and are required to be available for duty 24 hours a day. Nothing was ever taken away from those officers. Members of Parliament from the opposite side of the House are saying that the Labor Government is leaving those towns without a police presence. That is totally untrue. In relation to some of the payments—it was found that one particular officer needed to leave his district headquarters and visit different towns. That officer always visited the towns that he had to visit on show holidays, so that he received double time. He has now been asked to go to those towns on other days so that this Government can save money. The money is not there so that police officers can simply bolster their wages. It is there to provide a proper police service. The problem that police have, as I see it, is that under the previous National Liberal Party Government they were never paid a fair wage. This Government, on taking office, immediately entered into award restructuring with the Queensland Police Department. Within the next few days, or possibly within the next two weeks, the Industrial Commission will hand down its decision in relation to police salaries. That decision will certainly remedy the situation that has existed for a long time.

Sexist Jokes Mr PALASZCZUK: I refer the Premier to the reported comments of the member for Landsborough in relation to offensive jokes circulating in certain public service offices, and I ask: will he advise the House of the Government’s attitude to this practice? Can he confirm which public service officers were involved in the circulation of the sexist jokes? Mr W. K. GOSS: I think it is important that members understand—and I would like the public to understand also—that this fax did not come from my office. I think there would be confusion on the part of some people that the Premier’s Department is the Premier’s office. This fax did not come from my office. However, I have been able to confirm that it did come from a fax machine on the third floor of the Premier’s Department. Mr Littleproud: Did you check out the car pool on level two, because you didn’t check it out the other day? Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a facetious suggestion. Mr W. K. GOSS: I have missed the point, because I do not know what the car pool has to do with this. This matter has been raised, and I think that a lot of people would find it offensive. I simply want to say that I understand that a number of these jokes are quite offensive to women and, I believe, to many other people in the community. I would like to assure the public, and I would like to assure honourable members, that this fax did not come from my office, which has a different designation in terms—— An honourable member interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: It is true. Legislative Assembly 1583 10 October 1991

Mr Borbidge: You are only accountable in here and not in your department. Mr W. K. GOSS: If the member for Surfers Paradise is endeavouring to suggest that I have a responsibility for the fax machine on the third floor—— Mr Borbidge: You are responsible for the department. Mr W. K. GOSS: Mr Borbidge says that I have responsibility for my department. Let me say that I accept his charge without qualification. I want to say what my policy is in relation to this offensive incident, that is, that I cannot control the jokes that public servants tell each other, but I will ask departmental heads to tell public servants that this material should not be circulated on public service fax machines. There are two other matters that I want to mention. They are both significant, because I think that jokes in the community are, sometimes, offensive. I was amused, however, to hear on the radio this morning, on B105, the morning crew telephone the home of Mrs Sheldon and speak to a family member and ask him what he thought of it. Mr FitzGerald: You are going to bring this stuff into Parliament. Come on! Mr W. K. GOSS: All I want to say is that I make no criticism of the Sheldon family. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lockyer will cease interjecting. I warn him under Standing Order 123A. Mr W. K. GOSS: It is, no doubt, an understandable human reaction for somebody to laugh at such a matter. The other matter that I want to raise is more important—— Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. My point of order—and I ask you to give a ruling, Mr Speaker—— Dr Watson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Moggill! I cannot hear the point of order being raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I warn the honourable member for Moggill under Standing Order 123A. Mr BORBIDGE: My point of order is: is it appropriate for the dignity of the Parliament for the Premier to make a sleazy attack on members of the family of one of the members of this Parliament. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. Mr BORBIDGE: He is a sleazebag—an absolute sleazebag. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. I remind members on both sides of the House that when I am on my feet, members will resume their seats. If they do not, I will take action. There is no point of order. I call the Premier. Mr Borbidge: Sleazy Wayne. Mr W. K. GOSS: Thank you, Mr Borbidge. The last matter that I want to mention is that what some people do not realise—including those people who have been spreading the rumour that this document was given to the member for Landsborough by a Government MP—is that many fax machines record not only the number of the fax machine from which the document was sent but also the number to which it was sent. The fax machine on the third floor of the Premier’s Department is such a machine. It records the number to which the fax was sent. Mr Veivers: They all do that. Mr W. K. GOSS: Good. The important thing is that this one does. I have with me a document, which I intend to table. It is headed “Activity Report on Transmissions from the Fax Machine on the Third Floor of the Premier’s Department”. It records the document Legislative Assembly 1584 10 October 1991 number that is on the top of the list of jokes that was tabled by the member for Landsborough last night. It coincides with the time and it records the number to which the fax was sent. So this will tell us between whom these offensive jokes are circulating and whom the member for Landsborough dealt with. The fax number to which it was sent was 2290895. I also table a copy of the relevant page of the 1991 Queensland Government Directory, which records that fax number as being allocated to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rob Borbidge. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.

PRIVILEGE

Tabling of Document by Member for Landsborough Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (10.41 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Last night, the Parliament was told by the member for Landsborough that this document was given to her by a Government MP. As it is quite apparent that the document did not come from a Government MP, I ask that the member for Landsborough be asked to apologise to the House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! If a member deliberately misleads the House in a statement, then a matter of privilege does arise. A member may say something, believing it to be true, and that does not become a matter of privilege. If a member has deliberately misled the House, then that is a contempt of the House. In my view, it is up to the member for Landsborough to respond to that statement, if she wishes. An Opposition member interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member wants to, I said. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (10.42 a.m.): I move— “If the member for Landsborough is not prepared to apologise to the House, that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee.” Mrs SHELDON: Mr Speaker, I would like to quote exactly what I said last night. It is in Hansard. Mr Palaszczuk: You can’t read from Hansard. Mrs SHELDON: I have been accused of something that is incorrect. I have been asked to give an explanation to the House; I am. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will allow the member to read from Hansard on this matter. Mrs SHELDON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I said— “This document was given to me by a member of the Labor Party”— those were my words—“of the Labor Party”— “who was sickened and disgusted by it . . .” I suggest that next time, before he makes accusations, the Premier checks the words that were used. May I add further that I did not get the document from Mr Borbidge. Legislative Assembly 1585 10 October 1991

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Proposed Conservation Tax Mr PALASZCZUK: My second question is directed to the Minister for Environment and Heritage. I ask: is he aware that the Liberal Party in Queensland is advocating a new tax to pay for conservation initiatives? Does the Government support such a tax? Mr COMBEN: I was quite surprised to discover that there is still being circulated by the Liberal Party today its old and hackneyed conservation and environment policy produced prior to the last election but apparently still up and current. Under the heading “Conservation Policy”, which deals with a range of conservation matters, that document states— “The implementation of this policy will be costly. The Liberal Government will therefore ask the conservation movement to support it in seeking Commonwealth funding for the initiative. Should this fail the movement”— that is, the conservation movement— “will be asked to support the introduction of a special conservation tax to provide funding.” What we have in this State today is a Liberal Party claiming to be green, claiming to be a low-tax opposition and, if it gets into Government, a low-tax Government, saying that there will be a goods and services tax and a special conservation tax. The document also states that the Liberal Party will impose an annual inspection levy to cover the high level of inspection made necessary by people who will pollute. The Liberals are proposing at least three different taxes. The Liberals and GST in this State will mean Liberals with growing secret taxes. Under the Liberal Party, Queensland would no longer be a low-tax State. Under a Liberal Government, if we were ever to see one—I doubt that that will occur in my lifetime—it would be a system of funding by stealth, by deceit and by secret taxes.

Willows Harness Racing Club Mr VEIVERS: I ask the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing: can he confirm that his department has disallowed seven race dates for the Willows Harness Racing Club in Townsville? Mr GIBBS: My department certainly has not disallowed racing dates for the Willows Harness Racing Club. I understand that the Queensland Harness Racing Board, which has been appointed to run the affairs of the harness racing industry in Queensland, has decided that, owing to the ongoing financial problems at the Willows venue in Townsville, those dates have been—— Mr Stoneman: Created by you. Mr GIBBS: No, they were not created by me, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions. For the information of members of the Opposition, I point out that the position is so parlous that, recently, the Harness Racing Board had to fork out $10,000 which was required to pay for the public liability insurance at the ground. I understand that the Harness Racing Board is examining the future of the complex and that a decision will be made this week on the issue. The honourable member may be interested to know that, only yesterday, I signed the documentation relating to an outstanding loan of $100,000 that had been granted by the former Government from the Racing Development Fund conditional on repayment by trustees of the harness racing club over a period of 10 years at $10,000 per year interest-free. To date, not one penny of that money has been repaid. Because of that debt problem, I have been put into a position in which I have had to write Legislative Assembly 1586 10 October 1991 that debt off and turn it into a grant from the Racing Development Fund. As I said, the Harness Racing Board is presently in the process of making a decision on the future of the ground.

Willows Harness Racing Club Mr VEIVERS: Bearing in mind the Minister’s answer to my first question, I ask: is it not true that the real reason for the cancellation of those race dates and the general running-down of the Willows Raceway by him and his department is to make room for the North Queensland Cowboys to be based for the 1993 Winfield Cup Rugby League season at the Willows complex, despite the fact that the first and only choice of the North Queensland Cowboys is to be based at the Townsville Reserve football oval? Mr GIBBS: The Townsville Cowboys is a private-enterprise organisation. As such, the Government has in no way interfered with its private business affairs or attempted to influence that organisation in its choice of ground. I have had several discussions with Mr Kerry Boustead from the Cowboys, who approached my department for assistance in the form of lending support, which it was only too pleased to give, for the Cowboys’ application to enter the New South Wales and, ultimately, the Australian Rugby League competition. There has been no deal between that organisation and my department, me or anybody else on the Willows ground being used as a future base for the North Queensland Cowboys. The whole future of the Cowboys, of course, depends on whether the New South Wales Rugby League grants that organisation a licence to compete in the 1993 Australian Rugby League competition. However, should it eventuate at some time that the Harness Racing Board, in its wisdom, decides that harness racing should cease in Townsville, I will certainly not be prepared to see a $5.5m complex—which was built under the former Government and which, by the time it is paid off in the year 2001, will have cost the taxpayers of this State $18m for a return so far of slightly better than a quarter of a million dollars—put into mothballs and left to sit rotting without being utilised for some useful purpose.

Sexist Jokes Mr SCHWARTEN: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the statement to this House this morning by the member for Landsborough that her sexist jokes document did not come from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I ask: can the Premier provide any further information to clarify that matter? Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that a personal explanation made by a member may not be debated. I suggest that the question being asked by the member for Rockhampton North is seeking to debate the issue. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr W. K. GOSS: I will be very brief, Mr Speaker. I note the comment which clarified the report in some sections of the media that the document had come from a Government MP, which I think was the report that I saw. That has been clarified by the member for Landsborough, who has also assured the House unequivocally that the document did not come from the member for Surfers Paradise. I simply advise the House, however, that the document tabled by the member for Landsborough was not a copy; she was given the original document that arrived in the office of Mr Borbidge. She has the original document that Mr Borbidge received. I return it to the table. Legislative Assembly 1587 10 October 1991

Queensland Police Administration Mr SCHWARTEN: I ask the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: is he aware of claims in today’s Rockhampton Morning Bulletin by the member for Peak Downs that the Queensland police administration had regressed dramatically and that the fault did not lie with the service’s administration, but rather the tight purse strings under which it had to operate. Mr MACKENROTH: Yes, I am aware of the claims. Yes, we have digressed from when the member for Peak Downs was the Minister for Police back in 1989. All members who were here then would remember that the member for Peak Downs went on a tour right around the State and directed the police to hold in his honour barbecues, the funding for which came out of the Police budget. As Minister for Police, the member for Peak Downs was so concerned about Emu Park, where he lives, that he did nothing about increasing the police there from one to two. Now that he has made the decision that he will run again for Parliament, he claims that it is essential to increase the number. However, Emu Park, where he lived and had lived for many years, was not in his electorate. We all know that the member for Peak Downs did not worry much about what he did in looking after his electorate. When I became Minister, I looked at some of the things that he had done. Two days before the election, he directed the police to purchase a ride-on mower for a police station in his electorate. This is the person who this week has made the decision to be born again. He is going to ensure that he goes forward backwards. In recent times, he has not even had the decency to grace this House with his presence very often. Now that he has decided that he is not going to retire, I hope that he can return to the days when he used to at least come and sit in the Chamber occasionally. In relation to the claims that were made in the press today—the member for Peak Downs claimed that we have tight purse strings. This morning, I answered a question about the police. Yes, the police have been asked to look after their own budgets. As a result of that, instead of a police officer being paid to relieve in Emu Park and to stay at the hotel when he is not on duty, he is required to go back home to Rockhampton, thus saving money which can be used to pay for other operational duties. The policing of Emu Park has not changed. There is no lesser police service there than there was previously. There is no lesser police service in Emu Park than there was during the 13-week period in 1989 when the member for Peak Downs was the Minister for Police. During that period, he obviously found that staffing to be sufficient, and I believe that it is still sufficient.

Approval of Funding to Mr M. Lake Mr SLACK: I refer the Premier to his personal approval of $160,000 in taxpayers’ funds to companies associated with Mr Michael Lake, a member of the film assessment panel, and I ask: who recommended this funding? What are the terms of the alleged investment? What interest rate has been charged? Will he table the report that recommended this grant, loan, or investment? Mr W. K. GOSS: I answered most of this question last week. I refer the member to last week’s Hansard. This is not a grant. It is fully repayable. It is part of this Government’s policy of trying to assist and encourage the very small number of film-makers in this country and in this State to make films in this State. We believe that we have the potential to have a strong and viable film industry. It is something to which the previous Government was committed but with which it had mixed success. It will be difficult. However, we are determined to continue to try to establish such an industry. In relation to the defamation that has been unfairly heaped upon Mr Lake by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who now feeds the questions to this member, let me Legislative Assembly 1588 10 October 1991 assure the House, as I have already given a public assurance, that Mr Lake was not even involved in the project in question at the time that the bulk of the initial approvals were made. In relation to a subsequent approval, Mr Lake absented himself from any of the discussions and deliberations. On the basis of the advice given to me by the Film Development Office and my department, I am satisfied that there are no grounds for concern in respect of conflict of interest. Mr Slack: Will you table the report itself? Mr W. K. GOSS: That is all I can tell the honourable member. These are not Allen Callaghan days. It is not a grant, it is fully repayable. If the honourable member has any allegations of any impropriety, he should specific them and I will answer them.

Manning of Drought Hot Lines; Primary Industries Press Releases Mr SLACK: I refer the Minister for Primary Industries to his department’s administration of drought aid, and I ask: have retired staff been rehired to man drought hot lines? Is it true that staff recently made redundant cannot be re-employed because of the terms of their redundancy package? Is it true that the Primary Industries media unit has to get press releases involving drought issues cleared by the Premier’s Department before they are circulated? Mr CASEY: I think the honourable member ought to recognise, as ought all members of this Parliament, that on this very, very difficult subject of drought, the drought-aid package and the work that we in Queensland are doing in relation to that—which was far in excess of anything that was ever done by a Liberal/National Party Government in this State—that the Premier is the chairman of the special Cabinet subcommittee that is looking after this matter. At all times, the liaison on this matter between the Premier, the Treasurer, the Minister for Land Management, the Deputy Premier and me is very close. Reference material is constantly going backwards and forwards between our different departments. There is an interdepartmental committee that meets on a daily basis in relation to this matter. So material is constantly going backwards and forwards between us on this subject. In relation to the first part of the question about the manning of telephones and the Drought Information Centre, I indicate that a number of temporary people have been hired for that particular work, both by my department and by the QIDC, in a cooperative effort by this Government to really help people on the land. If the member for Burnett is unhappy about that, I am sorry for him. On a daily basis, quite a number of his constituents ring up, and people are needed to answer those phone calls. As for the part of the question relating to the voluntary retrenchment scheme, it is exactly what it says—a voluntary retrenchment scheme. At 11 a.m., In accordance with the provisions of the Sessional Order, the House went into Committee of Supply.

SUPPLY

Estimates—Sixth and Seventh Allotted Days

Estimates-in-Chief, 1991-92

Housing and Local Government Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government) (11 a.m.): I move— Legislative Assembly 1589 10 October 1991

“That there be granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year 1991-92, a sum not exceeding $105,386,000 for General Public Services, Department of Housing and Local Government (Consolidated Fund).” 1990-91 saw a continuation of the innovation and reform in the areas of housing and local government which started with the election of the Goss Labor Government. Since the formation of the Department of Housing and Local Government, it has improved the delivery of its programs and services to client groups. In short, the Government is addressing the issues that matter in the areas of housing and local government. On the housing side, it is providing its tenants with a higher standard of service. It is responding to their needs and listening to their concerns. In the area of local government, the department continues to develop new policies and new approaches to tackle some of the major issues of planning and service provision that will confront us as we approach the turn of the century. But equally important have been the improvements made within the department itself. The department has made substantial improvements to the way that it operates itself. No restructuring of the kind that saw the formation of the new department almost two years ago can always run smoothly. But since that time, the department has improved training, working conditions, facilities and opportunities for advancement for its staff. In turn, this has resulted in higher staff morale and better services to the public. In summary, the department aims to be a good landlord, a good service provider and a good employer. All that adds up to the fact that the department is developing a well- deserved reputation as the best of its type in Australia. Housing During the year, continuing improvements were made to the planning and delivery of housing services. This process of improvement involved consultation with clients and the community in line with the department's new approach to its planning and delivery of services. The first Queensland housing assistance plan was published early in the financial year, outlining major policy and program directions. This plan was distributed widely throughout the community—the first time such an important planning document was publicly released. One of the most important activities under the housing program this year was the review of public housing policies. The review covers eligibility, allocations, rent, transfers and housing choices. Again, this review is being undertaken in consultation with client and community interests. The findings of the review will be implemented over the next year. During the year, the tenant participation program was further developed, and extra staff were provided throughout the State to develop tenant groups. This program helps tenants to become involved in the department's planning processes at various levels. In March, a project officer was appointed to work specifically on designing a consumer appeals mechanism suited to Queensland's requirements. This mechanism will provide an avenue for applicants for, and recipients of, housing assistance to have departmental decisions reviewed where necessary. Home loans Through my department, the Government has continued to make home ownership more widely accessible to Queensland families. The HOME Scheme was devised to assist those home-seekers who could not get a loan from banks and building societies, whilst providing for the security of knowing exactly how much a family would pay each year for 10 years, along with a no-penalty escape clause. Loans available under the Home Ownership Made Easy program, including HOME Loan and HOME Shared, have proved extremely popular since the lending began in August last year. A total of 6 628 approvals were made during 1990-91, worth $491.5m. This total was up slightly on the record level of approvals in 1989-90 of $482m, and a threefold increase in the average volume of funds Legislative Assembly 1590 10 October 1991 for the five previous years from 1984-85 to 1989-90. During 1990-91, a total of 3 500 loans were made under the HOME Loan program. The HOME Shared program—providing progressive purchase of a home—has also proved popular. A total of 1 529 loans were made under the program. Under both the HOME Loan and HOME Shared programs, 75 per cent of homes purchased were priced less than $109,000. This clearly shows that the schemes benefit those families or couples seeking to buy a first home and who previously may not have had access to finance. Another avenue in which the department can help people into home-ownership occurred during the year with the launch of the HOME Buy program. The new HOME Buy program is revitalising sales of departmental homes to tenants which have been at a low level for a number of years. The new program is aimed at reducing the major obstacle to tenant purchase—lack of a deposit. Under HOME Buy, tenants have access to immediate HOME finance to buy the home they are living in. At the end of the financial year, more than 200 applications were being processed, and most of those were expected to result in sales. Builder promotion The department has continued to explore other innovative means to encourage home-ownership. During 1990-91, the first joint venture between the department and a private builder to promote home- ownership was conducted. The promotion with A. V. Jennings offered 100 house-and-land packages at fixed prices on both departmental and private land. The benefits of these arrangements, apart from expanded home-ownership, include stimulated economic activity and employment through increased home building. Further promotions with a range of builders have been undertaken, and we will now expand the scheme further to encompass provincial cities. Mortgage assistance The department continues to offer mortgage assistance to people who already own their home but may be facing financial difficulties. During 1990-91, 775 households were assisted with interest-free loans to the value of $2.47m. In addition, 396 households obtained refinancing under the HOME program. Rental housing The innovations introduced by the department in the field of home-ownership have been matched by its initiatives in the area of rental housing. The demand for public rental housing continued to increase during the financial year, with more than 18 400 applications lodged throughout the State and a total of 7 774 tenancy placements being made. In 1990-91, a total of $11m was spent to upgrade the department's rental stock. This included— installation of kitchen cupboards in 2 000 homes; installation of air-cooling units to pensioner units in the dry western areas of the State; conversion of bed-sitter pensioner units to one-bedroom units where requested by the occupants; installation of security screens to pensioner units; upgrading of landscaping of pensioner units, attached houses, apartments and cluster developments; and renumbering the total stock of unit accommodation to do away with the old impersonal numbering system. Many of these improvements are simple and involve basic items; yet they are of great importance to the people who live in the department's units and houses. I remind the Legislative Assembly 1591 10 October 1991

Committee that basic items, such as security screens for pensioners’ units and air-conditioning in towns such as Mount Isa, were never contemplated by the former Government in its 32 years. Mr McGrady: The City of Mount Isa. Mr BURNS: These basic improvements help make life a little better for our tenants. In relation to air-conditioning for Mount Isa—the member for Mount Isa spent a considerable amount of time twisting our arm to ensure that that program went ahead. A total of $28.75m was spent on maintaining the department's 36 680 units of rental accommodation. This included— external repaints to more than 3 000 units; internal repainting of 3 400 units—some had not been painted for 20 years; and preparation of approximately 5 200 vacant rental units for reletting. In general, building design standards were improved during the year, and projects which blend with their surroundings were developed. A booklet on landscape maintenance was also produced for use by landscape maintenance contractors and tenant groups. Tenant and Neighbourhood Development program As I said earlier, an increased emphasis has been placed on the participation of tenants in the decision-making process. One of the innovative programs to help increase the involvement of tenants in departmental planning is the Tenant and Neighbourhood Development program. More than 20 tenant groups were established under that program, which has improved consultation and feedback on design and upgrading projects. Our tenants appreciate their first chance in years to have a say on issues affecting their homes. Disability services During the year, a disability services coordinator was appointed to ensure that the housing needs of clients with disabilities are met. These include younger people with disabilities and frail aged people. More than $90,000 was used in the department's upgrading program for modifications to 25 dwellings, and applications for modifications to a further 65 dwellings were received. Older persons housing The department has changed its approach to the housing needs of older persons. All one- bedroom units constructed during 1990-91 featured an enlarged separate bedroom design providing a 10 per cent increase in space. That change, which provides for increased privacy and flexibility, was developed in consultation with tenants and pensioner group representatives. Existing public housing tenants were surveyed to ask whether they would be interested in having their bedsitters converted to one-bedroom units. A total of 1 271 tenants requested the modification and more than 600 units were modified. Security screens were added to two openings—either windows or doors—in 4 962 units across the State. In addition to those improvements, work on an older persons housing strategy was started to identify and develop a wide range of options to meet the housing needs of older people. Boarding houses A very important example of the new thinking that the department has brought to housing is its boarding house strategy. Under previous Governments, boarding houses were regarded as relics of the past, but that is no longer the case. This Government recognises the important role that boarding houses play, especially in inner-city areas. In May this year, a boarding house working party was convened with representatives from State Government departments, the Brisbane City Council and community and church Legislative Assembly 1592 10 October 1991 groups. It will devise a coordinated strategy to improve conditions within existing establishments as well as explore funding arrangements to increase the involvement of community groups in the provision of boarding house accommodation. The working party plans to make its final report by the end of 1991. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders The department has addressed the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tenants. Three positions for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander officers have been established to assist with improving services to clients of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent. Two field officers were located in the department's offices at Woodridge and Inala where there are large populations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander liaison officer was located in the department's Brisbane head office to provide advice and assistance on cultural and related issues across the department's programs. Private rental assistance Apart from its obligations to its own tenants, the department also provides assistance to those in the private rental market where necessary. Bond assistance A new bond loan scheme was created to replace the previous bond guarantee scheme, which returned only a small proportion of bonds. The new scheme provides interest-free loans up to the value of four weeks’ rent—with repayments beginning six weeks after the tenants move in—which are structured to take account of the tenants’ capacity to pay. A total of 10 559 rental bonds were issued, of which 1 804 were bonds under the new bond loan scheme. Rent subsidy Rent subsidies are available to families to establish and maintain a tenancy in the private rental market. The subsidies complement assistance provided to low-income earners through the Federal Department of Social Security. During the financial year, a total of 1 427 families received rental subsidy. Community housing assistance A number of programs exist to help non-profit community organisations and local government authorities to provide housing to low-income earners or people with special needs. Local Government and Community Housing program The Local Government and Community Housing program aims to involve local government and community groups in the provision and management of long-term housing for people on low incomes. During the 1990-91 financial year, an amount of $4.1m was made available for 15 new projects. Cooperative Housing program The Cooperative Housing program was started during 1990-91 to provide funds for the consolidation of 17 existing housing cooperatives. During the financial year, an amount of $10m was made available to acquire 100 additional dwellings for the cooperatives—more than double their housing stock. Housing Referral Worker program The Housing Referral Worker program was reviewed because of concern about the distribution of services and an absence of consistent guidelines. Under the program, grants were made to local councils and community groups to provide housing information Legislative Assembly 1593 10 October 1991 and referral services. The final review report was published in February 1991 and its recommendations were approved by me as Minister. These included the cessation of the HRW program at 30 June 1991 and the creation of two new community-based programs with a combined funding allocation of $5.8m. The new Housing Resource Services program will provide 20 information, referral and tenant advocacy services throughout the State with funds provided through the Rental Bond Authority. The new community rent scheme will provide staff and operating costs as well as rental subsidies to establish 32 schemes across the State to manage up to 1 200 households in medium-term accommodation. Crisis Accommodation program The Crisis Accommodation program provides funds for accommodation for people who are homeless and need transitional support. During 1990-91, an amount of $6.7m was provided under that program. A total of 37 new facilities were approved and 122 services received funds for renovations and maintenance. Youth An additional $1.6m was made available for a youth initiatives program designed to facilitate a coordinated approach to homeless youth following the Burdekin inquiry. Housing Accommodation Assistance Scheme The Housing Accommodation Assistance Scheme provides funding to local authorities and non- profit community groups to help provide long-term accommodation for aged and single people and people with disabilities. The 1990-91 program guidelines were expanded to include single people, and funds were increased to $9.16m. Recently, the program was reviewed and will be renamed the Community Housing Partnership to more appropriately reflect the joint-venture nature of the scheme. Other housing initiatives during 1990-91 included: a review of the department's land bank to begin rationalising land-holdings and to enhance the department's capacity to respond to market conditions and housing needs across the State; the spot purchase of 332 dwellings including inner suburban properties; and the purchase of strategically located surplus Commonwealth land at Coopers Plains. Local government I turn now to the very important area of local government. The local government programs of the department have continued the innovation as well as the more cooperative and consultative approach to the general community and councils that have been the hallmark of this Government. During the year, a major emphasis was placed on meeting the planning challenges that face us here in Queensland as Australia's fastest-growing State. Planning coordination program The need for proper coordination of planning processes right across the activities of the State Government was recognised with the establishment of the Planning and Infrastructure Coordination Standing Committee of Cabinet. That committee has responsibility for coordinating planning and infrastructure policy across the Government. Another major initiative was the establishment of the SEQ 2001 Regional Planning Advisory Group. That followed the highly successful SEQ 2001 conference held in December last year by the Government. The conference was a joint initiative of the Premier's Department and the Department of Housing and Local Government and was attended by more than 200 representatives from State and local government, business, professional organisations, unions and community interest groups. The SEQ 2001 Legislative Assembly 1594 10 October 1991

Regional Planning Advisory Group was set up in May to ensure that these needs are met by a two-year project which will commence on 1 July 1992. It has the responsibility for developing processes to manage the expected 50 per cent increase in population in south-east Queensland over the next 10 years. The formation of this group is a major initiative in bringing together State and local government, as well as non-Government, representatives to design a regional planning model based on partnership and cooperation. The importance of achieving improved co-ordination between the physical and social infrastructure needed to build better communities was recognised by the establishment of a project to identify appropriate intergovernmental arrangements for the planning and delivery of human services and community development. A steering committee representing Government and the community was established to oversee a pilot project in the Caboolture, Pine Rivers and Redcliffe regions during 1991- 92. Other significant initiatives taken to address issues of future growth include— implementation of the systems review project to streamline all State and local government development approval process; promotion of the Australian Model Code for Residential Development—AMCORD—as a basis for residential development in the State; and promotion of innovative Green Street principles in housing models which provide cost-effective residential developments. Substantial funds were also set aside for research or investigation into various planning issues to help long-term planning by local councils. These issues include— group title guidelines; cattle feedlots; retirement village guidelines; fast-food industry guidelines; planning for industrial areas; and heritage planning guidelines. Planning advice was also provided to numerous studies and assessments of major development projects. These included— Trinity Inlet management plan; Cape York land-use study; Brisbane-Gold Coast eastern transport study; Royal Reef resort and residential proposal in Mulgrave Shire; Hope Island integrated resort development project; proposals for the former multifunction polis site; and ICI sodium cyanide plant in Calliope Shire. Mr Chairman, I would like to mention briefly some of the other highlights of the local government side of my portfolio during 1990-91. Local government elections Changes to the internal boundaries or divisional arrangements of 68 local authorities were made prior to the local council elections in March this year. A total of 56 of these Legislative Assembly 1595 10 October 1991 changes were identified by the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission following its review of the local government electoral system. Information services The Local Government Statistical Survey and the Directory of Financial Assistance to Queensland Local Authorities were published during the year. The Queensland Local Government Guide was completed and released in September 1990. By-laws A total of 158 individual by-laws and a general set of by-laws were processed for approval by the Governor in Council during the year. Work also commenced on reviewing the suitability of a further six general sets of by-laws. A start was made on a process of research and consultation to refine the content of local authority by-laws. The aim is to produce a single set of administrative by-laws which will make all by-laws more succinct and effective. Other milestones in the local government area during the year included— the return to elected government of the Torres and Burke Shires, previously under administrators; major amendments to local authority rating powers; and the implementation in April this year of the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act with its new requirements to protect the environment and the rights of land-holders. Building Several initiatives were taken to improve the efficiency, safety and amenity of buildings in Queensland during 1990-91. Legislation was introduced at the request of the Local Government Association to provide for the compulsory fencing of all residential swimming pools. A committee chaired by a building division officer and comprising interest groups, the Local Government Association and the Department of Environment and Heritage was established to investigate swimming pool pump and filtration plant noise. A review of the Building Act and Standard Building By-laws was undertaken in preparation for the introduction of the Building Code of Australia. New vermin-control regulations were developed which remove the requirement for rat walls—a move which should reduce the cost of a new home substantially. A new Act governing dangerous substances is currently being prepared by the department to coordinate existing legislation and to encompass all recognised dangerous substances. Animal welfare I would like to say a few words about animal welfare, which is another of my responsibilities. Since coming to office, this Government has vastly increased the priority placed on animal welfare and on fighting the abuse of animals. During 1990-91, Queensland's first Pet Week was held to heighten public awareness of animal welfare issues. I thank honourable members who cooperated and participated in Pet Week. A review of the Animals Protection Act commenced with the preparation and release of a Green Paper. It suggested the possibility of substantial changes to the current law, including the establishment of an animal welfare advisory committee. An animal welfare conference was organised to bring together local authorities, animal welfare groups, racing and rodeo organisations and various animal producer groups to discuss matters of mutual interest. Grants to animal welfare organisations were also substantially increased, reflecting the Government's commitment to this area. Legislative Assembly 1596 10 October 1991

Department of Housing and Local Government Mr Chairman, as I said at the start of my speech, the Department of Housing and Local Government has made dramatic improvements to the conditions of its own hard-working staff. Improvements include— the appointment of an employment equity officer to safeguard principles of merit and equity in dealing with staff matters; the introduction of a wide range of staff training and development initiatives to assist staff in meeting the changing and more complex needs of clients; the refurbishment of the equivalent of five floors of office accommodation and the relocation of staff to the upgraded facilities; the fitting out of a new office in Mackay and upgrading of equipment and furniture in all country offices; and the upgrading of office facilities at maintenance depots. These are just some of the highlights and initiatives of the Department of Housing and Local Government during 1990-91. I know that other members of the Government will touch on specific issues during this debate. I conclude by saying—as I did at the beginning—that the department is meeting its obligations to its client groups and at the same time it is bringing new ways of thinking to solving problems. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I desire to inform honourable members that, on the Vote proposed, I will allow a full discussion on all of the Minister’s departmental Estimates (Consolidated Revenue, and Trust and Special Funds). Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset) (11.22 a.m.): A system of local government is in operation in most advanced nations throughout the world. In Australia, it operates under the Westminster system and has proved itself to be the best system for this State and nation. There is no system, whether it be Federal, State or local government, that cannot be improved, and this is what we in this Parliament set out to achieve. I, like the Minister, held the dual portfolio of Housing and Local Government. Because one works with people, it is a rewarding portfolio. I served eight years as Minister for Local Government. Many members in this Chamber have been involved with local government and feel very close to it. Some authorities have suggested that local government should be given more power. If one looks at local government throughout the world, one finds that some local authorities have more power than they should. In America, the States have power over education and police, etc., and the rules vary from one State and another. I do not think that is a desirable state of affairs. Mr Burns: From one part of a State to another. Mr GUNN: As I said, I do not think it is desirable at all. Mr Ardill: They don’t do a very good job at all. Mr GUNN: They do not, because they cannot under that type of system, as the honourable member would well know. In America, there are so many States, and they are all so different that they are virtually little nations in themselves. I believe that Queensland has close to the ideal system. The small amount of fine-tuning that has been necessary from time to time has been welcomed by local authorities. Unfortunately, Queensland has a very low population and a vast area of land. Moreover, 58 per cent of this State’s population is located in the Brisbane, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast areas. The south-east corner of the State also contains 72 per cent of Queensland’s urban population. An established fact that has been recognised for as long as I can remember is that people will eventually move to the seaboard, even in their retirement years. Mr Burns: It has been happening for years. Legislative Assembly 1597 10 October 1991

Mr GUNN: It has. Mr Burns: Most of the farmers will go to the seaside when they sell their farms. Mr GUNN: If it does not rain soon, I know a lot more of them who will be going there, too. Of course, it is beyond the capacity of this Government and the Opposition to do a great deal about the drought. We can only ease its effects as much as possible, and I believe that the Government is trying to do that. I have a great deal of time for people who live in isolated areas, and I have no doubt that the Minister feels the same way. I am sure he recognises the importance of local government in those areas. However, I am a little bit worried about the effects of the amalgamation of small local government shires. Mr Burns: I don’t agree with it. I don’t think it should happen. Mr GUNN: I do not really think it should, either. Mr Burns: The councils are the only job-creation places in those towns. Mr GUNN: I was going to make that point. They are the chief employers. While it might be possible to attract small industries to isolated areas, larger industries will always be concentrated near the seaboard because of transport cost factors, etc. In country areas, I have seen young people leave school, get a job with the council, and end up retiring in the area. I have persuaded them to purchase their Housing Commission houses because I could see that they would spend the rest of their working lives in local authority employment. I have known countless numbers of people since they were babies who have made their careers in local government, and I can assure the Minister that they are skilled in local council work, too. Local government’s other role is in providing the necessary amenities to maintain the quality of life in those areas. Rural areas are entirely different from metropolitan areas. In 18 months’ time, when I leave Parliament, I will always find my way back to Brisbane because I like the place so much. I have always lived close to metropolitan areas. By the same token, I like country areas and I admire those that are little communities in themselves where the shire council plays such an important part. Many of those areas look to the State Government for support. For example, many small towns would not have been able to provide municipal swimming pools without help from the State Government, yet it would be safe to say that presently nearly every small country town in Queensland has a swimming pool where children are being taught to swim. The people of my generation learnt to swim in the local creek. It was not until someone donated some land that my electorate was able to get a swimming pool. I happened to be shire chairman when a well-known solicitor in Brisbane, Mr Whitehouse, donated some land and the State Government generously provided a subsidy of 50 per cent. Although it is not a full- sized swimming pool, it has enabled many children to be taught to swim, which is great. I have always said that local authorities are among the most efficient organisations that can be found. In the past, I have been not only the Minister for Local Government but also the Minister for Main Roads. Local councils in isolated areas rely on main roads work to provide employment. In the shire where I was chairman, there was a small gang that was highly skilled in that type of work, which was done to a price and never went over budget, and the end product was as good as the work done by any contractor. When the decision was made to construct Wivenhoe Dam, approximately 20 miles of main roads had to be constructed. It was also decided that a certain amount of roadwork and bridge construction work, etc., would be done by contractors, and the local authorities were not involved. To the best of my recollection, that decision cost the Government a great deal of money because some of the contractors went broke half way through construction. The constructing authority had to look at ways of completing the job, and the local authority had to come to the rescue. Legislative Assembly 1598 10 October 1991

It is no doubt of concern to local authorities in country and provincial areas that a great deal of main roads work has been cut back dramatically. I do not know the reason why that has occurred. It should not have happened, but it is certainly the case that the work has been cut back. The people who work on the road gangs now do not know where they stand. My electorate contains five local authorities which will have to lay off those employees. They cannot afford to keep them on without giving them some work to do; consequently, the expertise of those specialised gangs will be lost, and that will be a disaster. In addition, some of those areas have lost their courthouses and services provided by the Department of Primary Industries, and police stations have been down-graded. The Forest Hill Police Station in my electorate is now only a one-man station, and it is open during the hours of nine to five only. As a result, petty theft is occurring at an unprecedented rate. Last night, somebody walked off with my electric fence. I never thought anyone would ever take that. No doubt the person would have unhooked the battery first. Nowadays, anything that cannot be tied down is likely to be stolen. This morning, I received a telephone call from a person at Lowood. Apparently, before the ladies in that area go shopping, they have to remove the washing from the clothes line or else the clothes will be stolen. In those areas, unemployment is running at 35 per cent. In Aboriginal and Islander communities, with which I am very familiar, there is a CDP program. The people enjoy a sense of dignity because they work for two or three days a week. The payments are given a loading, and these people are council workers. They do not ask for the dole or welfare payments. The Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, Mrs Warner, will tell the Minister for Local Government and Housing that it is a terrific scheme. The point is that these people are working for the money they receive, so they enjoy working instead of just sitting around drinking a bit of grog, etc. I believe that that type of scheme should be considered for isolated areas. There is no doubt that idleness breeds the type of problem to which I have referred. I do say that, over the next few years, local government is going to face its greatest trial. One cannot have a recession and a drought as well—and it is the worst drought that I can remember. I am one of the fortunate ones: I have irrigation. I can thank my grandparents for that. My grandfather would never buy any land whatsoever that did not have underground water. The first thing he did was sink a well to find out what he had. That was most important. Mr Burns: How many changes of pipes do you have? Mr GUNN: I am sorry to say that that has dropped dramatically. I have to carry those pipes. Have a look at my hands. It does not hurt me. I believe I will live for another 10 years because I am working. The honourable member and I have kept our weights down. Mr Burns: Don’t say that to everybody here. Mr GUNN: Well, those honourable members may take the hint and it will do them the world of good. I often talk to people about health matters. Two of my children are doctors and they remind me now and again about being a little bit overweight. I would hate to mention to my wife—but it will be in Hansard now and I think that she will read it—that she is putting on a little bit of condition, although she is a great worker, and is always working in the garden. I would say that many ratepayers will not be able to meet rate commitments this year. The Government has to find some solution. In 1965, the Commonwealth Government did intervene and assist in that regard. I think the Government has to look at some relief. I know the problems that people in this State are having. I have been through it all. It was hard enough in the old days, but it is worse now because of the recession and the drought that Queensland is experiencing. I am absolutely convinced, however, that the people of Queensland will come back, and that they will come back strong. The main problem in rural Legislative Assembly 1599 10 October 1991 areas, of course, is that children are leaving those areas and coming to Brisbane to be educated. What for? The other night, I met a young chap with an agricultural science degree driving a taxi. He could not find a job. There are so many young people in the community with arts and science degrees who are not able to find employment. Queensland has had an influx of these people, but the children cannot be blamed. In my day, I did not get any pay at all, but I tell honourable members one thing: the country has never been better off than it was in those particular times. It seems to me today that people have to have that slip of paper—that diploma, or that degree. I have educated my five children, but whenever they need any advice, they come back to me. They say to me, “Well, you have been through it”, and that is not too bad. I admire them for that. I have worked out that about 25 per cent of shire revenue comes from general rates. I am not talking about charges for services. I think the people of Queensland are well served with regard to the provision of sewerage and water. It is not really expensive. The towns of Gatton and Laidley, and the agricultural college are serviced by water from the Wivenhoe Dam. People from those places have a bit of a whinge when it costs them $400 a year, or $8 a week. If water is not worth $8 a week, I will walk to Bourke backwards, Vince Lester style. One only values services when one misses out on them. Although I say that at the present time rates are not very expensive, pensioners in a lot of areas put so much of their pension cheque away every fortnight to pay for their rates. It is no good pensioners spending that money on bingo or at the casino—pensioners can have their little flutters there and I am all for that—but they should put that money aside. It is a little bit of management that they must practise. Whether one is living in Brisbane, Ipswich, other metropolitan or urban areas, or in rural areas, rates are not really expensive at present. Queensland local authorities have a great deal to worry about in relation to revenue, and I assure the Committee that I am very conscious of that. As I have said, 25 per cent of their revenue is generated through general rates. The rest of their revenue—I think about two and a half per cent, which is a substantial amount—comes from the Grants Commission. That is very, very good, but it would be nice if it was a little more. Shires also receive subsidies from the State Government for plant hire for road maintenance, which is essential. Shires are neglecting that maintenance a bit now, but I think that it is something that has to be worked on at a higher level. Many of the roads throughout rural areas are decaying and are not in the best of order. It is a strange situation: although roads will not decay much now, once there is a wet season the shoulders will go and there will be a need for a great deal of maintenance, which costs a lot of money. I would like to discuss further the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils and the CDP. I think that is something that should be looked at. I can recall years ago that the Commonwealth Government allocated funding for the employment of unemployed workers at the award rate. I think this should be looked at again. If that funding had not existed in those days—I think it was 50,000 pounds or something like that—those young people may never have worked during their life-time. There were a lot of unemployed workers at that time, and they were placed in concreting and other similar gangs. Quite a number of these people ended up working for councils as grader-drivers. These people loved the work, and led a normal life. I think people have to be introduced to work. After people have been unemployed for a certain time, they just get so downhearted that they do not bother trying any more. It is a dreadful tragedy that in an underpopulated country such as Australia there is vast unemployment. I think that everyone has to forget about party politics and get together to try to do something, because the greatest problem—and I do not care what anybody says—that will face this nation in the future will be unemployment. I notice that a lot of union representatives have picked that up and are running with it. That is no surprise to me. As I have said previously, a lot of towns have no industries Legislative Assembly 1600 10 October 1991 whatsoever. I know of one small council that has 24 familieswho rely on its work. That is pretty a substantial number in a small shire. I want to emphasise how vital it is—— Mr Burns: It’s the biggest business in a whole lot of western towns. Mr GUNN: Yes. I want to say something about housing. That is another problem that the Government is going to have to face. In my day, there was 50 per cent home-ownership and 50 per cent rental. It might have varied from time to time. I favoured the home-ownership scheme, but I have had to change my mind. One has to change one’s mind sometimes in politics. I know that the Minister is trying to do his best, as I did in my day. But the HOME Scheme is beyond the capacity of many young people, so they have to go into rental housing. Mr Burns: There is also the Home Shared Scheme. Mr GUNN: I have tried to talk to young people about that scheme. They have not come to grips with it yet. Mr Burns: I think if you see those figures, it was about 1 700 last year. Mr GUNN: I think that they might understand it a bit better now than they did. I opened the first cluster houses. I believe that they are good, particularly in metropolitan areas where there is a shortage of land. There is some cluster housing in my home town, which I made possible. It was a little bit of pork-barrelling. But I can tell the Minister that the people thanked me for it. Mrs Woodgate interjected. Mr GUNN: I hear an interjection from the Government side. I can tell the Minister that if he does not do it, he is a mug. Mr Welford: We’ll do it. Mr GUNN: The Government is doing it. I am not going to tell the member for Stafford how to suck eggs; he can do it quite well. Mr Burns: He is talking to the Chairman, not me. Mr GUNN: I was talking to an honourable member at the back of the Chamber who interjected. I had to put him right. There is a great need for more rental housing for the underprivileged. I know that the Government puts back all of the money that it obtains in rents. However, I think that it must bite the bullet and help the unemployed. The housing industry is a great barometer. I urge the Government to give consideration to cluster housing. Mr Burns: Because of smaller blocks of land, we are getting a lot more houses in estates now. Mr GUNN: That is great. I cannot think who the Commonwealth Minister for Housing was when I attended the housing summit, but he was right in what he said. Mr Burns: Was it Staples? Mr GUNN: I think it was. I think that what he did that day was the best thing he ever did. He talked about building high-rises in metropolitan areas. Other than that, he did not impress me. In many countries, what he said has to be done. People are more or less pushed out of the inner city. The Government has to look at ways of bringing them back in. That can be done only by multiple housing. I can remember on one occasion driving through Munich in Germany with a member of the Government. Even in the posh areas, very few people owned a house. They owned a portion of a house; they owned a shared house. That is what happens in countries that are heavily populated. The Government has to give consideration to that in the future. It can honestly be said that people come to Queensland by choice. I speak to hundreds and hundreds of people who come to this Legislative Assembly 1601 10 October 1991

State by choice because there is a good quality of life in Queensland. The cost of living is reasonably cheap. I do not mind having underprivileged people in my electorate, because the cost of living is much cheaper in the country than it is in the city. The farmers have their own stalls and so on—— Mr McGrady: The further out west you go, that is not the case. The further out west you go, the cost of living becomes a lot higher. Mr GUNN: Yes, but I still maintain that the cost of living—— Mr Burns: Is it cheaper in Esk than it is in Brisbane? Mr GUNN: I am talking about the Warrego Highway. People can buy as many potatoes and cabbages as they like at 2c a kilo. Coles and Woolworths had big signs showing that they were selling bananas at 89c a kilo. Along the Warrego Highway people are able to buy good bananas at 49c a kilo. People can hardly get near the place. I organised a rezoning to build that trading up further. Honourable members would be amazed at the number of people who go there to buy fruit and vegetables direct from the farm. This guy believes in just a small profit. People can buy meat, vegetables and and most of the staple foods much cheaper in those areas. I wish to talk about housing in Aboriginal and Islander areas. I have spoken to Ms Warner’s officers, who are excellent. However, there is a major problem in those areas with DOGIT land—that is, deed of grant in trust land. That land is becoming more readily available, but people cannot borrow money to build on it. It should be done by the Commonwealth through ATSIC, but the Commonwealth has fallen down in that regard. Local banks will not take it on for the simple reason that they cannot retrieve their money in the event of non-payment. Mr Burns: The trouble is you can’t resume the block of land. We’ve had a look at it. If we lend you the money to buy a block of land and build a house on it, and you go bad, we can take the block of land and the house, but there you can’t. You can’t take that land. The lender would have to devise a new lending scheme. Mr GUNN: Yes. In other words, the land is absolutely useless to those people. Most of it has been inherited. The original owners were probably their grandparents. It is not hard to work it out. These people’s homes are their castles. The biggest purchase they will ever make in their lives is their home. It means a lot to them to live in that environment. I am talking now about the Islanders, although I know that the Aboriginal settlements are much the same. The quality of life that they enjoy is very good. I like to spend Christmas there. I hope that I will continue to do so for the rest of my life. It is a marvellous area with a natural environment. Many people have approached me and said that it is not worth much to them. It is not beyond the capacity of the Government and the Ministers’ officers to investigate that matter. Those people are receiving nothing out of that scheme and are becoming a little disgruntled. I turn now to animal welfare. The Government can go overboard on animal welfare, which can be dangerous. However, I am 100 per cent behind the Minister in his animal welfare initiatives. I agree that some people are not fit to care for animals. I have three dogs at home. I had a Great Dane which was a family pet and which was stolen one night. Mr McGrady: It would have been a good house dog. Mr GUNN: They are beautiful dogs. I recall a recent case of a person from Ipswich who has been barred from keeping pets. Mr Burns: I know the bloke. Mr GUNN: He was caught with 40 starving animals. On one occasion, he came to see me and I chased him out of the office. People who were born in the country appreciate animals. During the present drought, I rise every morning at 5 o’clock to hand-feed 40 Legislative Assembly 1602 10 October 1991 cows and calves. I do not care how much it costs; I am happy to prevent them from starving. For 20 years, I assisted in the veterinary section of the Gatton College. In that time, a lecturer of that college and I provided the only veterinary help for the people of the district for nothing. If a person would ring at night because he was having trouble with a mare that was foaling, we could not turn him down. I have delivered more foals than many doctors have delivered babies. The people at the college worked in very well with the people in the district. When an operation was required, the students from the college attended. That occurred for many years until the tuberculosis program commenced, at which time some people came up from down south. At that stage, we did not have the degree course in Queensland and people had to complete that course in Sydney. It was a pity. However, I am behind the Minister 100 per cent in that initiative. He has set up committees and he is proceeding steadily, which is good. The vast majority of decent people would support the Minister in those initiatives. Any acts of cruelty to animals must be dealt with very soundly. The Minister should not worry about the penalties; he should make them harsh and strong. A property-owner’s stock are his living, and I am speaking for all property- owners. They would not mistreat their stock. However, legislative provisions can go overboard by preventing people from removing tails from fox terriers. In reality, the dog would not know it had happened. As to calf castration—half the time the calves would not know that it had been done, especially if it were done cleanly and with the right equipment. Mr McGrady: Does that apply to humans, too? Mr GUNN: No. I guess there are some humans who should receive that treatment. Mr Schwarten: A rubber ring. Mr GUNN: I will not enter that field. Very often, a dog becomes a part of the family. When I visit some dog shows, I often wish that, as a kid, I had been treated as well as some of the dogs. Mrs Woodgate: What about “Augie Dawgie”? Mr GUNN: Yes, “Augie Dawgie” is a catholic. Father Bill Henry was a catholic priest in Laidley. Recently, I was with Archbishop Rush, who is interesting to talk with and who reminded me of this matter. The Minister was present at the same gathering at the Greek Club. Father Henry bred cocker spaniels as a hobby. He gave me a cocker spaniel and one for each of my 10 grandchildren. He is a retired priest and one of the whitest men I have ever seen—a wonderful person. At present, he is conducting a few church services around the place. His cocker spaniels were very valuable animals and could have been sold at great profit. The member for Pine Rivers was talking about the fact that that cocker spaniel thought it was a cattle dog. It would accompany me around the property. On one occasion, a big-horned Brahman cow with a calf chased the dog and it ran between my legs. Honourable members could imagine being tackled by Mal Meninga. I assure them that I could not have been tackled harder. The dog knocked me onto the ground. When we returned to the car, the dog was sitting with its tongue out and I was nursing my wounds. I am delighted to be associated with the proposed amendments to the legislation. The Minister is in charge of an excellent portfolio. He is dealing with people and helping people, which gives him much pleasure. When I was in charge of that portfolio, I received much pleasure from it. Mrs WOODGATE (Pine Rivers) (11.51 a.m.): Madam Temporary Chair—— Mr Schwarten: What sort of dog have you got? Mrs WOODGATE: I have two: a German shepherd and an English setter. One of this Government's key Budget initiatives was to ensure that all Queenslanders could enjoy equality of opportunity through a fair distribution of resources and access to services regardless of their personal, social or economic circumstances. In no area is Legislative Assembly 1603 10 October 1991 that more evident than in the area of housing. Let me repeat the Treasurer’s opening remarks when he dealt with the matter of social justice in his Budget Speech— “Adequate housing for all Queenslanders is fundamental to this Government’s objective of a fair and just society.” To put it simply, this Government has put its money where its mouth is—up front. There have been many success stories emanating from the performance of the Goss Government since December 1989, not the least of which are in the field of housing. The Government and this Minister deserve to be congratulated on a magnificent job in coming to grips with the disgraceful legacy inherited from the previous Government in the housing area. The nettle has been grasped, new ideas and new policies have seen the light of day and the great Australian dream of owning one’s own home is back on the agenda for thousands of Queenslanders, particularly those at the lower end of the income scale. Two schemes in particular, HOME and HOME Shared, have proved to be outstanding successes during the past year and, with the additional funds provided in this Budget, should prove even more so over the next 12 months. Just look at the performance of those two schemes during 1991. During that year, 6 600 families and single people were assisted by the department into home-ownership to a total value of $488m. The outlook for 1991-92 is even better. For the coming year, the department’s HOME lending program will be $500m, that is, 6 000 HOME loans to a value of $456m and 2 000 HOME Shared loans to a value of $44m. These amounts will be advanced through the department’s newly established HOME trusts. This is good news for people wanting affordable housing. There are plenty of people wanting homes at this end of the market. Just last week, I read in the Queensland Real Estate Journal that a study of house sales, which examined the proportion of houses sold in Queensland’s major cities in various price ranges in the June quarter this year compared with the same period last year, highlighted a concentration of house sales activity in the lower price ranges on the Gold Coast. The analysis showed that the proportion of house sales in the price range below $150,000 on the Gold Coast had increased almost 10 per cent. In Rockhampton, they had increased from 6 per cent to 17 per cent; in Mackay, more than 10 per cent; and on the Sunshine Coast and in Brisbane, 9 per cent. One offshoot of more buyers at the lower end of the market is that as they are coming into the housing market it is enabling others to upgrade. So the scheme is helping more than just first home buyers. Let me refer briefly to the rental accommodation program. This is another area in which the 1990- 91 performance of this Government deserves praise. I might add that this is in stark contrast to what our Liberal friends opposite are advocating if and when they are ever given the opportunity to govern this State. A motion carried at their recent State conference called on this State Government to sell the existing stock of welfare rental housing. What an indictment on the Liberal Party! Talk about lack of compassion and lack of heart! Well, for these would-be coalitionists, that is one thing they have in common with their other friends. One could be forgiven for thinking that the previous National Party Government did not care too much about providing rental housing, either, if one looks at its record. The Goss Labor Government inherited the smallest stock of public rental housing as a proportion of all households of any Australian State. The National Party’s shameful record showed that a measly 1.15 per cent of all Queensland housing was public rental housing. This is in stark comparison with the national figure of 5.2 per cent. Our friends in the back stalls opposite are not much better. What their recently adopted Liberal Party policy of selling off the existing stock of public housing in this State means for the 20 000 households currently accommodated in public housing, earning less than $250 a week, is the removal of the security they have and should be entitled to have—a roof over their heads for themselves and their children. With the provision of public rental housing, those people do have that security. What do honourable members Legislative Assembly 1604 10 October 1991 really think will happen to those 20 000 low-income battlers if their public rental houses are sold off to the private sector? Sure, we know that there are good landlords, but even the best landlord in the world cannot give a cast-iron guarantee that a tenant can remain forever, as long as the rent is paid on time, or that the landlord will not respond to the pressure of property speculation and sell his rented property without a “by your leave”. Mr Smyth: Do you know that Mr Beanland knows that there is a drought on because the level of his pool is dropping? Mrs WOODGATE: I did not know that. I thank the honourable member for that. I take his interjection and make a note of it. As the Minister said in this Chamber recently when responding to a question—for $120 a week or more, these low-income families can have the insecurity of a two- bedroom unit in a poorly designed development. They could then be living in poverty for the foreseeable future and probably for the rest of their lives. Let me state quite categorically that this Government and this compassionate Minister have no plans to privatise public rental housing. Our aged pensioners living in public rental housing can rest assured that this Government is not about to say to them that they will be living at the whim of private landlords. And who in this place can deny that private rents would not be substantially higher than what those people currently pay? The department’s target figure of 2 800 public housing commencements for this year has been achieved. This figure included pensioner units, apartments, duplex units, detached, attached and cluster housing as well as 332 purchases of established dwellings. That provides accommodation for over 7 000 households. The Government has again set the figure of 2 800 for the forthcoming year. But what I find pleasing is that the Government has decided to review all policies and procedures relating to the rental accommodation program, using an active consultation process, thereby encouraging public housing tenants to be increasingly involved in the development of public housing and management issues. The second housing assistance plan will be developed, drawing on this enhanced, regionally based community consultation process. The specific assistance program has not been neglected in this Budget. Special needs groups, such as people experiencing personal crisis, the aged, people with disabilities, homeless people and people under 18 years of age, have not been forgotten, either. Last year, $10.4m in grants was approved to the non-Government sector and local government for 239 housing projects. In this Budget, a number of major new initiatives have been planned regarding the specific assistance program, not the least of which is the allocation of an additional $5m to encourage an increase in joint ventures between the department, local authorities and the non-Government sector to develop community housing projects. There will be increased emphasis on funding projects in rural and remote areas, and options will be provided for those people with intellectual and/or psychiatric disabilities. This will also include the provision of rooming and boarding house accommodation. I am pleased about this, as I find this a most interesting concept. During a trip to Adelaide earlier this year with the Minister and members of his legislative committee, we visited a beautiful old historic home which was in the process of being renovated and was shortly to be used for boarding house accommodation by the South Australian Government. If memory serves me correctly, I think it was called “Mornington”, and was situated at Unley. We were quite taken with this innovation, and the old home proved itself ideal for such a scheme. Every two or three bedrooms shared a common sitting room and dining room, yet the whole idea was to give the residents a sense of living in one’s own home, which it did so very well. I understand that since our visit the boarding house has opened its doors to residents and has proved quite a success. I am not sure which non-Government group is managing “Mornington”, but I am sure that plenty of similar groups up here such as St Vincent de Paul, the Uniting Church Legislative Assembly 1605 10 October 1991 or even local authorities would be interested in becoming involved with the management of similar schemes in this State. Last month, again in company with the Minister and members of the committee, we saw at first- hand in Perth and Fremantle what the Western Australian Government is doing with providing boarding house accommodation to single people, both male and female, young and old. In some instances, hotels which have ceased to trade have been or are being converted to boarding houses. In the main, these are situated in the heart of the Cities of Perth and Fremantle and are proving to be most successful also and greatly in demand by people in those cities. I was most impressed with the forward thinking of the South Australian and Western Australian Housing Departments. I am confident that the Queensland Housing Department can also be in the front line when it comes to boarding houses and rooming house projects. The department has established a Boarding House Working Party to progress issues relating to boarding house stock, standards, safety and management issues. That working party will be developing a coordinated response to boarding house issues, including their decline in numbers, zoning, standards and the possibilities for community-managed boarding houses. The 1991-92 Community Housing Partnership program will include the acquisition of boarding house style accommodation for single people of all ages. Two pilot boarding houses are to be funded in the coming year. I for one will await with interest their completion and launch into the Queensland housing scheme. My personal feeling is that the inner-city area of Brisbane would lend itself wonderfully to a boarding house type of development, and the boarding house concept could be found to be servicing a need in country towns, for example, Ipswich, Longreach and Mount Isa. Actually, when one thinks about it, one realises that almost every country town in this State could benefit from that type of housing development. I note that one of the program goals in the specific assistance program is to increase the capacity for tenant and community involvement in decision-making regarding the development and management of their homes. I congratulate this Government and, in particular, Minister Tom Burns for going along that path. For too long in this State, people with specific housing needs have been made to feel that somehow they should be grateful for any special consideration that they receive. I am sure that all members would agree that it is the right and the due of those people to be given the choice of available housing assistance. Upon lodging an application for housing, individuals are asked to indicate their special housing needs. At present across the State, there are 160 applications for accommodation with full wheelchair access, and 950 applications for partially modified accommodation, including ground-level access. Some of the initiatives for the coming year, whereby this Government will enhance standards, appropriateness and choice of housing, include: purpose building 80 dwellings for people with disability; modifying 300 dwellings for people with disability; targeting community housing projects to meet the needs of people with psychiatric disability; and increasing liaison with the Department of Health to address the housing needs of people with psychiatric disability. During 1991-92, the department will also be developing an older persons housing strategy. A disability services coordinator has been appointed. The role of that coordinator is to provide advocacy for individuals with a disability who are having extreme difficulty in getting departmental assistance, to provide training and to improve the awareness of staff in dealing with clients with disabilities and providing policy advice. In 1991-92, attention will be given to better identifying the needs of applicants with physical disabilities on the waiting list for public housing in order to deal with their needs cost effectively and without delay at the time of allocation. Legislative Assembly 1606 10 October 1991

We are developing community and local government managed cooperative housing as alternatives to traditional tenures. As I said previously, the $14.5m provided under the Community Housing Partnership program is an increase of $5m on funds made available during the past year. One of the benefits of community housing is that it brings housing management and support skills of local government and community groups as an additional resource in housing provision and increases the capacity for more local and sensitive responses to housing needs. The Housing Accommodation Assistance Scheme—HAAS—which is soon to be renamed the Community Housing Partnership, has as one of its objectives the involvement of local government authorities and non-profit community organisations in the provision and management of long-term community-managed accommodation for low-income people. I honestly believe that the Budget allocation of $15m will go a long way towards achieving these objectives. Those single people, the elderly and people with disabilities—the groups being targeted under this scheme—will benefit greatly under this Government which, in this Budget, has yet again shown itself to be a Government with heart. My congratulations go to the Government and the Minister. I am more than pleased to support these Estimates. Mr COOMBER (Currumbin) (12.04 p.m.): This debate concerning the Estimates for the Department of Housing and Local Government gives Queensland Liberals an opportunity to disclose the changes in the department brought about the Minister. My colleague Mr Goss, the member for Aspley, will discuss the Department of Housing, and I will contain my discussion to the Department of Local Government. Legislation introduced to provide for the averaging of valuations for rating purposes was this Government's worst example of political hypocrisy. Lord Mayor Soorley has proved to be a disaster, and everywhere that I go people say that they made a terrible mistake in getting rid of Sallyanne. The averaging of valuations was a furphy that the Labor Party raised and upon which Soorley campaigned before the elections. This Government provided the legislative framework to enable him to hoodwink the people of Queensland—just as he did with the Rochedale dump. It was bandied about the State and throughout Brisbane that only Jim Soorley and Labor could stop the Rochedale dump. How many times did we hear that? An honourable member: Tell us the facts. Mr COOMBER: The fact is that Brisbane has a dump—the very dump that Jim Soorley said he would stop. I thought that priests did not lie, but then two out of three people in Brisbane thought that their rates were going to come down. They, too, believed the ALP propaganda. Once again, the endangered species of the ALP dogma—that is, business—copped savage rate increases. If this Government chooses not to carry out annual valuations—just as it did this year—where will Brisbane ratepayers be? This Government has assisted Jim Soorley in perpetrating a political fraud and cheating the people of Brisbane, particularly the south side of Brisbane, by giving false information about the Rochedale dump. This Government had the power to stop the dump without paying any compensation to Pacific Waste Management. This Government had town-planning powers and powers in the Department of Health, but it was prepared to use neither—not like it did in regard to the north shore at Noosa. This is a Government of two standards: one for the Labor Party and one for the rest of Queensland. In regard to the north shore at Noosa—this Government, in order to make a political statement chose to use its power to overrule a council, a developer and a Local Government Court decision made in favour of the developer. The Minister said that ministerial rezonings were a thing of the past, but here we have a ministerial rezoning in reverse. No local authority in Queensland will have autonomy under a Labor Government. It is a case of the nibble-nibble syndrome: take a little here, take a little there. The endangered species—the developer—now does not know what to think. Bearing in mind all the time that the Legislative Assembly 1607 10 October 1991 developer is the employer, the risk manager and the financial manager, what do two-eyed decisions such as the north shore one do to his confidence? The piece of legislation to cause the most heartache for south-east Queensland was legislation to compulsorily fence domestic swimming pools. The legislation was poorly researched and poorly drafted and required amending legislation. The need to introduce pool fencing legislation was not necessary. Most local authorities had addressed the question of pool fencing, and rural shires accepted the commonsense approach that it was futile to fence a domestic pool when a child was equally at risk of drowning in a dam or creek. Rural communities feel slighted by this legislation for several reasons: little or no consultation, little or no recognition of their problems, and little or no consideration in the amending legislation. This legislation is Brisbane-based, bulldozing legislation affecting every pool- owner from Coolangatta to Cape York. The people of Queensland are crying out for a Government that gets out of their lives, not into their swimming pools. The objective of the Government is to plan Statewide from Brisbane, not to plan locally through local authorities. One has only to look at the urban planning and development programs in the department. In 1990, 18 full-time employees were part of the program, costing $1.984m. Each employee was costing taxpayers of the State more than $100,000. No wonder the Liberal Party considers growth in the public service to be an expense that this State can no longer afford. However, this year, employee numbers have risen from 18 to 80. The total outlay for that number of staff members is $6.796m—more than $80,000 per staff member. But what do they do? They are employed to produce Statewide urban and regional planning policies. Local government town-planners will now also be classed as an endangered species, because the Government is hijacking the planning powers of local government. We have south-east Queensland planning coordination, central Queensland planning, north Queensland planning, western Queensland planning, planning integration—all very expensive and non-productive. From my experience, the Government is left dragging the chain with any planning initiatives undertaken by local authorities. How can local authorities such as the Albert Shire Council and the Gold Coast City Council plan future urban growth when such sensitive issues as the Gold Coast railway and the eastern toll-road remain undecided? How does the Gold Coast City Council plan for its sewage disposal when the Minister for Environment instructs the city to dispose of secondary-treated effluent into the ocean, and then the Commissioner for Water Resources states that tertiary-treated effluent will be required as a Government standard? How can councils confidently plan development when there is always the risk that the Government will intervene? How can councils budget and reflect to their ratepayers the lowest rate increases possible when Governments consistently pass on the responsibility for road construction or maintenance to local authorities? I have had considerable contact with local authorities that are concerned with the application of the coastal management strategy as proposed by the Minister for the Environment. I realise that the strategy is still at Green Paper stage, but the impact on town-planning schemes for coastal cities and shires is immense. The Department of Environment has lost the plot with recycling, which should be a major directive of this Government to local authorities. Funding for recycling programs has dropped from $183,000 to $180,000, which is less than $1,500 per local authority in Queensland. Recycling of paper, plastics and metal should be a high priority for a Government that takes the high moral ground on issues such as the environment but, as a Government, falls short on action when it has to bite the bullet. The people of Pine Rivers feel just as angry as do people who live near the proposed Rochedale dump with the decision to extend the dump in Pine Rivers to accept waste from Redcliffe. Once again, the Minister has refused to stop the proliferation of landfill dumps in Brisbane. The recycling of waste Legislative Assembly 1608 10 October 1991 should be encouraged, but it is not. Its active promotion by local authorities would extend the life of existing dumps and forestall the need for further landfill sites. I take this opportunity to speak about an issue that I believe is necessary in modern-day local government, that is, the issue of transferable development rights. Transferable development rights are legal in New South Wales and in some States in America. In Sydney, the transfer of development rights from one area to another has been responsible for the preservation of significant sites. In coastal Queensland, transferable rights would allow councils to obtain beachfront land for little or no compensation. That would reduce environmental and town-planning concerns about beaches and coastal management. The concept has been suggested also in a Tweed tourism strategy whereby transferable rights are to be used to protect green space for the benefit of tourism. The benefit for local government is that transferable development rights would safeguard areas from inappropriate development and prevent expensive compensation claims. That issue should be addressed by the Department of Housing and Local Government, because councils such as Mulgrave, Cairns, Caboolture, Albert, Brisbane and Gold Coast would welcome the flexibility provided by transferable development rights. Queensland Liberals will produce a comprehensive policy for local government, but the policy will include fundamental requirements for accountability such as an asset register—a register of land, plant and equipment owned by the local authorities. That register is necessary to provide for the ratepayers a clear statement of assets owned by councils. There is also a need to implement an immediate rationalisation of plant and equipment. Councils in Queensland, particularly those in south-east Queensland, would own millions of dollars worth of bulldozers, trucks, graders, etc.; however, by utilisation of equipment, I am sure that neighbouring councils could share the same plant and reduce the need for each council to provide large fleets of equipment. The Government is to encourage councils to be more entrepreneurial. I agree with that attitude when use is made of local authority expertise but not when use is made of local authority funds. A good example of that incentive is the Citipac software package that was produced by the Gold Coast City Council. That local government software package has the capacity to earn millions of dollars for that council, which has already sold the package to other local authorities. The Brisbane City Council recently spent $16m for a major computer upgrade. Before the 1991 election, the mayoral candidate Mr Soorley said that the council was acting irresponsibly by spending double the amount on an IBM system. This year, Alderman Soorley and his council agreed to purchase IBM computer hardware for $16m. His council chose that company over companies that submitted tenders to the value of $9.5m, $10.5m and $10.8m. Alderman Soorley said, “We need to ask serious questions about the total tendering process in the Brisbane City Council.” We need to ask serious questions about Alderman Soorley, because, unlike the Rochedale dump, contracts were not signed and no tender even conformed. He could easily have carried out his pre- election promise. He failed with the dump and he failed with the computer contract. What a contract for IBM and Arthur Andersen to win! Sixteen million dollars for a system which is not immediately able to carry out the basic functions of rating calculations and supply management! IBM even approached the Gold Coast City Council to supply its Citipac software package to the Brisbane City Council. The Gold Coast City Council and Fujitsu tender for the original application was some $10.8m and immediately operable. Consequently, Brisbane City still does not have a computer system with a rating program. In fact, the software package is some 18 to 24 months away, and who knows what the additional cost will be? The cost is rumoured to be close to another $8m. Computer Associates, which is part of the IBM consortium, now has to modify its original program considerably and the computer industry has raised several issues about the radical change to the software package. How many computer contracts for $20m-plus Legislative Assembly 1609 10 October 1991 are signed in Brisbane each year? Not many, and this deal has left a black mark against the computer industry for the whole of 1991. Let us face it, when one buys the best car one expects to be able to drive it away immediately. Alderman Soorley said he would stop the contract, but, in reality, he spent $10m extra for a system which is not fully operational. This is another example of disgraceful financial mismanagement by this Labor city council. Alderman Soorley also had the chance to promote Queensland technology through the Citipac program, but he did not do so. I turn now to my electorate of Currumbin. The residents of Palm Beach who surround a lake development at 19th Avenue are concerned with the management of water quality in the lake. The method of lake development has caused a decline in water quality, foreshore protection, revetment wall stability and amenity. The houses are high-quality, expensive, lakefront properties. The residents are justified in voicing their concerns to the local authority. Revetment walls have slumped, forcing the Albert Shire Council to stabilise the walls with rock. This action has changed what were sandy foreshores to grey algae-covered rock foreshores. Nearly one-third to half of the lake revetment walls have needed attention. The walls were constructed following approval by the local authority in 1980. I can only suggest that the design was substandard. Where are the tieback bars normally found in canal subdivisions to strengthen the walls? Water quality has fallen since December 1990. Tests by Symonds and Bristow for the council indicate decreased water quality. An engineering solution is possible to increase tidal interchange, and the council is preparing to do this. The weir has to be lowered and an additional waterway connecting Tallebudgera Creek to the lake has to be constructed. The level of the lake must be managed so that poor water quality does not occur again. It is not good enough to have only three to four inches of tidal interchange for such a large expanse of water. It is opportune to raise the issue of the new superdump at Dakabin in the Pine Rivers Shire. Unlike the Rochedale dump, this Government has promoted the establishment of a new superdump in Dakabin against the wishes of the people living in that area. I take this opportunity to table a letter from the Deputy Premier to the Chairman of the Pine Rivers Shire Council. It states, in part— “I confirm that at today’s meeting I have advised the Pine Rivers Shire Council delegation that Pine Rivers is to take Redcliffe’s rubbish at its Dakabin site.” Obviously, this Government is insensitive, cold and calculating and is not willing to listen to community concern. For the record, the proposed increase in dump size will make the dump at Dakabin larger than the one at Rochedale. The current tip area is some 45 hectares and was established in 1987. Time expired. Mrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (12.19 p.m.): I rise to speak in the Estimates of the Department of Housing and Local Government and wish to concentrate in the main on that part of the Estimates dedicated to improvements in animal welfare. Before doing so, I offer my congratulations to this Minister. I would be remiss if I did not extend the gratitude of the ordinary people of my electorate who have received the stability and security of home ownership since Tom Burns became Minister in this portfolio. I should also congratulate those members of caucus who elected him to that position. It is a sad reflection on the previous Minister, and indeed an indictment on the previous Government, that so little was owned by so few ordinary Queenslanders for so long. The respect that this Minister and his office has cultivated for this Labor Government, and indeed Queensland as a State, will not pass with this Government, the next Government or the Government after that. His reforms and initiatives will leave an indelible mark as the turning point in the social justice and equity of home ownership. For many ordinary Queenslanders, from this point on their standard of living will be raised to a standard that they considered well beyond their reach. Legislative Assembly 1610 10 October 1991

The Goss Labor Government has increased the grants to RSPCA Queensland ten-fold to $150,000 per year. The sum of $50,000 was donated to animal refuges and $50,000 was donated to promote desexing and support the welfare efforts of a small animal clinic at the University of Queensland. This financial support recognised the significant role that organisations such as the RSPCA play in enforcing the Act and improving animal welfare in Queensland. At this time it is appropriate to look back over the years to the amount of funding that has been given to my electorate in particular. In the 1987, 1988 and 1989 grants, the Mackay branch of the RSPCA received the sum of $2,250 from the National Party Government. Under this Government, that figure has improved to the point where the Mackay society is now well within the range of $3,500. I understand that will be maintained next year and a desexing program will be established that will receive funding of $3,500 as well. The distribution of funds throughout Queensland has certainly improved animal protection and welfare in my electorate. The Animals Protection Act, which provides for the prevention of cruelty to animals, was introduced in 1925. It does not adequately reflect current attitudes to animal welfare. It contains only a few basic provisions for animal protection and does not deal with the changing standards of the community. Since assuming responsibility for its administration, the Minister has initiated a complete review of the Act. The first State-sponsored animal welfare conference in Queensland was held on 8 and 9 June 1991 and was a huge success. A wide range of speakers who are involved with animals and animal welfare were invited to present position papers. The conference organiser chose to concentrate on urban animals and control, as it is considered to be the most important animal welfare issue facing society at the moment. However, the Animals Protection Act provides for the protection of all animals; hence, the rural and rodeo industries were also included. The recommendations made by the participants at the conference endorse the Government’s approach to animal welfare in Queensland—for example, the need to develop a training course for animal welfare inspectors. Those recommendations which go beyond the Government’s program will be considered by the review committee. If appropriate, they will also be considered by the animal welfare advisory committee when it is established. The conference enabled a wide range of people who confront animal welfare issues on a daily basis to get together and share their experiences. It was a unique opportunity in Queensland and puts this Government’s animal welfare policy on a firm footing for future development. In December 1990, the Goss Labor Government issued a Green Paper containing a proposal for a new Act. The Green Paper generated tremendous interest, and 950 responses—eight volumes in all—were received and considered by the committee. As a result of that consideration, a draft Bill is now in its final stages. This will be the pivotal point of improved animal welfare in this State. Some proposals of the new Act contain— (1) increased fines and penalties in line with society’s expectations; and (2) codes of minimal standards for the welfare of animals. These will become part of the Act and will more clearly define what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in each animal industry. Moreover, increased power will be given to officers administering the Act, and DPI stock-inspectors will be included to administer the Act in rural areas. I bring to the attention of members a long, ongoing battle that has been fought in the Pioneer Shire. For five years, Brumby Bob’s Trail Rides has operated—initially illegally—on shire property and has provided rides that trail spasmodically through the National Trust protected melaleuca park and sand dunes. Since its inception, a constant stream of complaints have flowed to local authority members concerning mistreatment of horses by the proprietor. The complaints, with accompanying photographs, range from Legislative Assembly 1611 10 October 1991 horses left for days to die in the sand dunes to staff being instructed not to remove the saddles from horses while customers were present because the animals were suffering from severe saddle-sores. On one occasion, as a local government representative, I received a complaint that horses had been left in trailers for days in the summer sun. Our SPCA is a community organisation that enjoys deserved public respect, but it has no legal powers to enter premises in response to complaints. The police needed more evidence, and the Pioneer Shire animal officer was reluctant to pursue the matter because of the popularity of the trail rides among tourists and local handicapped children. By the time officers from Townsville were able to be contacted, it was too late. As a local government representative, I had a file an inch thick on Brumby Bob’s Trail Rides. It has greatly concerned and disgusted me that this individual was not just literally getting away with murder but continues to be considered at a business level to be a successful and beneficial tourist attraction. I agree with Ian Deihm, President of the RSPCA, who believes that it is useless having increased penalties when judges and magistrates impose the absolute minimum punishment. The judiciary must be made aware of the public’s outrage at offenders getting away with slaps on the wrist. An example of this occurred earlier this year when an individual, who had dragged a kitten behind a car on Brisbane’s South East Freeway, was fined a pitiful $50. The public is demanding greater penalties in the form of gaol sentences and larger fines. I welcome the fact that penalties contained in the new provisions of the Animals Protection Act are in line with society’s expectations. Other provisions include the establishment of an animal welfare advisory committee to give advice to the Minister in relation to all aspects of animal welfare. I am pleased to report that the first recommendation made by the committee was to amend the current Act to include the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. Regulations to this effect came into force on 1 May this year. So often, members of this Parliament have a negative attitude to individuals and organisations because of offences involving cruelty to animals. In fairness, therefore, we must recognise and give credit where it is due to two companies which, at great expense to their own businesses, abhor and avoid any cruelty to animals, particularly in animal testing. The cosmetic companies BWC, which is Beauty Without Cruelty, and the Body Shop guarantee that their companies have never authorised any animal testing. In particular, the Body Shop publicly discloses a pledge that it insists that the suppliers of ingredients provide regular, written confirmation that, within the previous five years, they have not carried out any testing of the materials on animals. The company monitors the situation and, if necessary, will change suppliers or substitute ingredients. The new provisions proposed for the Animals Protection Act will establish an animal research review board to license and monitor animal-based research. It is to be hoped that other companies will follow the example of the Body Shop. While discussing the Estimates, I must take the opportunity to comment on an annoying animal welfare issue in my electorate. I refer to troublesome and dangerous dogs. Clearly, dogs are now being kept for many reasons other than as family pets. Dogs are now being kept for security reasons, and that is why the animals that are being kept are larger and are encouraged to be far more aggressive than is normal. By their very nature, these dogs are energetic and demand room to move. Consequently, the animals become noisy, dangerous, and difficult to confine, especially when they are in pairs. I know that local authorities are responsible for registration and containment. Most local authority by-laws are very responsible in their intention, but I believe we are treating the disease and not the cause. By-laws are a necessity, but they are useless if they are impossible to enforce. The by-laws refer to confinement, registration and control of noise, but the simple truth is that large, energetic hunter breeds such as Rottweilers and Alsatians cannot be confined humanely to the average allotment without a constant Legislative Assembly 1612 10 October 1991

commitment by the owner to at least twice-daily exercise. If that commitment is not made, the community suffers. We react by demanding indoor confinement, especially at night; we suggest debarking, and in the end result, the animal becomes restless, ultimately aggressive, and savage. It becomes territorial and its protection extends to footpaths and, in particular, roadways. We then make demands. We want the dog destroyed, we want it muzzled, or the dog gets baited. Muzzling, I believe, is the absolute extreme in animal abuse. And for what reason? Simply to please our need to possess and confine an animal in an unsuitable environment. Local authorities are not able to enforce their existing by-laws. At some time, some level of Government is going to insist on a code of conduct for people keeping large and aggressive dogs. In short, let us register people—the owners—the environment, not the dogs. There has been concern, as there is throughout the world, about American pit bull-terriers. They are plentiful in this State, believe me. They sell constantly through my local newspaper for $400 a pup, and even as recently as last week that paper carried an ad for American pit bull-terriers for breeding purposes. Governments the world over are legislating to control the breeding and keeping of these dangerous dogs. I was in Singapore in June of this year. The Primary Production Department there has introduced several new laws to force owners of dangerous dogs to act responsibly and to ensure that pets do not attack people. Singapore has introduced strict controls, placing dogs into two categories. Dogs in category A must be sterilised. Dogs in category A are the American pit bull-terrier, the tosa, the mastiff and one type of dog that is apparently appearing in north Queensland called the akita. The pups are sterilised once they are six months old. The dogs’ ears are tattooed so that the owners can be easily traced if the dog is lost, or runs away. The owners must have third-party insurance for an insured sum of at least $100,000 Singapore so that victims can claim compensation. The Singapore Government has already banned the importation of these breeds in category A. For category B, the Singapore Government, to its shame, has introduced muzzling when outside one’s property. Security firms using a dog in category B must get special approval to waive the muzzle, and these dogs must be leashed. I think that this Government must make the responsible decision to look at dogs. I believe that the dogs in category A in the Singapore restrictions must be banned from Queensland, unless the owners themselves can be licensed. I support the Estimates. Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (12.34 p.m.): I rise in this Estimates debate to support, first and foremost, the operation of local government in this State, which is a tier of government that is obviously closest to the people. This tier of Government must be supported continually if the communities are to be served in the outstanding way in which they have been serviced by local government over many years. I do think many people underestimate the role of local government. Local government is increasingly being taken for granted and, in many cases, is being abused for things that are probably not within its control, simply because it is the tier of representation most visible and closest to the community. I think that is rather sad. The calls upon local government bodies and individuals in local government are quite astronomical. The fact that so many people serve the community without any sort of compensation that goes close to meeting the call on their time is something for which the whole community should be grateful and of which it should be constantly reminded. Honourable members in this Parliament not only assist local government, but are very much assisted by local government. In so many situations, if local government did not exist, or was not as active as it is, the operation and management of this State would be more difficult. I have no hesitation in sincerely paying a tribute to local government throughout this State—throughout the nation, for that matter, but particularly in Queensland. The increasing calls on local government councils’ time and resources and the pressures being put on councils and councillors to provide traditional services that are increasingly costly to maintain and to come up with the money Legislative Assembly 1613 10 October 1991 for new services are quite incredible. The pressures that are being put back on to the people and the organisations are something that I think the Government must consider in the allocation of funds from both the State and federal levels. I am very proud that in my electorate there are three councils that are particularly active and switched on to community needs—as I am sure is the case in all other areas. It is interesting to see that these councils are diverse in some ways. The Burdekin Shire, which is the largest community in my electorate, is based mostly on farming. The grazing area is large but the value of the product is not so large. The Dalrymple Shire is purely grazing, from a general ratepayer point of view, although there is increasing activity in the mining sector of the shire. Thuringowa City is largely a family dormitory area, but has some rural areas as well. As a member of the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review, I was very pleased that some members of the committee were able to meet with representatives of those three local authority areas and reach a better understanding of their diversity of activity. Mr Foley: Hear, hear! Mr STONEMAN: I thank the honourable member for Yeronga for his support. I pay a particular tribute to the leaders of those three local authorities. Councillor Beth Honeycombe was elected at the last local government election and is very ably supported by her deputy, Humphrey Heatley, and, of course, all of the councillors, the shire clerk, Graham Webb, and the wonderful team of people in the shire chambers. Mayor Les Tyrell of Thuringowa was originally deputy mayor and is now the Mayor of Thuringowa, taking over from Alderman Dan Gleeson, to whom I pay a tremendous tribute. Dan Gleeson served local government, the people of Thuringowa and the north Queensland area magnificently over many years. Les Tyrell is ably supported, of course, by his council, and Tony Gunn, who is the shire clerk. The Dalrymple Shire is one of the largest local authority areas in Queensland. It does not have a town as such because the town of Charters Towers is in the middle of the shire. Mr McGrady: The City of Charters Towers. Mr STONEMAN: It is the City of Charters Towers. I thank the honourable member for Mount Isa for that. I pay tribute to Mayor Dot Birgan, who does a great job. I do not in any way seek to represent the Charters Towers city area, which is not encompassed within my electorate. Dalrymple does come into my electorate area. Councillor Peter Black has been the chairman for many years. I think he spent some 18 years as chairman and certainly 30 years in local government. Throughout this State one can find the Beth Honeycombes, the Les Tyrells and the Peter Blacks. Peter Black is supported, of course, by the shire clerk, Peter Burrow, who took over from the late shire clerk, Doug Fairbanks, who, unfortunately, died a couple of years ago. I mention these facts because this could be duplicated right across the State in so many other instances. I am very pleased to be able to work very closely with those people. Dalrymple does not have a town as such. It has a number of townships, Pentland and a number of other homesteads, and so on. Two of those small townships are in my electorate—Mingela and Ravenswood, which is a very historical town. It is also the centre of a lot of mining activity. Sometimes a conflict arises between the two. A couple of weekends ago, I was very pleased to be able to attend the opening of the old school of arts in the town centre in Ravenswood, which was supported by the mining company Carpentaria Gold with an input of $100,000. It was also given tremendous support and coordinated by the local authority, and particularly by the Dalrymple Shire Chairman, Councillor Peter Black, and the local councillor, Councillor Jim Redgates. That is the sort of activity that I think needs to be recognised continually in this Chamber and at all levels of government. Legislative Assembly 1614 10 October 1991

Before moving on, I want to congratulate the department and the Minister, if I may, on the production of the Queensland Local Government Guide. I think it is a very good document. It contains a great deal of useful information. However, may I say that I was extremely disappointed to find at page 60 a list of some 240 or 250 councillors who are listed simply because they are ladies. I wonder why such a publication needs to contain that list. These women are councillors in their own right. They have been elected chairpersons, mayors or councillors because they are people who are recognised in the community. They have been elected not because they are women but because they are people who have a perceived capacity to serve their community. I think it is somewhat demeaning that those women have been singled out because they are female. I thought in this day and age we were trying to say—and particularly this Government—that it is time for equal opportunity. Why would not this otherwise very worthwhile publication have listed all the men, which it did shire by shire, local authority by local authority? For the life of me, I cannot see the logic of singling out four or five pages of very hard-working, very worthwhile, very active and strong councillors and people in local government simply because they are women. However, I suppose it is for other wise heads to make that decision. I just make the point that I think it is an unfortunate insertion in an otherwise very worthwhile document. That is not meant in any way to demean the role of those women who are listed. Over the last few years and, unfortunately, increasingly this year because of the drought, local government has had a tremendous role to play in the coordination of natural disasters. In my area, this relates in particular to floods and to cyclones. The coordination that takes place from the local authority area—the Burdekin Shire and in many other shires throughout the State—is part and parcel of the way in which all the tiers of Government are able to focus on the people who, after all, are what it is all about. The coordination with the SES, the police and local welfare organisations to bring all of those forces together to support the community as a whole could not be done without the work of local government and the way in which local government responds so wonderfully on those occasions. I also make the point—in case the Minister is not aware of it—that the Burdekin Shire has what is probably a unique flood warning system. Perhaps it is unique. It was built upon the knowledge of a former shire engineer, the late Doug Haig. Under his system, people would ring in with flood heights and so on, and over the many years during which he was the shire engineer, he developed a system that allowed him to predict with great accuracy what the flood levels were going to be. This meant that people were able to be warned and comforted when a flood was predicted. Unfortunately, Doug Haig died prematurely. However, before his death, in its great wisdom the shire council sat down with him and developed a computer system that incorporated his knowledge gained over many years. The system, which is centralised in the Burdekin Shire office, allows his knowledge to be accessed automatically by ABC radio and a number of other organisations which desire an accurate prediction of flood levels. During a recent flood, the council expected a peak at a certain level and it was out by only four inches, or 0.1 metres. That is a remarkable tribute to the system that has been developed and to the great knowledge that Doug Haig had fed into that system. Another matter that is not understood by many people who are not connected with local government is the coordination that local government undertakes with community organisations such as welfare groups, development organisations, sporting associations and groups, cultural development groups and so on. One matter that is increasingly of concern to me and, I am sure, to many members of this Committee, relates to the changes—some of them have been inappropriate—that have been made to the representative structure of local government. There is a tendency that the workload is Legislative Assembly 1615 10 October 1991 now being unevenly balanced. It might be balanced in terms of the representation of each councillor or alderman in relation to the number of people whom they represent, but there is an imbalance in the load that those people have to bear in carrying out their representative duties. I live in Thuringowa City, which is now represented by only one alderman. Before the two former divisions were amalgamated, they had four aldermen between them. That alderman has to rely on the good services of another alderman to second his motion so that he can get them onto the table to debate them. The mayor has given an undertaking that he will never see that alderman stranded for want of a seconder to move a motion. It is an unbelievable situation when, under this system of so-called one vote, one value, a representative of the people has to rely on someone else to second a motion so that he can get his community representative requirements onto the debating table. Mr Burns: That happens in other areas, too. Mr STONEMAN: I realise that. It is a sad reflection on the changes that have taken place. I am merely instancing this example. Mr Burns: Not only there, but there is a woman down at Logan at present who no-one will second anything for. Mr STONEMAN: That could be the case, but that elected member should still be able to have her concerns on the debating table. It does not matter whether people are good or bad members; if they are elected by the community, they should be able to place the concerns of that community on the table for debate without fear or favour. For those people to be able to do that requires almost a platitudinous change in attitude. The Government has forced EARC, in haste, to undertake a review merely under the name of review and reform, and the matter has not been addressed appropriately. Time expired. Mr McGRADY (Mount Isa) (12.48 p.m.): In the past 22 months, Tom Burns has shown his vision in the field of housing policy. Of course, the central plank of that vision is the HOME scheme and the HOME Shared scheme. The HOME program has given people who would not normally be able to secure finance from the usual lending institutions the ability to move into the home-ownership world. So those Queenslanders on low to moderate incomes now have the opportunity to move out of the rental world and purchase a home of their own. This debate gives us all the opportunity to reflect on the success of that scheme over the past 12 months. At the end of the last financial year, HOME Loan approvals had reached 500 a month and approvals under the HOME Shared scheme reached 113. Translated, that means that, for every month of the year, 630 families moved out of the rental market and into a home of their own. As the member for Pine Rivers said earlier, this is the Australian dream really coming true. The HOME Shared scheme is a somewhat novel approach to housing and has certainly captured the minds of so many people in this State. As we all know, this scheme is designed to help people who are on low incomes to purchase part of their home and then, as their personal circumstances improve, they move on to purchase a bigger share in that property. The debate as to whether existing tenants should be allowed to purchase Department of Housing homes has been around for many years in Queensland and, indeed, throughout the world. I believe that every opportunity should be given to tenants to purchase the homes they are renting, provided that the moneys raised from the sale of those properties are used to purchase new and additional stock for the welfare market, because in every community we will always have a group of people who require welfare housing and who cannot or do not wish to purchase their own homes. That is in total contrast to the policy that the Liberal Party announced just a few months ago. It intends to sell off the 20 000 homes which the Queensland Department of Housing now owns and Legislative Assembly 1616 10 October 1991 which are occupied by needy welfare cases. It intends to sell them off and, as far as I can see, it has no plans to restock that particular area. I have been really impressed with the way in which the staff of the Department of Housing have moved out into the community with an up-market approach to sell the HOME scheme to the general public. That is evidenced by the HOME logo, the composition of the jingle, the hotline, the 008 numbers and the general publicity and promos which they have organised to promote the scheme. What also has impressed me is the way in which they have organised the home promotions in the suburbs of this capital city. I certainly hope that, at the first available opportunity, the department will organise similar functions in the City of Mount Isa and other country centres. Moving away from the HOME scheme, I want to compliment the Minister and his officers on the transformation of the former Housing Commission to what is now the Department of Housing and, in particular, on the standard of accommodation which they are providing. In my own City of Mount Isa, gone are the days when the commission simply provided four walls and a roof. Today, the department is building beautiful brick units, expertly designed, and has certainly raised the tone of what we know as Housing Commission properties. The greatest success, I believe, is the way in which the department is providing accommodation for senior citizens. For the past 20 years or so, I have been calling for air-conditioning to be the feature of all Housing Commission homes in western Queensland. The previous Government had a policy of providing senior citizens with units in which the kitchen, the bedroom and the lounge were all in one room. Air- conditioning was unheard of and flyscreens or security doors were not even thought of. But today the houses built for the senior citizens are on ground level to enable them to get wheelchairs in and out. The houses have flyscreens on all windows, as well as a security door. The best feature of all, and the great victory which those people have secured, is that now all pensioner accommodation in western Queensland is air-conditioned. At the recent opening of some of these units by the Department of Housing, where the department had gone out of its way to provide all of those facilities for the elderly people, I was somewhat upset that Telecom insisted on a $200 deposit for a telephone for each one of the tenants in the four units. I felt that that authority could at least have given some consideration to pensioners in the same way as consideration was given to them by the Queensland Government. The old philosophy of “anything will do for Housing Commission tenants” has been thrown out the window, and only the best is now good enough for our senior citizens, who, after all, are the pioneers of this State. The former commission basically provided a standard three-bedroom home for families. But today the department is building units for single people and is actively pursuing the boarding house type accommodation for those people who are now in their twilight years. Another important feature about housing in western Queensland is that all houses are now being built with air-conditioning ducting. Although the department has not got around to providing the actual air-conditioning unit, at least the ducting is in place, thus saving tenants many thousands of dollars. They are the humane policies which make the difference between our Government and the previous Government. As a member of the Minister’s committee, I have had the benefit of visiting Adelaide and Perth to pick the brains of the officers and the Ministers in those States. We were looking at ways to improve the housing situation in Queensland. I believe it is vital that members of Parliament travel and see how other States are in fact operating. I also compliment the Minister on organising the seminar at Bribie Island, where senior officers of the department and members of the committee were locked away for two days to review the housing strategy of the department and plan and think about the future growth and development of the housing industry in Queensland. Almost daily we hear criticism from Legislative Assembly 1617 10 October 1991 the Opposition about the senior appointments by this Government. I believe that the Queensland Department of Housing would have the most competent team of people running the department. Quite honestly, I believe that housing is such an important part of social reform in this State that we should go into the marketplace and buy in officers who are the best in the Commonwealth. I believe that is what has happened to the Queensland Department of Housing. Mr Ardill: Only under Tom Burns. Mr McGRADY: That is true; only under Tom Burns. I want to briefly touch on the rural unit which has been established in the Minister’s office. This is one of a number of recommendations that the Premier’s task force made to the Premier. The main recommendation that we made was that there be a unit established under the Deputy Premier through which all legislation or proposed legislation which has an effect on rural communities should go. A recommendation was also made about daylight- saving. This week, the Minister announced the acceptance of another recommendation of the task force, that is, the family relief package to those people in country Queensland who are in financial difficulties because of the drought. We travelled many thousands of kilometres throughout this State. The saddest part of our role was when once-proud people came along to the task force and said, “Look, we need help. We need assistance.” Today, I congratulate the Deputy Premier on implementing yet another recommendation of the task force. I feel very proud to belong to the Minister’s committee and to be part of a Government which is renewing and reviewing all aspects of housing in this State. At one time, every single house which was built by the Housing Commission was basically the same. One could drive up and down any street in this State and pick out the Housing Commission homes. Those days have gone. The department is now building different types of housing which suit the different climatic conditions throughout the State. Mr Foley: And we got rid of their special numbers. Mr McGRADY: That is right. Houses built by the Department of Housing are equal to any other houses in any street in this State. People do not now have the stigma of living in a Housing Commission home. They are in a street living alongside people who have either built their own houses or bought them from the private market. I believe that that is very, very important. I want to touch briefly on the role of crisis housing in this State. Again, many people throughout this State require and demand crisis housing. The way in which the Minister has encouraged communities to assist in this regard is excellent. It is good to see local councils also becoming involved in crisis housing. I also want to use this debate to encourage Department of Housing tenants to join in or form their own tenant unions. I believe that will enhance the reputation and the quality of life of people who live in Department of Housing homes. In the brief time available before 1 o’clock, I will refer to the comments made by Mr Stoneman. He disappointed me somewhat in criticising the latest booklet from the department. I think it only right and proper that the Minister should bring to the attention of this Chamber and the people of this State the vast increase in female representation on local councils throughout the State. I say that for a number of reasons. As the task force travelled around the State, we could see a different emphasis being exhibited by local councils. Gone are the days when the only issues they considered were rates, roads and rubbish. Today, they are starting to talk about the social welfare issues and quality of life issues. The recommendation which we took to the Premier regarding the unit to help finance people in despair came from the female members of councils. I think it was a wise decision to highlight the change of character of local councils and the contribution which the women of this State are now making to local Legislative Assembly 1618 10 October 1991 government, State Government and Federal Government. I make no apologies to anybody for saying that I congratulate the Minister on producing that particular booklet. Mr Stoneman praised some of the individuals in the councils. I suppose that every member of this Committee could do the same thing. Today, I pay tribute to the Mount Isa City Council. Every year since 1986, that council has received an Order of Excellence from the Local Government Association. I feel very proud of that. I am sure that the people of my City of Mount Isa feel proud of that, too. Recently, the Minister’s committee visited Perth. At that time we realised that local councillors or aldermen in that State receive no financial rewards at all. All of their work is voluntary. I do not believe in that system. I believe that a person who serves a local authority should at least be compensated for the amount of money that he or she loses as a result of doing that community work. Mr Gunn: You only get what you pay for. Mr McGRADY: That is right; you only get what you pay for. I believe that the situation in Western Australia is despicable. I hope to heavens that such a situation never occurs in the State of Queensland. I note a new mood throughout local governments in Queensland. Local authorities are now starting to think as teams and starting to work as regional groups of people. In fact, in my area, an organisation which takes in all the councils in north-west Queensland and down as far as Longreach has been set up. That organisation is working extremely well. In fact, next Friday, I will be travelling to Longreach with people from the Minister’s office to participate in a discussion and debate—— Mr Burns: The Chairman of the Barcaldine Shire was in. They are working within that organisation for equipment sharing. Mr McGRADY: That is right. The reason for that is that the smaller local authorities can no longer afford to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for computerisation and for the heavy equipment which councils require. Councils themselves are now joining together to share resources and personnel. Again, I come back to the community development officers. We are now recommending that smaller groups and councils band together to employ people such as that. I believe that that will enhance the quality of life for those groups. Madam Temporary Chairman, you have been tolerant. I know that members are waiting to go to lunch. All I wish to say now is that I believe that Housing and Local Government is one of the great success stories of this Government. I believe that this is because we have the present Minister leading this portfolio. The Minister has compassion; he understands what people want; he has been out there; and he knows what Queenslanders think. I believe that the State of Queensland should be proud and grateful to have a Minister such as Tom Burns. I am delighted and proud to belong to his team. Sitting suspended from 1.04 to 2.30 p.m. Mr RANDELL (Mirani) (2.30 p.m.): Local government has a very special place in Australia’s democracy. Although it is known as the third tier of government, it would be a grave mistake to underestimate its importance, as the Minister sometimes does. Local government is the level of government that is closest to the people and considered by many to deliver the most viable and important public services. As the Opposition spokesman, Mr Gunn, said, working in local government is the most rewarding job that a man could ever have. I know from my term as a councillor and a chairman of a council and from talking to Mr Prest, who was an alderman and a mayor, and to Mr Gunn, that work is a very enjoyable part of anyone’s life. I will look back on my work in local government with very fond memories. Local government maintains most of the streets on which we drive to work. It delivers the water for our morning showers and carts away the rubbish that we generate Legislative Assembly 1619 10 October 1991 every day. The local alderman or shire councillor deals with our most immediate concerns. Many members of this Parliament know exactly what I am talking about. However, people are now calling for local councils to take a more hands-on approach to the social issues affecting the community. People ask their local aldermen what they are doing about the vandalism and crime waves that affect areas. They want the council to look at the growing unemployment in many regions. A growing demand is made of councils to be involved in and face up to social issues—and that is probably the greatest demand being made of councils. People no longer accept the old local government catchcry, “It is not our responsibility.” Too often in the past we heard local governments fob off those issues as the responsibility of the two higher tiers of government, namely, the Federal and State Governments. Also worthy of note is that the Federal Government, the relatively new Queensland State Government and the former National Party State Government agree that the role of councils in the total system of government must be viewed in a wider perspective. More importantly, the people are demanding it. To be fair to local councils, the social issues add a huge dimension to their responsibilities—which must be very daunting. Before many members on both sides of the Chamber came to this place, we were members of local authorities. I find it very difficult to understand the Labor Government’s policies on the local government sector. This morning, the Minister’s speech related mainly to housing. Certainly, housing is a very important issue for the people of this State, but the Minister completely underestimates the importance of local government and the role that it plays in Queensland. I know that the Minister will not take on board my remarks, but I will tell him, anyway. When the Government took office, one of its first actions was the gutting—and that is the only way to describe it—of the Local Government Department. Many of the very good, loyal people who would have worked loyally for any political party were put out. I will not comment further on that matter. The Local Government Department, as we knew it, functioned very well under the National Party Government and provided a valuable service to the shires and cities of this State. It gave advice and guidance. An excellent relationship was established between the department and people in local government, but that has gone and it is sadly missed. For whatever reason, as one of Labor’s first acts in office, it dismantled local government. It is history now that, in the first several months of this Government’s tenure in office, the Department of Local Government practically came to a standstill. In that time, absolutely nothing happened. Ministerial rezonings piled up, which cost people around the State millions of dollars in stalled operations. I am not talking about the big-ticket questions. Labor allowed the routine matters to pile up—matters such as road and laneway closures to secure access to building sites. That may have happened because the Minister did not realise that the work was not being done. I am talking about the minor truncations that are essential for projects to go ahead. I am talking about the hundreds upon hundreds of minor matters that should be routine. Unfortunately, Labor in its fever to change everything did not use its brains. Local government effectively ground to a halt. Labor had been too long out of office to have a clue about how anything should work. The people who might have understood were languishing on the back benches to make way for the old faithfuls—and they still are. I am pleased, however, that Mr Burns has the job as Minister. At least he realises some of the practical problems of local government. For heaven’s sake, the Minister should take notice of what some of those people are telling him. The problems of local government in Queensland do not end with a Government that does not understand. Councils have become the real victims of that Labor catchcry “the Fitzgerald process”. That is all we hear from members on the Government side of the Chamber. Since the change of Government, local councils all over the State have been Legislative Assembly 1620 10 October 1991 buried in a mountain of paper generated by inquiry after inquiry. Anyone who is fair dinkum would realise that. Councillors and council officers spend a huge proportion of their time answering questions and preparing submissions demanded by the so-called reformers who turned up in Labor’s baggage. The same applies to the Local Government Association, which has been saddled with huge expenses doing the same thing. Members of the Local Government Association are appalled at what they have to do when they should be taking care of other matters for the people of Queensland. When councils should be occupied with what they do best—and what they have been doing best for well over 100 years—they are doing something else. Instead of concentrating on the real needs of ratepayers, councils are fighting a paper war. Local government is fighting a couple of other major problems, too. As the third tier of government, local government has always found it hard to make ends meet financially. In spite of all the services that local government is expected to provide to the communities that it services, it is on the end of the queue for funding. Canberra grabs the lion’s share of the funds that come from the Australian people, and the State Governments grab most of the rest. Local government gets the crumbs. In 1989-90, local government was able to spend only 6.7 per cent of total public outlays in Australia. That situation is inequitable, and members should all work on ways to address it. I have no faith in the Special Premiers Conferences that are being staged as a PR exercise by the outgoing Prime Minister of Australia. Talk at those conferences about a fair deal for local government was only to placate the local government representatives who had been invited along for show. We must come up with practical suggestions, and I offer a couple now. Many members are aware of the severe problem faced by local government because of its very narrow revenue base—essentially, property rates. Severe problems are associated with that at the best of times. The revenue base is simply too narrow to take account of the prevailing conditions in the area and in the local economy. Drought and severe financial stress are being felt both in the cities and in country areas. The Minister knows only too well how that is affecting the economy of this State. Many people cannot afford to stay viable and pay their rates. On the other hand, local government cannot do without those rates. It has borrowings to service and labour forces to pay. If there is a drastic shortfall in rate revenue, there will have to be severe cut-backs in services and in jobs. This morning, the Minister for Employment spoke about that. I suggest that local government be funded by a fixed percentage of the income tax pool. By that I mean that it should be totally funded, not partially funded as it is at present. That would give local government an assured income with which to carry out the functions delegated to it by Federal and State Governments. As the Minister knows, there is a very complicated formula for local government funding under the Grants Commission guidelines, but I suggest that few people understand it. I only understood it fully after a long, hard lesson. I think the Minister would agree that he does not fully understand it, either. If the Minister was honest about it, he would say that not many people in local government understand it. Probably the only people who understand it are the public servants in Canberra who dreamed up the idea and those academics and theorists who have no concept of the real world outside Canberra and no practical knowledge. In the short term, I suggest that the State Government ensure the continuation of the current levels of local government finance by giving special assistance through drought relief schemes. As I said, many people, particularly those on the land and in businesses, cannot afford to pay their rate bills. Local government would benefit enormously if the State Government paid the rate bills on properties that are declared or are already the subject of concessional loans. Those rates could then be collected later when times got better in the form of loan repayments at concessional rates. Legislative Assembly 1621 10 October 1991

There would be benefits to the land-holder, but there would be the very real benefit of keeping local government and businesses viable and maintaining jobs. This morning, Mr Warburton spoke about social security. Most people in the cities and nearly all the people in the rural communities do not want welfare and social payments, they want jobs. We have to do everything we can to keep jobs in this State. We have to help local government to keep those jobs going. There is little that local government itself can do to redress the serious imbalance between calls on its services and the wherewithal to meet those calls. The States themselves have seen their independence of action and their access to funding seriously eroded by the Commonwealth’s constant effort to centralise power in Canberra. No matter what members may think of the man, to his credit, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen fought hard against the centralising push, even to the extent of High Court challenges. One day, we will all regret the fact that the High Court has moved our Federal Constitution towards centralism. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr RANDELL: We now have a great deal of Canberra dominance—and perhaps that is what the honourable member for Brisbane Central wants—and that trend is becoming apparent in relation to local government as well. We must never let the Government that is closest to the people be centralised in Canberra. People must always have their say, and I will fight every inch of the way for that. The centralists are obviously in the driving seat at EARC, if their proposals for local government are any guide. Mrs Woodgate: Tell us about Coppabella. Mr RANDELL: If I have a bit more time, I will talk about that. The clear philosophical point coming through those proposals is that bigger is better. I do not know whether the Minister agrees with that or not. This may be the case sometimes, but I do not believe that it is good in all cases. When I was the Minister for Local Government, I always believed that the people of the Mount Perry Shire, which is the smallest shire in Queensland, suffered no disadvantages. It was run very well and it will continue to run very well. I would take some convincing that, by amalgamating that shire, better services could be provided for the people of that area. Mr Burns: Where were you when I was asking for little shires or smaller shires? I never heard a word from you. Mr RANDELL: All the Minister wants to do is amalgamate the shires. Mr Burns: You ran away. You dingoed. You wouldn’t stand up for small shires. You wouldn’t give them a hand at all. Mr RANDELL: The Minister knows that he wanted to amalgamate shires. He is trying to tell me that amalgamation will mean the provision of better services. That is not always the case. The Minister pulled out when he found he would get a hiding from local government. He backed off at 1 000 miles an hour. The Minister knows that he has a fight on his hands. He has gone for cover, because he knows that amalgamation is not always good for the people. Most Government members know what a disaster most of the proposed amalgamations of local authorities would be, but they are sitting on their hands. They are not game to open their mouths. I have even heard the Minister say that in many cases amalgamation is not good. Government members know that the all-important Fitzgerald process was all that got most of them here in the first place. For political expediency, they will not open their mouths or disagree with EARC on anything. Sir Max Bingham is fair game to most Labor members, but EARC is off limits. The result is that many councils face amalgamation against their will. They have been sold out by their local members of Parliament in the name of political expediency. I believe that the EARC report, Legislative Assembly 1622 10 October 1991 which is to be presented to this Parliament, will recommend that there be a truly independent tribunal. Mr Burns: You should have done it in your day. Mr RANDELL: We were on the way to doing that. We were trying to get cooperation for it. Mr Burns: Russell Hinze used to do it. Mr RANDELL: The Minister has done nothing in the last two years. All he did was hide behind the skirts of EARC and CJC and get them to do his dirty work. I understand that EARC has proposed some amalgamations. I understand that one of these proposals is to join Logan, Brisbane and the Redland Shire into one giant local authority. That huge area would contain almost half the number of people in this State. It would be so huge that it would rival the power of the State Government. The danger as I see it would be that the administrators would lose contact with the everyday problems of the ordinary people. Smaller local authorities have contact with the ordinary people. The Minister is referring to the little battlers in the city. He should go out into the country and see the little battlers there who pave the way for the social justice reforms that the Government wants. Mr Booth interjected. Mr RANDELL: I heard that he is a millionaire, too. EARC has simply taken the view that was previously held by some people in other States, that amalgamations will lead to increased efficiency. That idea went out of vogue in the seventies. It was tried in New South Wales and Victoria, but those involved backed off at a million miles an hour when they got down to studying the consequences. New South Wales has gone the other way. The new Sydney City Council has only 10 000 residents. The academics who prepare these plans should get out and look at the way in which things really happen in this vast State of ours. They should realise that some local government bodies have been around for more than 100 years and they perform a tremendously good service for the people of this State. They will continue to do so if they are given encouragement and a fair go in this modern age. Most local government bodies were set up to serve the needs of rural areas and they operate on that basis as shire councils until closer settlement and population build-up forces a move to town or city council status. Finally, I wish to comment briefly on two other matters. The first matter concerns the differential rating system that is in place in this State, and which was introduced in 1981 by the National Party Government. I firmly believe that many local authorities are not taking full advantage of the system that would alleviate the hardship faced by many of their ratepayers. I have spoken to some councillors who have informed me that they have advice from their shire clerks that differential rating is of no advantage to their shires. Some shire clerks need a little jogging along, because, even though it may place a little more work on the administration—and computers can alleviate most of the problems nowadays—the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages. Time expired. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (2.45 p.m.): I rise with a great deal of satisfaction to participate in this debate because I believe that the Minister’s administration of his portfolio is one of the proudest areas of achievement of this Government—particularly in terms of the provision of much-needed housing for Queenslanders. Today, I will deal mainly with the issue of housing that is being provided for people who have special needs under the Specific Assistance program. Before doing so, I must say that prior to the luncheon recess I could not help noticing that the honourable member for Burdekin, Mr Stoneman, referred to the Queensland Local Government Guide for 1991 and made some unfavourable comments about the list in the back part of that booklet containing the names of women who are involved in local authorities. He indicated that this was an Legislative Assembly 1623 10 October 1991 undesirable state of affairs and that the Government was singling out women, and he claimed that this is an example of a lack of equal opportunity. The booklet is dated August 1991, and honourable members who were present in the Chamber earlier today would remember the fanfare that accompanied the honourable member’s remarks. It is therefore absolutely extraordinary that exactly the same document issued in July 1988, titled Members and Employees of Local Authorities, contains in the back portion a list of names of women who were involved in local authorities. Mr Prest: Their Government introduced it. Mr BEATTIE: Exactly. The former National Party Government introduced the practice of setting out a list of women in the list of members and employees in local authorities. This incident demonstrates not only that the honourable member does not know what he is talking about, but also that he came into this Chamber and made an absolute goose of himself. If he wants to come into this Chamber and make disparaging remarks, he should make sure that he has done his homework first. It is no wonder that rumours are circulating about the Leader of the Opposition replacing him as Treasury spokesman with the honourable member for Surfers Paradise. If he cannot get that type of statistical information correct and is unaware of its history, it is not surprising that he is being treated with a degree of concern in relation to Treasury. Page 229 of Budget Paper No. 3 shows under “Total Outlays” that the actual expenditure on the Specific Assistance program for 1990-91 was $34,354,000. Estimated expenditure for next year will increase to $56,230,000. This program is obviously of considerable significance and the figures indicate that an expansion of the program is envisaged. The Budget papers contain the program goals, which are stated as follows— “To expand the availability and choice of housing assistance to special needs groups including those experiencing personal crisis, the aged, people with disabilities, homeless people and people under 18 years of age. To develop community and Local Government managed and cooperative housing as alternatives to traditional tenures. To increase the capacity for tenant and community involvement in decision making about the development and management of their housing.” The Budget allocates a significant and important projected increase in funds for the Specific Assistance program. The extraordinary feature of this program is that it not only assists in promoting equity and fairness in the community while helping people who are least able to help themselves, which is fundamentally important, but did so, as at 30 June 1991, with only 11 full-time equivalent employees. The estimated number of employees required to administer this program next year is 14 only. This section of the Housing and Local Government Department, which is providing a very important and effective service, is a lean machine. Let me examine the program in some detail. The department has continued to improve the responsiveness and flexibility of services provided to people with special needs. Firstly, I will refer to people with disabilities and high support needs. Access to public housing by this group has been improved by modifying the housing of existing frail or disabled tenants. A budget of $500,000 has been provided for this purpose, which should allow modifications to be made to about 300 dwellings for tenants and applicants. This is an increase of 25 per cent on the amount allocated last year—the first year in which the department was involved in major expenditure on modifications. Previously, modifications had been paid for by the Department of Health, and the number of dwellings modified depended on that department’s budget and priorities. Usually, only simple modifications are needed, and the average cost is $2,750. The one-off costs of those Legislative Assembly 1624 10 October 1991 changes allow tenants to remain independent in their familiar community, which is an important social achievement that deserves the support of all members of this Parliament. In the past, many of these tenants would have been forced into other types of housing, at much greater ongoing cost to the community. The capital works program is now responsive to the needs of people who have disabilities. The department now spot purchases suitably modified housing, as required; modifies existing housing designs; and has made variations to current contracts. This year, the department will construct 80 purpose-built dwellings for people with disabilities. In addition, all new pensioner units will be designed to include wheelchair-accessible bathrooms, which is a fundamental quality-of-life issue for disabled people. The department is also aiming to ensure approximately 10 per cent of stock is suitable for people with disabilities and high support needs, such as frail, aged people. As the percentage of aged people in the community increases, this type of Government assistance will become fundamentally important. Up to 40 places will be available through the Aged Care Linkages program, which is a joint program between the department and the Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. It will provide support services for tenants and future tenants of the Department of Housing and Local Government. As is the case with dwelling modifications, the outcome of this program is that tenants are able to remain in their current housing instead of having to move to aged care hostels or nursing homes. A further 26 places will be available in the independent living housing scheme for people who have physical disabilities. The scheme will be run over three years as a pilot project to coordinate support services for people with disabilities and will provide public housing. Twenty-six places were available last year. That was the first year of its operation. In June 1990, the program allowed all single people under 40 to apply for public housing. The program continues to have a very positive effect on people, including people who have psychiatric disabilities. That group of people is often ignored in the public area. In the past, such people would not have been eligible for the security of public housing—something that really is lamentable when one looks back at the housing history of the State. No longer are people with disabilities and high support needs discouraged from seeking housing assistance. In the past, when people under 40 were not allowed to apply, the non-responsiveness of the Housing Commission and the lack of appropriate housing were a blot on the housing record of this State. The department maintains a commitment to liaise with other departments and agencies that also provide support services. Clearly, one simply cannot have a one-out service for these people. One cannot assist these people in one particular area in isolation without providing assistance in other areas. There has to be a coordinated approach so that a total service is provided to these unfortunate, disabled people. The department now has three specialist staff to work with this client group. These staff can accurately assess the needs of people with disabilities and ensure that the most appropriate housing solution can be found. The department is also developing an older persons housing strategy. Such a strategy is long overdue. It will, for the first time, consider comprehensively the full range of housing needs and tenures for older people. Some of the initiatives that will be considered are home equity conversion schemes, serviced group homes, mobile units and alternative designs for public housing, so that older people can have the dignity of living out their old age with some degree of grace and support. The electorate of Brisbane Central that I represent in this Chamber has a disproportionately high percentage of elderly people who have lived in the inner city all their lives. Therefore, these people will benefit from this program and I congratulate the Minister and the department on the initiatives that are being taken here. Mr T. B. Sullivan: Brisbane Central must be very special. Legislative Assembly 1625 10 October 1991

Mr BEATTIE: It is indeed. I will take that interjection, and I will do my best to make sure that Brisbane Central remains very special. I should also say that I am delighted that the Minister has indicated that he is prepared to consult, and in fact has been in close consultation with, the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Jim Soorley, and the Federal Government about the urban renewal program that partly involves my current electorate of Brisbane Central in the Valley area, but will significantly involve the new area of Brisbane Central, which will include New Farm, Teneriffe and Merthyr. Those suburbs are old, traditional suburbs. Unfortunately, most people refer to that whole area as New Farm, but, in fact, it is actually three separate, small suburbs. These housing policies that I have outlined will obviously have an integral role in those areas. I support the Minister’s approach in ensuring that, whatever urban renewal takes place in the New Farm area, there will be a component of public housing from the Department of Housing. If this Government is to encourage urban renewal, it is fundamentally important that we use new schemes such as the Green Street scheme that the parliamentary committee examined in Adelaide and Perth. That committee saw how magnificent the scheme is. But if urban renewal is to be a success, one has to ensure that there are mixed income groups in those areas. There has to be; otherwise the scheme will not succeed. Fortitude Valley is important, of course, in terms of urban renewal and rejuvenation. There will be a total rejuvenation of the Valley only when people live there. There is a role for the Department of Housing in urban renewal. The State Government must participate in what is happening in the Valley and in the New Farm area, and I urge the Minister to do whatever he can to make sure that that program is implemented as quickly as possible. I should add that I also believe that, when this program of urban renewal is introduced, there must be maximum community consultation. As honourable members would know, I have advocated maximum community consultation on many occasions in this Chamber. I do not believe that any Government at any level should go through significant programs that affect the daily lives of people without community consultation. No-one in the New Farm area is going to be affected directly—in terms of where they live—by these programs. The areas in question for new housing are, in fact, vacant land or land that has not been used for some time. Naturally, there will be an indirect spin-off that will affect the people who are currently in New Farm and, therefore, they are entitled, and should be consulted in that process. I will be advocating as hard as I possibly can on behalf of those people for maximum community consultation so that their quality of life is protected. Mr Ardill: They have not been properly represented. Mr BEATTIE: No, indeed. They certainly have not been properly represented, and at the first opportunity I intend to improve the standard of representation. There needs to be community consultation and the overall interest of the community needs to be looked after as part of this urban renewal program. I indicate my full support for it, but I do so on the basis of maximum community consultation. I move on to the matter of younger people. The budgetary program will enable the Department of Housing to investigate the feasibility of shared households in public housing, as well as providing direct tenancy to young people under 18 capable of living independently. This is a sensitive area, but there is a lot of concern about street kids and kids who are, because of their financial circumstances and social circumstances, in a “deprived” category. We, as a Government, cannot ignore that group of people. Mr Gilmore: They are the ones who are not living in poverty, are they? Mr BEATTIE: A major initiative of the department will see the Youth Head Leasing Transfer scheme implemented. In fact, I will take the interjection, because there are Legislative Assembly 1626 10 October 1991 children living in poverty. That is why this Government has to face up to these issues realistically, honestly and directly. Cliches never solve anything. The Youth Head Leasing Transfer scheme will provide a transition from supported accommodation to independent housing for young people who have been homeless. Fifty places will be available this year. Two special purpose community rent schemes will be established in Townsville and Brisbane to meet the immediate housing needs of young people. A special purpose housing resource service that will provide information, referral and advocacy to young people will be established in Brisbane as well. The Burdekin inquiry into youth homelessness found widespread youth homelessness in Queensland. As part of the Government’s response, and in conjunction with the Commonwealth Government’s youth social strategy, $1.2m will be spent through the crisis accommodation program on projects to help deal with youth homelessness. It is long overdue for a Government to finally tackle this problem of youth homelessness. Mr J. N. GOSS (Aspley) (3 p.m.): I was amazed that the member for Brisbane Central had to write a new speech this year. I suppose it was because he did not have Sallyanne and the Brisbane City Council to attack. He could have used last year’s speech and just changed the name from Sallyanne to Soorley. Housing is one of the most important departments of any Government, because it has the ability to offer so many people a better quality of life. If it is managed well, the provision of housing can be achieved at reasonable cost to the taxpayers, the tenants and the owners in the community. In these difficult times of high unemployment—created directly by the policies of the ALP Federal Government—the demand for housing assistance has grown to a flood. One of the members on the Government side said that it was shameful that Queensland has the lowest number of welfare houses of any Australian State. Honourable members may ask themselves why. What the Government is saying is, “We do not have as many welfare houses as they have in Victoria and Western Australia.” Perhaps the Government is looking to say that the economy of this State and unemployment in this State will reach the levels that they have reached in those States and that Queensland will need far more welfare housing. Mr Coomber: It’s only a matter of time. Mr J. N. GOSS: Yes. From the way in which the Government’s policies are going, this State will soon be in the same position as those States. At a time when the housing sector needs expert guidance and sound management, along with proper resources, I feel that the Government is not having a proper input into the resources area. I wish to place on record my appreciation of the work of the day-to-day staff of the department who deal directly with the public and the elected representatives. They try their hardest, but they are bound by hard and fast rules. Even though they are very sympathetic and they understand the position in which many people find themselves, the rules prevent them from giving assistance. I have spoken to public servants in other States, and it appears that in some area of housing this Government is now making the same mistakes as were made in the Housing Departments of those States many years ago. Honourable members may ask why. The reason is—and other States joke about it—that this Government has employed the very people who created chaos in the Housing Departments in other States. The Queensland Government has employed people whom the other States were pleased to get rid of, because their theories and philosophies just did not work. I might add that not all of the people employed from other States are failures, but a number of key people who have come to Queensland from other States have carried on policies that have been a failure in other places. The policy of empire-building is one of the first failings. While people are living in absolutely shocking conditions, the policy of the department and the Government is to Legislative Assembly 1627 10 October 1991 build, and build, and build. Even allowing for the raids on the trust accounts, the list of people waiting for welfare housing keeps growing. Instead of doing what the Commonwealth Government has done with its defence forces homes, this Government has embarked upon a great campaign of allowing people to build homes. The Government does a deal with the people who build the homes. The people have to maintain the houses. The Government pays for its section of it. The rent increases in line with increases in the CPI and people have a well-maintained, modern home. Unfortunately, this Government is against private enterprise. Therefore, it is quite happy to see people living in 30 or 40- year-old fibro homes that are desperately in need of maintenance. The old asbestos roofs need replacing. A number of homes in my area desperately need maintenance. There are two homes in my area that have been refurbished, the details of which the department has apparently lost on the computer. They have been sitting there for so long that the windows are now broken. The vandals are getting into them. The houses are deteriorating. The local residents have complained and they cannot understand why nothing is being done—— Mrs Woodgate: What have you done about it? Mr J. N. GOSS: The department knows about it, but the details of those houses cannot be found on the computer. Something is definitely wrong somewhere. With today’s scarce resources, even the ALP Federal Government realises that renting from the private market and subsidising the rent is the way to go. It gives the people a modern, presentable home. The Government is not up for the ongoing cost of maintenance and it does not have to outlay a huge amount of capital, which could be used in other areas. The standard of the home is in the agreement. The maintenance required is in the agreement. This would enable many more people to be put into homes. The interest alone on the cost of building a three-bedroom home could house two and a half families in the private rental market. It will not be very far down the track—especially if the current economic conditions continue—before there will be more people on the waiting list than people actually in rental housing. I want to say something about the HOME scheme. There is a perception amongst people—particularly those people who are in need and do not have a good education—that the State Government will always look after them, that State housing is there to help them, that State housing is the cheapest and best housing and that it is designed especially for them and provided to take care of them. That has been a perception ever since State housing was introduced back in the early 1950s under Labor. The perception is that State housing, or Housing Commission housing, is there to look after the battlers, as the Minister likes to call them. We had a blaze of publicity and people rushed in and applied for their home loans. By offering them a low interest rate, the Government was going to be the saviour of the battlers. We heard time and time again that, because of their high interest rates, the banks were ripping people off and that they were dishonest. Because their interest rate was above what was expected in the marketplace, the banks were basically called crooks. Today, the Government, which is offering an interest rate of 14.9 per cent, is ripping off the battlers. It made a bad decision to borrow an excessive amount of money at 14.5 per cent, and it added 0.4 per cent to cover the cost of administering the scheme. The battlers were even paying for Government administration. Today, the ANZ Bank is offering a 12 per cent fixed rate of interest, and it is tipped that interest rates will fall once more. However, I will not make calculations on the lowest interest rate; I will work on 12.5 per cent for a $100,000 loan over 20 years. In that instance, the battler will end up paying almost $40,000 more for his home. The director-general said that the battlers would benefit through capital gain. When compared to a person who obtained a loan from a bank, the capital gain on the battler’s house would need to be $40,000 more than that on the house of a person who obtained a loan from the bank. The monthly repayment to the Legislative Assembly 1628 10 October 1991

Government would be $1,309 and the repayment to the bank would be $1,136. The home-owner with a Government loan will eventually pay $215,000 for his home compared to $173,000 for an identical home purchased through the bank. The Minister and the Government are hoping that housing interest rates will rise above 15 per cent so that they can justify charging 14.9 per cent. These battlers have been lured into a very costly mistake. The Government made a disastrous mistake and it has transferred the problem onto the battlers. What happens if a purchaser gets into financial difficulties? Recently, we were told that those people can refinance at no cost. After that episode, I met a husband with a wife and child, and the husband and wife had lost their jobs and had income only from Social Security. I advised them to discuss immediately their problems with the department so that the debt did not increase. They attended the department and said, “This is our situation. What can we do?” The department arranged a refinancing package, but those people were asked to pay $1,300 in costs to the department. This generous Government which can dish out money to the Tenants Union and other organisations charges a family which is in a desperate situation $1,300 in fees to refinance a loan. Mr Coomber: Would this family be a typical battler? Mr J. N. GOSS: When I visited their home, there was virtually no furniture and no floor coverings. This Government, when it comes to compassion, is an absolute fraud. When people wish to purchase under the HOME scheme, the Government supports five or six individual builders. It is not interested in promoting all the small builders who are trying to make a living. The Government picks five or six builders and offers them immediate finance for homes which they build, but every other builder has to wait for six months or more. Mr Burns: That’s rubbish. Mr J. N. GOSS: I have the correspondence from the Department of Housing and Local Government which states that the purchasers will obtain immediate finance if they go to one of those builders. The correspondence states, “What an offer! Immediate HOME Loan and HOME Shared finance for eligible borrowers.” However, if those purchasers go to other builders, they are required to wait until finance becomes available. Those other builders claim that they have homes of equal quality and similar design, but people say to them, “If I come to you, I have got to join in the queue. But if I go to these builders I can get immediate finance.” Mr Coomber interjected. Mr J. N. GOSS: I do not know how those builders vote. All I can say is that the builders write to the people who may have missed out and state, “In a month’s time we will have some more homes for you. Don’t go anywhere else. Wait until we have more homes and you will get instant finance. It will be much faster than going to a real estate agent or to another builder.” Mr Coomber: A. V. Jennings, Devine Homes, Hutton Homes. Mr J. N. GOSS: Five or six builders appear to be receive preference from the Department of Housing and Local Government. Mr Szczerbanik: They vote Labor. Mr J. N. GOSS: Yes, they must vote Labor. I thank the honourable member for informing me that they obviously vote Labor. I still have concerns about the low staff numbers, the Rental Bond Authority and the demand that the Government keep all the interest. I am pleased to see that, eventually, the Minister will do something about it. At least it was a Liberal Government in New South Wales that decided—— Mr Burns: After 14 years. Legislative Assembly 1629 10 October 1991

Mr J. N. GOSS: After Labor, yes. It was a Liberal Government which ensured that tenants were rebated the interest on their bonds. Time expired. Mr D’ARCY (Woodridge) (3.15 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate. Under the previous Government, the housing area was neglected for a long time. This was evidenced by some of the problems that the Deputy Premier outlined in speaking to these Estimates. The bleatings from the other side about technicalities and finance—things which the Liberals do not understand—are now shaping up as big issues. The big issues were those outlined by the Deputy Premier. Because Queensland is so far behind the other States, it will take a long time to catch up. For 30 years of National Party Government, Queensland people at the lower end of the housing market had been disadvantaged. One cannot expect the Labor Party to catch up overnight. The initiatives that the Deputy Premier has put in place show that he has been probably one of the most active and successful of our Ministers. He has put in place a housing policy that is dragging Queensland, probably screaming, into the 1990s and into the twenty-first century. He deserves great credit for that. It is not an easy job. It would be so much easier to merely patch the mistakes that were left behind by the Nationals and accelerate things. But we have not done that. The Deputy Premier has attempted to totally reorganise the housing market. Some areas have worked more quickly than others. Those that have worked quickly are showing great results. The HOME scheme and the HOME Shared scheme are very positive achievements. I would like to dispel the Liberals’ carping about finance. They raised several totally dishonest points. The interest rate being charged by the Housing Commission is the only fixed interest rate for a period of 10 years. None of the financial institutions will allow a borrower that type of tenure—none! The longest period for which an interest rate is fixed has been offered by one of the quasi-bank financial institutions, which offers a period of five years. Most of the banks offer a period of one year, or a maximum term of three years. If a person enters a fixed-interest loan, it is usually at a higher rate. The rate of 12 per cent cited by the member for Aspley is a variable rate. That means that, over the next 10 years, as the rate varies, the borrower will be much worse off, on historical figures, than anyone borrowing from the Housing Commission. The other point that is neglected totally by the Liberals—and I have referred to this matter in this place on a prior occasion—is that loans from a bank or a financial institution attract a number of charges. Banks charge borrowers for everything. They charge a line fee, an overdraft fee, a banking fee and a mortgage acceptance fee. The banks sit down and dream the charges up. The worst one is that people are charged an exit fee. People cannot even get out of a loan without paying a penalty. Mr Gunn: That’s right. Mr D’ARCY: I am glad that the honourable member agrees with me. None of those charges have been taken into account by the Liberals in arriving at their fancy figures in relation to housing loans. Although the variable rate for a Housing Commission loan might appear a little bit high at present, it is not out of touch with reality. It allows people at the lower end of the market to purchase a house. To some extent, the Housing Commission is the lender of last resort. It lends to people who would not normally be able to get a loan. In 99 per cent of cases, if the people who borrow from the Housing Commission had to borrow from a financial institution, they would not get a loan. That is the other thing that the Liberals ignore. When the real facts and figures are considered, one will realise that the carping from the other side of the Chamber about the 14.9 per cent rate is a load of rubbish. In financial and economic cost terms, it does not stack up. That is the point that I want to make. Quite frankly, they are talking absolute rubbish. I ask them to tell me where Legislative Assembly 1630 10 October 1991 else one can obtain a loan with fees as low as those being charged by the department. The department can offer people a fixed tenure. The people at the lower end of the market have to budget on their income, which is generally fairly small, particularly when they first take out the loan. They need to know that in nine months’ time the rate of interest will not be 16 per cent. If it were, they would lose their home. Because they know that the rate will be set for a period of 10 years, they can budget for it. I think the department deserves a lot of credit for what it has done. It has brought housing into a commercial zone and as a result the people of Queensland can afford it. As I said before, tremendous problems have arisen in the housing area. As those problems that were left behind by the Nationals have been well documented and outlined by the Deputy Premier and Minister for Housing and Local Government, I will not deal with them at great length. My own area, the electorate of Woodridge, and the Logan area probably have the greatest concentration of Housing Commission homes of any electorate. It is no use my referring to the historical situation. I was sickened when I first went into those areas and found that the Housing Commission built houses in that area because it had bought cheap land. The Housing Commission did not supply the services; the people did not get the services. That is why the integrated approach that the Housing Commission now takes is tremendously valuable to Queensland. In some Housing Commission areas, in the past a road or a bitumen strip was put in without kerbing and channelling, there was no sewerage and, in many cases, no electricity. That was the case in the first development in the Woodridge area. At that time, it was forgotten that it was going to cost somebody a lot of money to provide those services. And it has cost money. Over the years, local authorities have borrowed to provide kerbing and channelling, to get rid of the thunderboxes and to provide the facilities that the people now have. It has been very, very expensive to provide transport facilities. Never again do I want to see in Queensland the situation in which lower-cost housing is treated in such a manner. Some of the maintenance associated with the integrated program of the redevelopment of the inner-city area will be expensive. However, many of the services such as hospitals, schools and transport are already in place. Queensland is way behind the other States in providing what the Federal Government has been talking about for some time, namely, a change in living style—the Green Street type of effect—where people are able to live very harmoniously on smaller blocks in smaller developments. I will refer again to the electorate of Woodridge. People who went into Housing Commission homes in the Woodridge and Kingston areas had to mow large blocks of land. In many cases, the family had broken up and all there was in the yard was high grass and a rusting hulk of a car. That situation has changed. We are able to provide a better quality of life for those people. We are aiming for the type of development that has occurred in other States. It appeared that people on Mr Burns’ staff were some of the renegades from other States who were not wanted. Many of them came to Queensland because they could see that they would be able to administer a new and exciting service that was going somewhere. They had already been able to introduce an advantageous type of housing scheme in other parts of Australia. Mrs Woodgate: It needed to be fixed up, didn’t it? Mr D’ARCY: I believe that I have been making that point. It definitely needed to be fixed up. According to national housing figures, Queensland is as much as 50 per cent behind other States in providing housing at the lower end of the market. By adopting integrated housing, we can take advantage of services that are already provided in Woodridge and other areas, particularly along transport routes and railway lines—the service lines. In that way, people in those areas can improve their quality of life by being able to travel to the city easily if they wish to attend a play or the theatre. They can also Legislative Assembly 1631 10 October 1991 transport their children around easily, or travel to their places of employment. In the past, criticism has been expressed that people in those outer suburbs have been disadvantaged. Although the transport system is still not up to date, I hope that what will happen within the rail system during the next decade will advantage people in the outer areas. That is why I like to see those types of developments occurring close to railway stations and railway lines. On many occasions in this Chamber, I have said that Queensland needs a regional planning authority to ensure that there are not too many developments with shopping centres and industrial estates shoved on top of one another and not enough integrated housing. Because of the way in which this Minister has approached the demanding task of cleaning up a very difficult department, he has probably been one of the most innovative Ministers of this Government. I wish to mention some of the visionary measures being taken in other States, particularly Western Australia and South Australia. Some members mentioned specialised housing. Unlike other members, I have no problems in my electorate with aged housing. However, at the other end of the market, my electorate has problems with youth housing and crisis housing. Because the Logan area is quite large, I have been lucky enough to secure offices of the new housing regional authority at 11-13 Station Road. They will open in late January. That authority will give people access to services that are lacking in other areas. I refer to maintenance, contact and vacant houses. Some members mentioned those people who are not on the department’s computers and, therefore, cannot be located by the department. People from that authority will be able to gain first-hand experience of the problems experienced by those people. Because they will become more familiar with the consumers and other people in that area, that will be a tremendous advantage. Again, I commend the Minister for the regionalisation of housing. However, I have one reservation. If we are going to supply those sorts of specialised services on a first-class basis, particularly in relation to youth housing and crisis housing, we will probably need more staff in those areas than was originally envisaged. That aspect will have to be considered when framing future Budgets. But it is a move in the right direction. People from the new housing regional authority will be able to gain first-hand information on those areas. Youth housing, which will obviously change quite rapidly in the near future, was totally neglected by the previous Government. Members are aware of the large number of breaking and entering offences that are occurring in my electorate. There is youth crime in the streets. Police are experiencing many problems with youths. But there are ways of overcoming these problems by integrating departmental housing and welfare in that area and making sure that people are identified, that they have somewhere to go and that their views are sought. I turn now to local government authorities. I look forward to the boundary changes that have been recommended by the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission. One member mentioned Russ Hinze. Quite frankly, he politicised local government authority boundaries more than anybody else did. The perfect example is the local authority of Logan, which was created for political purposes only because it was ruining National Party control of the Beaudesert and Albert Shire Councils. It was found necessary to carve it off and put it back into the Labor area of Woodridge. I spoke about that initially in 1978 in this Chamber, and I mention it again today. We should not be politicising boundaries. We should be saying to EARC, “For God’s sake, bring us down some boundaries for the 130-odd areas based on real boundaries that have real economic cores and economic bases”—not, as Mr Randell suggested, on a makeshift basis. In that way, much of the regional planning about which I have been speaking will work in this State. It certainly will not work under the type of boundaries that have existed in the past and grown like Topsy. Legislative Assembly 1632 10 October 1991

I believed that it was a mistake to fiddle with a few boundaries instead of getting in and doing the job properly. When I tell people that Jupiters Casino is in the Albert Shire and not in the City of Gold Coast, they do not believe me. The fact of life is that the boundaries in this State are a disgrace. The sooner that we do something about them, the better. They should have a real economic base, so that regional planning by responsible aldermen can be undertaken in this State and aldermen and councillors are not fighting against one another for their particular regions. At least we have fair boundaries in relation to local authorities. It was good to see the Minister do something about one vote, one value within the internal boundaries. I have a great criticism of the collection methods of local authorities. The methods of the Redland Shire Council must be the worst in Australia. The council issues one notice and a nasty letter and then sues. Many councils should take a more humane approach, such as that taken by the Logan City Council. The Redland Shire Council is probably a left-over. Fortunately, however, it now has a sane, sensible chairman, and I hope that he will change that system. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South) (3.31 p.m.): This debate on the Budget Estimates for the Department of Housing and Local Government is an opportunity to advise the Parliament and the Minister of the growth occurring in Toowoomba and the demands that that places on public housing, on town-planning and on the building industry. It is also an opportunity to speak of the unique expense that the Toowoomba City Council experiences in providing a first-class water and sewerage system to Australia's biggest inland regional city, at a height of 2 000 feet on top of the Great Dividing Range. In the program of housing, the Budget provides an estimate of $70.4m from the Consolidated Fund, compared with $56.2m for the previous year, 1990-91, and an estimate of $598m from the Trust and Special Funds, compared with $507m for the previous year. It is commendable to see that increase, and members on both sides of the Chamber would support it, as a roof over the head is still the most necessary need of our community—perhaps even more so in these difficult economic times. In recent years, Toowoomba has experienced a buoyant building industry that has helped the city through the recession. That was due, no doubt, to the attractiveness of the city and its reputation as a regional centre with outstanding facilities. People have been moving to Toowoomba from rural and interstate areas, particularly since Toowoomba was voted the best place in Australia to live, according to the Sydney Sun Herald in February 1989. In addition, the rapid growth of the University of Southern Queensland has meant an annual peak demand for rental accommodation and new homes for staff. The expansion of army bases at Oakey and Cabarlah has boosted the home demand, as has the retirement of many rural people to Toowoomba. For some years, the rental market has been very tight, but that has eased now, following an intense period of unit construction by investors. That has seen a change in the housing profile of Toowoomba. Unit and townhouse accommodation have become increasingly popular. Although there is no doubt that unit accommodation is one of the answers to more affordable housing and will provide a changed life-style, it does cause some concern in suburban areas where residents in detached housing fear that too many units in a street can lead to dormitory-style suburbs. The Toowoomba City Council is currently reviewing that aspect of the town plan. In this respect, the Minister could attend to one matter. When many people—often young people—buy a block of land in a new subdivision, they are not experienced in town-planning; they do not know in what areas unit accommodation can be built. Often, they are the first or second buyer in a subdivision. Later, they find multistorey blocks of units being built around them. Quite a few people have come to my electorate office with that problem. I know that it is a case of “let the buyer beware”. However, all of us have gone through a stage in life when we do not Legislative Assembly 1633 10 October 1991 know about those matters. If a method of checking were available—for example, if people doing conveyancing could tell people that they were buying in a location where units could be built—at least people would be aware of that possibility. In 1989-90, the Toowoomba City Council approved building permits worth a record $76m. In 1990- 91, that figure was exceeded, with building permits worth $82m being approved. In addition, a large amount of building activity is happening in the surrounding Shires of Jondaryan, Crows Nest and Rosalie, as Toowoomba City reaches out to its boundaries. During 1990-91 in Toowoomba, Valuer- General figures show that 2 071 houses, 294 units and 595 vacant blocks of land were sold. With that demand for housing, coupled with the recession, an extremely heavy demand has been placed on services provided by the Department of Housing in Toowoomba, resulting in lengthy waiting periods. The Home Ownership Made Easy Scheme loans have a waiting list of 10 months, and HOME Share loans have a waiting list of between 12 and 18 months. Most importantly, there is a waiting list of two years or more for a Department of Housing house. Public rental accommodation is in a similar situation. For two to three bedroom units, the waiting list is between 10 and 20 months. For one-bedroom apartments, the waiting list is eight months. To get pensioner units, people have had to wait for 12 months, but, with the opening of new units at Newtown and east Toowoomba, that waiting list has improved greatly to be just a few weeks. Those waiting lists show the demand for public housing and the need for the Minister to recognise that Toowoomba public housing needs are relatively greater, due to its active growth and its position as a major regional city. The capital works section of the Budget contains an allocation of $5.7m for Toowoomba and the Darling Downs for 21 housing units for the aged, 38 apartments and 55 houses. Last year, 34 units were completed in Wilsonton and Newtown, one-bedroom apartments were completed in Jellicoe Street and 16 units were recently completed in Campbell Street. At present, Housing Commission homes are being constructed as part of the carry-over from last year’s program in Drayton, Rockville, Wilsonton and Glenvale. I have inspected some of the houses at Drayton, and it is pleasing to see a change in design, which gives those houses a bit more style. It is also pleasing to see that the houses are being built in smaller clusters so that there is no stigma relating to them and that they can blend into the normal community suburbia. Land stocks held by the department in Toowoomba are reasonable and many of them—such as the estate in Newtown that is adjacent to Glenvale Road—have been fully developed for some years and are ready to go. Toowoomba is very short of Housing Commission homes and, with these available land stocks, that is the area that needs more funding. A waiting list of two years is just too much for people who are in desperate need of a home and, in many cases, are trying to cope with substantial rental costs. I advise the Minister of the enthusiasm and commitment of the community-based committee in Toowoomba, which has successfully applied to his department for 12 months worth of funding for a community housing service. Already, that committee has rented a house in an inner city street in my electorate as an administrative base and has employed a part-time administrator and the first of three community workers. That Toowoomba community housing service will, firstly, provide an information service on rental accommodation. The housing resource service is funded from the Rental Bond Authority. It will provide information on agents who have rental services, what guest and boarding houses are available, and what caravan parks and crisis accommodation centres are available. Secondly, via a community rent scheme, the community housing service will develop a stock of some 60 rental accommodation units, which will be rented out to people and families, many of whom are in desperate need of a roof over their heads. The funding of this part of the service will provide a rental subsidy for a period of 12 months, during which time it is hoped that these tenants can establish themselves and hopefully then be Legislative Assembly 1634 10 October 1991 able to stand on their own feet in the commercial rental system. The groups that this committee is hoping to assist could include people with disabilities, low income families, families recovering from traumatic circumstances and families caught in the unemployment trap. I have been pleased to assist this group during its formative development to establish a broad committee so that the scheme will be a success and will receive further funding next year. The committee has appointed a solicitor as chairman and a competent treasurer and it is a broad-based committee. The philosophy of the scheme is that people on the committee are close to and understand the needs of disadvantaged groups and can thereby be of greater assistance to them. Already there have been numerous inquiries about the scheme and the committee is expecting a flood of requests once it is established. A number of Toowoomba organisations have made expressions of interest for 1991-92 under the Housing Accommodation Assistance Scheme. The Redeemer Evangelical Lutheran congregation at Harristown is seeking four two-bedroom units, the Toowoomba Garden Settlement Care Complex is seeking eight one-bedroom units and the Assembly of God in Toowoomba is seeking four one- bedroom units and six two-bedroom units. Also, the YWCA at Gowrie House is seeking funds through HAAS for modification of the house to nine one-bedroom units. I recommend each of these projects to the Minister as being well worthy of approval under the HAAS guidelines. The Department of Housing is currently undergoing regionalisation and the status of the Toowoomba branch is to be upgraded with the appointment of a regional manager. I would like to commend the manager and his administrative and technical staff at Toowoomba for the way in which they carry out their duties. Housing Department matters are some of the most frequent inquiries in my electorate office and I always receive prompt service from the department’s office. The officers have a difficult job—as can be seen from the long waiting lists for accommodation and loans—in dealing with the many problems of people who are in urgent need of housing. It is my belief that this office of the department needs at least one extra staff member at the counter area, because the one receptionist is extremely busy and unable to answer the telephone while handling all the inquiries at the counter. The Toowoomba City Council is one of Queensland's major businesses with an annual income of $71m. Of this amount, $36m is collected as rates, with the balance coming from operating income, subsidies, investments and Government grants. The council is extremely concerned about the allocation of local government grants. The new methodology of Grants Commission allocation has caused Toowoomba to receive an unfair apportionment of this very important sector of its budget. For example, Toowoomba and Townsville have approximately the same population and area, yet Townsville will receive about $1.5m more in 1991-92. Ipswich has a smaller population than Toowoomba and is close to the facilities of the metropolitan Brisbane, but will receive a quarter of a million dollars more than Toowoomba. The Minister has been approached by a group of 14 local authorities which are affected by this anomaly of grants distribution, and I know that the Toowoomba City Council is pleased that the Minister has commissioned an independent study through the Queensland University of Technology into this method of grant allocation. The most obvious example of Toowoomba's unique financial needs from the Grants Commission funds is in the supply of water. Situated on top of the Great Dividing Range, Toowoomba has to rely on dams sited well down the range in order to catch water. The three council dams of Cooby, Perseverance and Cressbrook hold 129 000 megalitres, but water from Perseverance and Cressbrook must be pumped up the range by a massive system comprising six 2 400 horsepower motors and two 600 horsepower motors. Almost every other major city in our State can simply rely on gravity for its water supply to its Legislative Assembly 1635 10 October 1991 distribution points. Likewise, because the city's sewerage system is not able to discharge into a major river or the ocean, it has to go through extensive and expensive treatment. Out of the council's current debt of $53m, $31m is water-related and the adequate supply of water is a major component of the council's costs. On the topic of water supply—local authorities have heard that the Government is interested in taking over local government water schemes, and I advise the Minister of the opposition of the Toowoomba City Council to any such move. This year, Toowoomba City Council rates were increased by an average 6.3 per cent, which is a modest increase considering the cost of the services it must supply. The council has 600 employees and is aiming to reduce its capital debt of $53m over a 12-year period. Members can see how important a fair allocation of local government grants is to this city. In concluding my speech, I once again identify and stress to the Minister the urgent need for more public accommodation, particularly detached housing, to keep pace with the exceptional growth of Toowoomba. Ms POWER (Mansfield) (3.43 p.m.): Before I begin to discuss the topic of housing, I wish to inform the Chamber of the real facts regarding the Rochedale dump. The member for Currumbin has misrepresented the facts, but why let the facts get in the way of a good story? The Liberal administration changed the land from column 1 to column 2, which meant that no objections from the public could be raised against the land being used for any utility. This fact has never been publicised since 1987. Not only was that change kept a secret, but also the discussions about waste disposal were kept under wraps. The alderman certainly did not raise people’s awareness in February when tenders were called that Rochedale was one of the sites being looked at. He tried to avoid a meeting with the member for Springwood and myself to discuss the issue. The Liberals made the decision to site the dump at Rochedale and they signed the contract that contained no “out” options. The Minister never asked for the contract to be signed, only for the decision to be made. The Labor city council did all that it could, but the contract was watertight. I have written to the Leader of the Liberal Party suggesting that if he has different advice, he should come forth with it. To date, there has been no response from him, and I suggest it is just more knocking by the Liberals that has no substance. What happened to the alderman for Rochedale? In 1988 and 1989, he spent many months in the United States of America as the chairman of the committee for the council being wined and dined by Pacific Waste Management. If he expects me or the constituents of Mansfield to believe he did not know until the decision was made that the dump would go to Rochedale, he is fooling himself. He knew it. It was a pay-back, and he went weak in the knees when he thought he would lose his seat. The Liberals know him for the snake in the grass that he is. He was hoping to be their candidate in Mansfield, but he is too much of a liability. The Liberal Party is now trying to replace him with another failure, the former Federal member for Moreton whom I have already had the pleasure of defeating. I believe I made all the representations that I could possibly have made. I attended meetings and made representations to all the relevant Ministers. I think on many occasions they wished I would have gone away. I have had close liaison with the Lord Mayor over the issue. I challenge any Liberal member or National Party member who has raised the issue in this Parliament to match the work I did in serving the people of the area. I turn now to the Estimates. Shelter is a basic need, and it is a responsibility of Governments to ensure that adequate public housing is available to those who need it, or to those who choose to use it. Public housing should not be restrictive in its location. People who have lived in one area all their lives should be able to continue living there in public housing. Likewise, if their families and friends live in a specific area or if an area offers the facilities they need, public housing should be available in that locality. For too long in Queensland, a stigma was attached to public housing. Tenants of public housing were treated with contempt and were believed to be inferior. For those reasons, public Legislative Assembly 1636 10 October 1991 housing was restricted to certain areas, and the housing lots were generally of a low standard. Thankfully, all that is beginning to change and I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the Estimates debate on the Housing and Local Government portfolio administered by Tom Burns. On behalf of all Queenslanders, and particularly the electors of Mansfield, I congratulate him and his department on having the courage to address the issues of social justice and equity in housing. This redress is long overdue. The tenants of public housing suffered needlessly because previous Governments failed to raise the standard of public housing. Today, I take this opportunity to outline the initiatives being undertaken by this Government with a view to raising the standards in public housing. The Department of Housing and Local Government currently maintains approximately 42 000 dwellings, comprising 36 000 units of public housing accommodation and 6 000 non-public housing accommodation units. This represents an investment of approximately $2 billion. To ensure that the value of housing stock is maintained, a capital upgrading program has been designed. This capital upgrading program contains the following components: upgrading of substandard dwellings; improvement of amenities access, safety and security; the area improvement program; and neighbourhood development. The upgrading program was introduced to quickly improve the quality of substandard dwellings by providing new kitchens in old housing; providing, on a priority basis, improved security, landscaping, footpaths and car tracks; providing security screens to pensioner units so that occupants can safely ventilate their premises; renumbering units to remove the public housing label which was previously attached to this type of housing; introducing air-cooling units into the hotter, dry areas of the State; converting pensioner bed- sitting units to provide occupants with a more private bedroom area; improving fire safety in higher risk complexes; and increasing the floor space in all new pensioner units. The area improvement program is being implemented to overcome many of the problems inherent in poorly planned, higher density neighbourhoods. The strategy to implement this program is being coordinated with the new tenant and neighbourhood development program on which I will expand later. This will involve concentrated exercises to develop, in close consultation with tenants, a range of management and structural responses aimed at improving the quality of life for residents in these disadvantaged estates. Five existing housing developments around Queensland have been chosen as part of the public housing upgrade program for 1991-92. It is acknowledged that these may not be the most difficult housing developments, but they were selected because of past management difficulties and the recognised need for the department to begin such a process. The projects comprise 72 attached houses in Rockhampton, 57 attached houses in Cairns, 70 attached houses in Kingston, 54 apartments in Newmarket and 20 apartments in Highgate Hill. Project teams have been established. They are staffed with local office staff and coordinated by regional tenant participation project officers. At present, teams are carrying out a needs analysis on these projects. Security has already been identified as a major concern, and on three projects—Rockhampton, Cairns and Kingston—front and rear security doors are to be provided to all units as an interim measure until a total security strategy can be developed. Formulation of action plans is to commence in early November and will be finalised by mid-December. Approval of work to be undertaken will be sought by early January. Briefs are to be developed and consultants engaged by the end of February. It is expected that tenders for work will be called in early May 1992. The 1991-92 capital upgrading program has a budget of $15m. Of that amount, $2m has been set aside under the area improvement component for capital upgrading of the five existing housing developments around Queensland. Other areas in the capital upgrading program that are worthy of note include items such as $3,825,000 for kitchen Legislative Assembly 1637 10 October 1991 upgrading; $1,525,000 for security lighting and site upgrading; and $700,000 for security screens, locks, lighting and site upgrading. I wish to expand briefly on some of the expenditure items in this program because it is important to understand and appreciate the neglect to provide some basic facilities for tenants in public housing. The upgrading of kitchens was commenced in 1990. A further 15 000 homes, which have been occupied either since or prior to 1975 and which have old or inadequate kitchen cupboards, are to be upgraded in the 1991-92 program. Many of these houses will also receive vinyl floor coverings in their kitchen/dining room areas. As I said earlier, the area improvement program includes the five existing public housing developments throughout Queensland and the completion of the Harlaxton redevelopment project at Toowoomba. An amount of $2,400,000 has been allocated for the provision of concrete car tracks and stormwater drainage to existing housing where these facilities have not been provided to date. An amount of $2,225,000 has been allocated to improve security by providing security screens—mainly to pensioner units—and improve security lighting, locks and fences. I shall outline more details on this area later. A further $800,000 has been allocated to replace an additional 200 asbestos cement sheet roofs as part of an ongoing program. In the past, the department has followed a no-front-fence policy, but has now allocated $400,000 to erect front fences where these are considered necessary for safety reasons—for example, where a house occupied by small children adjoins a busy road or highway. Although not legally required to do so, fire protection will be upgraded, or provided to all residential buildings in excess of two storeys. A program was commenced in 1990-91 to convert pensioner unit bed-sitters into one bedroom units by providing a partition where it is requested. This will give pensioners more privacy and some dignity. As well, an amount of $500,000 has been set aside to provide various modifications to existing dwellings for occupants with disabilities. The modifications will provide better access to the dwelling and a degree of independence in carrying out activities associated with daily living. I will digress for a few moments and place on record my personal thanks to the Minister and his staff for enabling five intellectually handicapped people to purchase a home and allow for disability modifications. Security and independence, as I have said many times in this Chamber, are very important to these people with intellectual disabilities, and this opportunity to own their own home has been welcomed by the members of the community who are involved with the intellectually disabled. I now turn to the area of site upgrading. This program is part of the public housing upgrade program of 1991-92 and forms part of the subprogram of improvement of amenities, access, safety and security. There are 18 medium density housing developments throughout Queensland targeted for attention this year. This program has been ongoing and active for a number of years in previous upgrade programs. Site upgrading is necessary to address numerous site problems caused by poor site design, inadequate landscape maintenance, and lack of understanding of client needs. The aims of the site upgrade program are: to create an external landscaped environment that meets client needs through the provision of child safety; security and safety for the household; safe and adequate offstreet car parking; a balanced provision of private and open space; appropriate children’s play areas; household privacy, aesthetically pleasing landscaping, and low maintenance costs. The objective of the program is to provide a safe, secure and functional external environment that is aesthetically pleasing and economical to maintain. With all site upgrades, a needs assessment will be undertaken and these will involve extensive involvement from housing services staff, particularly regional staff and tenant participation project officers. A time-frame for the completion of each project will be developed at the completion of the action plan. Site upgrading is a great initiative and will do much to improve the physical aspects of public housing, thus removing the stigma so often attached to it. Upgrading will also encourage tenants to take personal pride in their Legislative Assembly 1638 10 October 1991 homes. This will further enhance the neighbourhood. I might make the suggestion that another way to improve sites would be to conduct a competition, such as a garden competition, in the public housing community. I hope that the Minister will take this idea on board and act positively towards improving the neighbourhood. These upgrading measures will supplement and complement another initiative of the Department of Housing and Local Government, the tenant and neighbourhood development program. The program has two broad aims: to ensure that tenants are able to represent their needs on all areas of the department’s operations, and are able to participate more fully in the management of their housing to ensure that they are able to participate in this development of their local community. Behind these broad aims is the belief that tenants have a democratic right to participate in matters that affect them and the wisdom of the hard lessons learned is that a public housing authority can only manage housing effectively and provide a quality client service by involving and consulting with its clients. The Department of Housing and Local Government is to be congratulated on the initiatives established to raise the standard of public housing. The Minister responsible is recognised as a caring person who looks out for the battler. His ministerial staff are in the same mould and conduct themselves professionally and efficiently. The Director-General, Dick Persson, and his staff are people of vision and have much to offer this department as it undergoes these major changes. I support the Estimates before the Committee. Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (3.57 p.m.): It is my pleasure to speak today on the Estimates of Housing and Local Government. I do speak with some compassion with regard to local government as I have an understanding of it. As I was involved in local government for some 12 years and a shire chairman for about seven years, I have been able to have a good look at the problems of local government first hand and have been able to work my way through that tier of government. I do recognise the important role that local governments play throughout Australia, because that is the group that is certainly closest to the people, and on many occasions they have to do a lot of work on behalf of Governments. The Government does rely on local authorities, of course, as local authorities rely on it. There is much team work involved with a lot of local government work. Of course, the responsibilities of local authorities are increasing all the time. They are not just roads, rates and rubbish as once was the case, but many other social issues such as sporting complexes and the environment. There is certainly extra work resting on the shoulders of local authorities. In recent times, people working in local authorities have had to put together submissions on behalf of ratepayers, who rely heavily upon shire clerks, councillors and, particularly, the chairman to represent them in deputations to the Government. In many cases, ratepayers do not have the expertise, time, or the information that is required to put together a lot of the submissions that are required in relation to internal boundaries, external boundaries and daylight-saving. There were 101 submissions, if I can recall, that were made, but not all of them were by local authorities. Certainly, a great many of them did involve local authorities, which have spent most of their time in recent years working on submissions. Certainly, as I have said, a lot of extra work has been placed on their shoulders. I believe that when this Government came to power, an unfortunate and unprecedented attack was made on local government. I hope that that has all settled down now, but it appeared to many people that the Government set out to try to restructure the guidelines, particularly the internal and external boundaries, of local authorities. I think that the reality came home to members of the Labor Party at the last Legislative Assembly 1639 10 October 1991 local government election when, in fact, the majority of the existing councillors were returned to office. I think that there was probably a levelling-out period when an understanding was reached—I certainly hope it was reached—by the Labor Party that local government is for the people. It is the people who elect local authority representatives, and it is not for the Government to try to direct them on how they should do that. I was pleased to hear that any further moves to change external boundaries—— A Government member interjected. Mr HOBBS: No, it came from the Minister, I understand, that any further real change to external boundaries may not be on. The member for Woodridge, Mr D’Arcy, said earlier that there should be some changes. Perhaps there can be in some of the closer areas but careful consideration has to be given to the remote areas of Queensland where the community of interest is very strong and the towns are parochial and need to have their own identity. Perhaps in the closer areas, a few changes here and there to provide a community of interest may be acceptable. However, I think that good consultation is needed between all the local authorities before that is done. As the member for Woodridge would appreciate, having taught in some remote areas, the towns are a long way apart and a community of interest is very important. I am concerned that the Government has decided that there will be no divisions; that is, it will adopt the Hare-Clarke system. That will not be satisfactory. Local government does not want that. I think that the Government should take note of the concerns that I am expressing in that respect. After all, the Government was told that the drought was coming; it was told that the drought was here; and it was told that there was serious concern about it. I am telling the Government now that serious concerns are being expressed in relation to this issue, and I think that it should take notice. The funding of local government is, of course, very important. One of the best methods of distributing moneys throughout the State and the nation is through local governments because they are spread very evenly across the board. If the Government wants to boost the economy, it can put money into local authorities, which will spend it on roads and so on throughout the whole State. The work force takes home a pay-packet, and a lot of families benefit in a very even-handed way. That is a method that must be kept in mind. However, I do have some serious concerns about the future funding of local governments—particularly the shires in my area—with regard to the change in methodology to road grant allocations, which was formerly CALAR. At page 30, the 1990-91 annual report of the Queensland Department of Housing and Local Government states— “The Local Government Grants Commission also established an objective assessment method to determine the relative difficulties councils face in road construction and maintenance.” What I am saying is that that seems to be where the problem arises. I would like to read some extracts from a letter that is circulating throughout the western shires, particularly the shires in category 3. The letter states— “re: Commonwealth Grants Commission Funding Please find enclosed list of Shires which have been classified as Class 3 Shires by the Grants Commission. Also listed is the actual total of this year’s Grant (FAG and Identified Road Grant—formerly CALAR) and the variation which would have been made if the suggested new CALAR methodology had been implemented this year. It is pointed out that this information has been verbally obtained from Grants Commission sources. The figures listed in Column 3 have ominous consequences for the future funding of the 34 Class 3 Shires. The new methodology is outlined in a somewhat ridiculous report prepared by Engineer Mr. Harry Murphy. Legislative Assembly 1640 10 October 1991

Briefly his findings were that if a municipality spent more per kilometre of road in the past then their needs would be correspondingly more in the future. This leaves no margin for improvements or taking into consideration the fact that many Shires have been financially restricted in the past. The grouping of untied Grants and Road funding is not desirable and leads to the Government in many instances being able to renege on promises made regarding funding of secondary roads domained in the last Road Plan Review.” That letter is being circulated in most of the shires and it is causing a lot of concern among the ratepayers because the amount of money that will be available to those shires will be severely curtailed. For the information of honourable members, I will go through a few of the shires that are mentioned in this letter and give them some idea of the types of reductions that are supposedly proposed under this new scheme. This year’s allocation for the Balonne Shire is $1,412,000, which is proposed to be reduced by between $247,000 and $298,000; Barcaldine Shire, $841,000, which is proposed to be reduced by between $78,000 and $101,000; Blackall Shire, $736,000, which is proposed to be reduced by between $85,000 and $129,000; Bulloo Shire, $1,162,000, which is proposed to be reduced by between $326,000 and $425,000; Longreach Shire, $1,126,000, which is proposed to be reduced by between $129,000 and $191,000; Murweh Shire, $1,780,000, which is proposed to be reduced by between $211,000 and $325,000; Paroo Shire, $1,419,000, which is proposed to be reduced by between $294,000 and $391,000; Quilpie Shire, $1,255,000, which is proposed to be reduced by between $269,000 and $337,000; Tambo Shire, $426,000, which is proposed to be reduced by between $43,000 and $61,000; and Warroo Shire, $797,000, which is proposed to be reduced by between $146,000 and $199,000. The Brisbane area received an allocation of $23m, an increase of between $2.39m and $3.95m! Brisbane will do very well, as will Mount Isa. It received $2.18m, an increase of anywhere between $176,000 and $209,000! If those shires suffer the proposed cuts in allocation, they will be devastated. Mr Murphy should go back and address the problem. Murphy’s law will seem reasonable compared to what will happen to those shires if they receive the allocations proposed by Mr Murphy. A moratorium should be held to assess the reduction in funds, or perhaps the Minister may make a statement on the new methodology. Mr Burns: You realise what it is about, don’t you? The Premiers Conference has made some recommendations that the money for roads be no longer tied to grants. The councils can use it on what they like, and the money to be given to the States must be broken up in line with the old methodology. I told them at the conference in Cairns that they ought to start to prepare a campaign. No-one is ever happy with the methodology. No matter what we do—if we changed it tomorrow, the winners would be losers and the losers would be winners. There is a problem out there, but they have really got to get the Prime Minister and the ALGA representatives and the other Premiers to understand the difficult problems we have got in Queensland for me and the Local Government Association to run a campaign. Mr HOBBS: The Minister could do that, but the point I make is that this is the third or fourth change to the methodology. The Minister cannot allow such huge reductions in allocation. Mr Burns: If the money goes that way and the methodology that is there is applied, that is why they have been given the figures from the Grants Commission. We have handed them out so that they all know. No-one is conning them; no-one is trying to fool them. Those figures that you have been given that are in that letter were given out by my authority so that they are aware of what the score is. That is what it is all about. I can’t Legislative Assembly 1641 10 October 1991 stop it. If the Premiers Conference makes a decision in that way, that will be the decision. I just get the money to distribute. Mr HOBBS: That is not good enough. We must do something about it. The Minister cannot allow those shires to be robbed. He is the Minister for Local Government, so he should change the rules. Mr Burns: I wish I could do those sorts of things. There’s a bit of democracy in the system. Mr HOBBS: The Minister cannot allow those authorities to be bled to death. I mean, Murphy’s law—holy smokes! Mr Elder: You had better sit down now. Mr HOBBS: I agree that I am stumped for words. Country areas are already facing drought and financial crisis. If this allocation goes ahead, how many jobs will be lost? We must get together and work something out. Mr Burns: That’s why they have been told about it, so they can campaign now. Mr HOBBS: But they cannot do it by themselves. A hatful of local authorities will have to swing the rest. Mr Burns: It’s not only that hatful; there’s another hatful in another area of the State. There are a lot of hatfuls of local authorities. There’s more than half. Mr HOBBS: The point is that there is a certain amount of money to go around. If some local authorities receive more than others, we must attempt to adjust the guidelines so that all of them get a fair go. I do not believe that, under these guidelines, those shires will get a fair go. I am happy to work with the Minister in an attempt to resolve the problem. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to make those few points about local authorities in my area. Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (4.13 p.m.): I begin by refuting a statement made earlier in this Chamber by Mr Stoneman when he criticised the Government for listing the names of women in local government in the Queensland Local Government Guide. In the 1988 Local Government Department guide titled Members and Employees of Local Authorities, there is also a listing of women elected into local government. Mr Stoneman’s suggestion that this Government is being sinister in listing women separately in a local government guide should be condemned. I am very proud to have the lists of women in local government mentioned in the guide. I am tired of the cynical criticism by people in the National Party of women who are elected to positions in local and State Governments. I am very proud that this Government has continued the tradition since the publication began. In the time remaining, I will discuss some aspects of the Green Street development. Green Street is a concept for residential development that was introduced by the Federal Government in 1978. It is a shame that most Queenslanders have not heard of the scheme. For too long our residential developments have had no code and no proper planning. The Government of 1978 should be congratulated on introducing the Green Street concept. I notice that this department has taken on the Green Street concept. It primarily seeks to achieve cost-effectiveness in the provision of land and housing by addressing a number of issues on how we build houses. I have been talking to the Minister for Housing about introducing Green Street concepts into the Housing Commission areas in Mount Gravatt East where rental houses are built on 32 perch blocks of land. Most of the people in those houses are single mothers and elderly people who do not require a large block of land. The houses in the area are old and do not provide good housing. I foresee that, in future, we will be removing some of those houses and instituting Green Street principles in areas such as Mount Gravatt East. That suburb is 10 minutes from the Legislative Assembly 1642 10 October 1991 city and contains all the services and schools, although pupil numbers have been decreasing, and it is a prime candidate for the establishment of Green Street principles. Time expired. Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government) (4.16 p.m.), in reply: I thank those honourable members who have participated in this debate. Because a large number of members are interested in housing and local government, this is always a wide-ranging debate. My committee members—Margaret Woodgate, Lorraine Bird, Tony McGrady, Peter Beattie, Bill D’Arcy, Laurel Power and Judy Spence—were able to get on to the list of speakers, but Ray Barber, Bob Dollin, Jim Elder and Len Ardill missed out. Obviously, there was a team of people who would have liked to have said something about this subject but were unable to do so. Mr Gunn, who led for the Opposition, was once a Minister, so he knows the difficulties of the department. Everybody always has simple answers to the problems. Any day of the week, people can give answers about how more people can be housed or how things can be done better for councils. It is a lot harder when one has to do it. I take Mr Gunn’s point about smaller councils. Eighteen months ago, at a Local Government Association conference, I said—and I say it again—that I believe it would be stupid to do away with the little councils in the far west. Most of the little councils that I know are the major generators of work in their territories. Unfortunately, at that time the Courier-Mail and everybody else kicked me to death. As I said to the Local Government Association this year, not too many came out and gave me a bit of a hand. I think they were crazy. We ought to stand up for the small council principle. I also take the honourable member’s point about building on Aboriginal land. I am trying to do something about that. We will see if we can work it through. Margaret Woodgate, who is the secretary of my committee and one of my hardest working members, raised the legacy of the previous Government. It is true that this State has the lowest percentage of home-ownership in Australia, the lowest percentage of public rental stock and the largest percentage of people living in caravans. She has done a lot of work with me in relation to land and housing referral work for people in the Pine Rivers area. She has been very helpful. My department has two names for each of the two Liberal spokesmen, Mr Coomber and Mr Goss—Tweedledum and Tweedledee and Mumbles and Stumbles. I am not too sure which name refers to which member. Honourable members can take their pick. The biggest problem is that, these days, the Liberals want to turn back the clock when they talk about turning the north shore at Noosa into a concrete jungle. They are not really interested in environmental issues any more. Mr Coomber spent about 10 minutes bagging Jim Soorley and telling us that he does not want flexible rating systems and that the Government has done the wrong thing. Jim Pennell and the Local Government Association executives were in the Premier’s office with me yesterday talking about the matters that were raised by Mr Hobbs this afternoon. Mr Pennell said to the Premier that they were very happy with the increased flexibility in rating and that this Government was leading Australia in this area. He said that the Local Government Association was pleased to say that and he wanted it said further and further at the Premiers Conference. The association believed that councils had been freed up and given an opportunity to do financially what they would like to do. He also thanked us for the consultation. At the conference in Cairns, most of the councils came forward and said to us, “Look, we appreciate the opportunity to consult.” There is no doubt that some complain about too much consultation, but in many cases in years past they were never even asked. They like the idea of being consulted. Legislative Assembly 1643 10 October 1991

I want to make a couple of points about the Liberal Party. I like the way in which it writes its policy these days. It waits until it finds out what we are doing in our department and then announces that we should do it. It sort of says, “You should do something about rental bond interest” when it knows that we have been announcing for six months that we will do it when we build up a stock of funds and when the Rental Bond Authority is operating fully. The Liberals say that pets should be allowed in Housing Commission units. During Pet Week last year, we said that we would make an announcement on that during Pet Week this year. About a month before Pet Week this year, the member for Aspley came out and said that he had this great new idea about pets. The member for Currumbin said that he wants cooperation between councils. My department has held meetings all over the State. We had one program called SEQ 2001 and something called ROCS, the voluntary regional organisation of councils, which is working in a cooperative manner. All of a sudden, the Liberals have discovered it as a new policy. They attacked Dick Persson, my director- general, who has the reputation of being the best housing administrator in Australia. He is without peer. They then talked about selling out all Housing Commission houses, as their policy states. They spoke about selling all the Housing Commission homes and all the public rental accommodation and then subsidising rent. Anywhere in the world where that has happened, the only result has been that rents have gone up. No new housing stock comes into the rental area—none at all. The one thing that the previous Government did—and I give it credit for this—was to continue down the track of building a number of houses each year. We say that we are building more houses—and we are building more. However, the point is that every time 2 000 additional houses are built, an additional 2 000 are put into the rental stock. Two thousand people come out of the normal rental area and go into Housing Commission homes. It is true that our stock is old. It is true that we have to go into a process of regeneration. As the member for Brisbane Central said, we have to consider urban regeneration, and some of that regeneration has to be in our own area. In many ways, some of the things that the Liberals said were dishonest. Their attack on the HOME scheme was more dishonest than anything else. Every day, I receive letters from members opposite saying, “I want my person moved up the queue.” There are 11 000 people on the waitlist and there is a six-month waitlist to get into the HOME scheme. They say it is a terrible scheme and they do not want anyone in it. I bet that they would jump if I suggested to them that I would not give anyone from their electorates a loan under the scheme. I want to quote from a letter written by the Liberal Premier of New South Wales to the Premier of Queensland. It states— “On taking office my Government decided to expand the programme considerably, and this financial year we expect $1,500 million will be advanced to borrowers. . . . We have found a low-start fixed-rate product to be most suitable for the circumstances of lower-income people. The fixed-rate shields borrowers from interest rate increases (if interest rates fall they are free to refinance), and the low-start schedule significantly increases affordability.” Housing Commission officers can sit down with people and tell them what they will have to repay each week for the next 10 years. That is what our low-start affordable housing is about. The department is lending to people who have a low deposit of $2,000. They are people who never before have had an opportunity to own their own home. The next attack by members opposite was on the builders. They said that the department does not employ small builders. In the department’s rental construction Legislative Assembly 1644 10 October 1991 program there are 109 builders, 90 of whom are small to medium, 10 medium and 9 medium to large. The reason the department went into a joint venture with HOME and a group of builders was that a large percentage of the HOME money was going into existing real estate. We tried to create some new jobs. We went to builders and said, “Will you do a deal with us? We want a set of homes at set prices.” We are prepared to increase building opportunities because we want more money put into the economy and more jobs created. To attack members of the Jennings group of companies as Labor- voting people, etc., shows the stupidity of the member for Aspley, Mr Goss. I call him a liar. I withdraw that. I will call him a fool, and I will not withdraw that. Lorraine Bird spoke about animal welfare. For the first time since 1925, something is being done about animal welfare. As Bill Gunn said today, we have worked that through gradually with all the rural groups. In fact, this afternoon, I am meeting with the Cattlemen’s Union and the UGA for a final discussion on the Bill. Later on, I hope to present a White Paper to the Parliament. Much has been said about Grants Commission methodology. It is true to say that there will always be a fight over the methodology. When we talk about averages and helping people below and above the average, and treating them one way or the other, as long as we draw a line there will always be a fight, because some people will win and others will lose. The trouble is that some of the decisions that were made in the past were wrong. When Joh was here, he would not agree with the methodology. For a couple of years, the Commonwealth Government took it over. I remind members that the Commonwealth Government put the $120m into the scheme and then gave it to us to distribute. The Commonwealth Government says that we must meet its standards on the methodology. So we do not have a lot of control over it. Tony McGrady spoke about housing in north-western Queensland. He has been the strongest advocate for a better standard of housing in that region. I agree with Peter Beattie that there is a need for widespread consultation in relation to inner-city housing and regeneration. I cannot say to people, “I am going to put 30 000 people in your suburb” because they get scared stiff. However, when it comes to rebuilding and reorganising inner-city suburbs and providing the necessary facilities, there is no way in the world that this Government will not be able to help people in those areas. Mr Horan from Toowoomba raised the issue of units, townhouses and more affordable housing. It is true to say that Toowoomba is a growing area with a growing problem. Many people are moving into that region from the south-west. They see Toowoomba as a place to settle. In turn, that puts pressure on Toowoomba rental prices. I believe that Laurel Power, the member for Mansfield, clearly tidied up the Rochedale dump issue. I take on board her point about the garden competition. I have been thinking about it a bit. Our Housing Commission people have tried to change the shape and style of commission houses and we now landscape the front yards of new homes. Many people are proud to be our tenants. We should not knock them. The Liberal Party is strange the way it carries on about our tenants. Most of them are proud of their homes and they work very hard to make them look nice. We should give them the opportunity to enter that garden competition. I will ask the department to look into it. I do not believe that members should be attacking the staff of the department in any way, shape or form. It is a hard job. Every person who comes into that office believes that he or she has the most pressing problem in the world. Unfortunately, we do not have the facilities to provide all of those people with assistance. We cannot match the 18 000 or 22 000 people who joined the Housing Commission’s waiting list this year when we are building only 3 000 homes a year. We cannot possibly cope with those numbers. To suggest that we sell it all out, as the Liberals want to do, is just crazy. Legislative Assembly 1645 10 October 1991

At 4.25 p.m., The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! Under the provisions of the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 1 October, I shall now put the questions for the Vote under consideration and the balance remaining unvoted for Department of Housing and Local Government (Consolidated Fund, and Trust and Special Funds). The questions for the following Votes were put, and agreed to— $105,386,000—General Public Services, Department of Housing and Local Government (Consolidated Fund). $185,641,000—General Public Services, Department of Housing and Local Government (Trust and Special Funds). $70,420,000—Social Welfare and Housing, Department of Housing and Local Government (Consolidated Fund). $598,235,000—Social Welfare and Housing, Department of Housing and Local Government (Trust and Special Funds).

Justice and Corrective Services Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (4.27 p.m.): I move— “That there be granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year 1991-92, a sum not exceeding $105,297,000 for Law, Order and Public Safety, Department of Justice (Consolidated Fund).” As honourable members would appreciate, this year has been a challenging time for the Justice Department. The Public Sector Management Commission reviewed the department, and it was heartening to find that the commission adopted and endorsed many of the recommendations and strategies already proposed by the department. Following that review, the process of restructuring and reclassification to provide a more cost-effective and efficient organisation began. To their credit, my departmental staff have continued to provide an exemplary level of service during this trying time. This year of struggle has been worth while. However, the coming year will see a number of very important initiatives. My first priority for Justice in Queensland is to ensure that all people have equal access to the courts, while maintaining the independence of the judiciary. The courts are one of the major areas of the department. The new courts division will provide a central coordinating role for the administration of the three levels of court: the Supreme Court, the District Court and the Magistrates Court. An increase in the jurisdiction of the District Court meant the appointment of additional judges to the bench, bringing to 29 the total number of judges in the District Court. The appointment of more judges to the District Court has substantially improved that service to the public, not only in Brisbane, but also in regional centres such as Southport and Maroochydore. The number of judges in the Supreme Court totals 20, plus two masters. During the last 12 months, three judges retired from the Supreme Court, and three acting judges have been appointed to ensure that the court work is not delayed while the detailed needs of the Supreme Court are investigated. The opening-up of the magistracy to outside appointments has proved to be a positive step. A second important element in improving access to the courts is to understand clearly the needs of the courts’ clients in regard to current services and their delivery. I have, therefore, commissioned a survey into community and client perceptions of the Queensland courts system. It is the first time that such a survey has been undertaken in Legislative Assembly 1646 10 October 1991 the 100-year plus history of our courts system. The survey will seek responses from all users of the courts system—litigants, solicitors, barristers and the judiciary. It will identify relevant issues in relation to the Supreme, District and Magistrates Courts and suggest improvements for service delivery on a Statewide basis. I am also pursuing a number of efficiency measures aimed at improving access to the courts. I am particularly keen to implement a case flow system for our courts. The importance of this was brought home to me by discussions I had with leading figures in various jurisdictions in Canada. I plan to make significant progress with this initiative in the coming year. Other efficiencies are being sought through continuing improvements in the transcription services available through my State Reporting Bureau to all jurisdictions. The State Reporting Bureau provided reporting services to the Supreme and District Courts and Magistrates Courts throughout last year, producing 266 927 pages of transcript. The bureau is establishing audio recording and transcription centres in Mackay and Maroochydore with staff complements of 5 and 15 respectively. Not only will that meet the continued growth and demand for transcription services in that area, but it is also part of the Government's plans to increase the number of staff in centres outside Brisbane. The bureau is also investigating the introduction of individual home-based audio word-processing centres for delayed transcription with casual employees working from home. That initiative will enable skilled staff who, for personal and family reasons prefer to work from home, to remain part of the work force. The establishment of those centres also has the potential to increase productivity and to provide savings for the department. I am also keen to see the introduction of a real-time computer-assisted transcription facility at the law courts complex in Brisbane, which is planned for this financial year. That facility will enable hearing-impaired people to participate in court proceedings. It will also assist judges, barristers and solicitors to follow and retrieve previous testimony without interrupting the proceedings, and it will enable interpreters to more accurately and speedily translate questions. The introduction of video recording for courts and the development of digital signal processing for the electronic movement intrastate of recorded speech are other initiatives that I am pursuing that will improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the State Reporting Bureau and result in savings in court costs and time. The computerisation of the various court registries is progressing steadily. The new civil registry system, which should be operational before Christmas, is being installed in the Supreme and District Court registries in Brisbane. The Maroochydore Magistrates Courts registry has now joined the Brisbane, Toowoomba, Southport and Beenleigh registries and has recently come online with the criminal and fines-processing registers. Another important initiative aimed at improving the protection of women and children within the court system is the introduction of a closed-circuit video system for the interviewing of special witnesses, such as children and rape victims. The system is ready for introduction into the Supreme and District Courts at Brisbane and the Magistrates Courts at Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton, Southport, Maroochydore, Mount Isa, Toowoomba, Ipswich and Brisbane where it can be used for both District Court and Magistrates Court hearings. Although I have concentrated on the efficiency and effectiveness of the courts in Queensland, considerable advances have also been made in a broader social justice context. Last year, two female judges were among four new judges appointed to the District Court bench. Another female joined the magistracy this year, and she is the first magistrate in Queensland to be appointed from outside the public service. Those initiatives contribute to the EEO policies of my Government and are only the first steps in redressing the gender balance and taking advantage of the tremendous resource which has so far been neglected. Improving access to the Magistrates Courts and reducing the waiting-time to have matters heard was a major focus of my reorganisation and Legislative Assembly 1647 10 October 1991 rationalisation of the Magistrates Court system. An assessment of the 26 courthouses closed showed that only 15 courts had any courtwork at all, and that the maximum number of court hours averaged three minutes per day. The assessment of centres where the officer in charge of police was appointed clerk of the court also revealed no courtwork or as little as three minutes courtwork per day. An examination of courthouse activity across the State revealed that a number of courthouses were being used primarily for fee collection by other Government agencies. Where the agency work was the primary service and where that could be provided by other offices, the closure of courthouses was seen as causing minimal inconvenience to the public. It was decided, therefore, to close courthouses where fewer than 75 hours per year of in-court work were done and where the distance to the nearest civilian centre was not more than 100 kilometres by sealed road. However, in accordance with the recent Cabinet decision, my department is now working closely with the rural communities policy unit in the Office of the Cabinet to ensure that any future rationalisation of court services is conducted in a coordinated way. In addition, stipendiary magistrates are now located at major centres and service country centres on a circuit basis. As a result, court backlogs and delays in larger centres have been reduced without the necessity of appointing additional magistrates and staff at those centres. The director-general and I have continued the practice of extensive inspections of both regional and metropolitan courthouses. I turn now to my second priority for Justice—to establish a trading environment which is fair to both the traders and the consumers in Queensland. To that end, I have created the new Division of Fair Trading and Consumer Affairs. That division incorporates the former Consumer Affairs Bureau, the Offices of the Registrar of Auctioneers and Agents, the Registrar of Commercial Acts and the Registrar of Business Names, charities and associations and the Registrar-General’s Office. I am also considering whether it might be more appropriate to incorporate the Pyramid Selling Schemes (Elimination) Act 1973 into the Fair Trading Act. Legislation is also being developed to improve the protection available to depositors and to promote stability in the non-bank financial institution sector. The need for a comprehensive review resulted in the establishment last year of the committee of inquiry into NBFIs, headed by Mr Brady. During the year, I also formed a working party to review the retirement villages legislation, and I will make recommendations to further enhance the protection that the legislation affords to residents. The need to update and improve the existing provisions of the Auctioneers and Agents Act has been addressed. Amendments that I proposed to the trust account provisions of the Act have already been passed. Those amendments will facilitate a more effective use of the Fidelity Guarantee Fund. Negotiations will be entered into with banks on interest rates applied to invested trust moneys and to the Fidelity Guarantee Fund to improve the return on those invested funds. I have also commissioned a review of the Invasion of Privacy Act. That review was prompted by a need to rectify an anomaly which allowed certain persons to avoid the Act's licensing provisions. Concern has also been expressed that current entry standards for the industry are inadequate and that there is no requirement that applicants for licences undergo a formal training course. Officers of my department have prepared a discussion paper, which was circulated to a broad cross-section of industry representatives who have been invited to present submissions. After that consultative process, I will present some amendments to the Invasion of Privacy Act, which will have both industry and union support. I am also keen to implement a number of efficiency measures to improve service delivery to both traders and consumers. I propose to open a one-stop shop concept in Brisbane where all business and consumer functions will be dealt with. This will be a vast improvement on the multiplicity of outlets that we had with the previous registries and Legislative Assembly 1648 10 October 1991 offices. It will also ensure better public access to the department and its facilities. Later this year will also see the opening of one-stop regional offices at Townsville, Maroochydore and Southport. Another initiative to improve efficiency is the integration and collocation of all inspectorial functions of fair trading. This will not only provide economies of scale within my department, but will also offer a better service delivery to clients. In recent months, there has been increased investigation and surveillance of unlicensed motor dealing, particularly through auction houses and this will continue in the coming months. From 1 January this year, the administration of laws relating to companies, securities and futures industries was transferred to the Commonwealth. This transfer of laws is the most significant transfer of State responsibility to the Commonwealth since the change to taxation laws prior to World War II. Queensland, along with other States and Territories, has retained the responsibility for registration of business names and also has joined the Australian Securities Commission in the operation of a business name computer system linked to the commission's national corporate database. The new system, known as the Ascot Business Names System, came into operation in my department on 9 September. The powers of the Fair Trading Act 1989 have been put to effective use within the Consumer Affairs Bureau and have resulted in a number of successful prosecutions. During the year, there has been an increase in the number of undertakings obtained and warnings issued, and the value of redress obtained for consumers has grown by 50 per cent to more than $2.7m. Of particular concern has been the increase in the number of bogus employment opportunities and "get rich quick" schemes. These operations flourish in tight economic times and can cause great distress and hardship to those who lose money. I am pleased to note that, as a result of the quick investigations and subsequent publicity, these schemes have been reduced significantly. Another important achievement is the responsible attitude being adopted by sections of the print media. As a result of the efforts of the Consumer Affairs Bureau, the print media now refuse advertising which is obviously for schemes of this type and publish warning notices in the employment columns alerting readers to the possibility of being conned. From 1 September 1991, the Weights and Measures Branch became the Trade Measurement Branch in order to more accurately describe its function in the community. From 1 July this year, the old weights and measures legislation was replaced by the National Uniform Trade Measurement Act 1990, the Trade Measurement Administration Act 1990 and the Trade Measurement (Bread) Act 1990. This uniformity of legislation will be of significant benefit to manufacturers, importers and, ultimately, consumers. The new Trade Measurement Act requires that beer, ale and spirits be sold by volume, using measures or measuring instruments that have been approved and certified by the branch. These requirements will be phased in over the next two to three years, assuring consumers of fair and accurate measure when they order a drink on licensed premises. The introduction of our own internal quality assurance program is another initiative I am pursuing to further enhance the services of the Trade Measurement Branch to industry. A flowmeter testing facility is planned. This facility, costing approximately $130,000, will enable the branch to calibrate and check its own bulk flowmeter, as well as providing a similar service to industry. As a result of amendments to the legislation controlling friendly societies and trustee companies passed this year, consumer protection and service are enhanced. Previous friendly society legislation provided minimal powers of investigation and was no longer relevant to the modern-day operations of many friendly societies. Another important service provided by my department is the motor vehicles securities register. There has been a significant increase in public use of this service with almost 89 000 certificates Legislative Assembly 1649 10 October 1991 being issued and over 200 000 telephone inquiries being received. The public is obviously well aware of the value of obtaining a certificate or advice from the register before embarking on the purchase of a used motor vehicle and my department will be continuing to provide this service to the community. As our society grows more complex in its social, commercial and legal needs, ever-increasing emphasis is being placed on proof of identity. The Registrar-General's Office is playing a significant role in meeting this need. Over 106 000 certified copies and 18 000 certified extracts of birth, death and marriage certificates were issued during the year. In the same period, 44 731 births, 19 538 marriages and 19 880 deaths were registered. The office currently has in excess of five million registrations, increasing by more than 80 000 each year. Registrations of births and deaths have been computerised since 1980 and substantial resources were allocated during the year to the computerisation of some of the old birth, death and marriage indexes. A further $80,000 will be spent this year completing the next phase of this massive project. Microfiche copies of these indexes from 1856 to 1904, as well as church records of baptisms, deaths and marriages for part of the last century, have been released providing an especially valuable service for genealogists and historians. Birth, death and marriage records prior to 1880 will be transferred to the State Archives on 1 January next year. This will ensure the preservation of these vital public records, which are at risk in their present environment from too-frequent handling. As part of the Government's social justice agenda, since 1 June, adult adoptees and relinquishing parents who have the necessary authority from the Director-General of the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs have been able to obtain certified copies of original and amended birth entries of adopted persons. By the end of August, 1 163 certificates had been sent to adoptees and 783 to relinquishing parents. Another important achievement gave parents a choice in providing a surname for their child. I am pleased to say that, since 1 May, amendments to the Registrations of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act have extended the rights of parents in providing a surname for their children. Parents of children born on or after 1 July 1974 can also apply to change their children's surnames. The parents of 345 children have already taken advantage of this new legislation. I am pleased to welcome the Public Trust Office which has once again returned to the Department of Justice. A detailed examination of the Public Trust Office and its functions was undertaken by the Public Sector Management Commission. The Public Trust Office exists to provide Queensland citizens with access to expert, secure and cost-effective estate and trust management services. I am pursuing a number of efficiency measures within the Public Trust Office and I am confident of success. I have also undertaken major amendments to the electoral office in line with EARC’s recommendation on the Queensland Legislative Assembly electoral system. These amendments established Queensland's electoral commission and created the position of Queensland Electoral Commissioner as its head. Mr Des O'Shea was appointed the inaugural Electoral Commissioner on 5 September 1991. One of his initial tasks will be to establish, as a matter of urgency, a new organisation capable of conducting electoral events in 1992. Further amendments proposed by the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission will, among other things, provide for the conduct of elections and will be introduced early in the new year. I now direct the attention of honourable members to another area of my portfolio, that of Corrective Services. For almost three years, the Queensland Corrective Services Commission has been progressively implementing the massive changes recommended by the Kennedy report in 1988. It has been three years of tremendous success, marred only in 1991 by an abnormal and very disappointing number of escapes from secure custody. It Legislative Assembly 1650 10 October 1991 is unfortunate that the massive change and genuine reform implemented for the benefit of all Queenslanders has been overshadowed by these escapes. Public attention has been drawn away from the purpose and the real benefits of the commission's reform agenda. The commission's security record prior to the latter part of last financial year had been outstanding. It is no coincidence that the escapes occurred during and immediately following a period of immense disruption, due to scurrilous attacks by a small element within and without the commission, resulting in two destabilising major inquiries. These inquiries kept senior commission management away from their primary tasks for most of the financial year, which, unfortunately, contributed to breaches of security. Members are now aware that the Criminal Justice Commission's public inquiry, resulting from sensational allegations made in this very debate last year by the honourable member for Nerang, found all of the allegations to be without foundation and that the member for Nerang had been duped. Hundreds and thousands of taxpayers' dollars were spent to confirm that the honourable member for Nerang was a dupe. The electors of Nerang should take into account that they are voting for a dupe when they next cast their vote. Mr CONNOR: I rise to a point of order. The CHAIRMAN: Order. I accept the point of order. That comment is unparliamentary, too. Mr MILLINER: I accept that, Mr Chairman, and I withdraw the remark. The honourable member for Nerang is a dupe and a person who not only puts the opportunity for political notoriety ahead of public responsibility, but also knowingly impedes criminal investigations. Mr CONNOR: I rise to a further point of order. I find those remarks offensive and I ask the Minister to withdraw them. I have not knowingly impeded investigations. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I accept the point of order. Mr MILLINER: I withdraw the remark, Mr Chairman. Mr Schwarten: He will cry in a minute. Mr MILLINER: He probably will. Sir Max Bingham directed the honourable member for Nerang, in writing, to provide the police with the name of a person he claims informed him of vital evidence relating to an escape of a dangerous criminal. He had information relating to the escape of a dangerous criminal. To date, he has consistently refused to give that person's name to the police. Mr CONNOR: Mr Chairman, I rise to a further point of order. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I have allowed the honourable member to take a couple of points of order. I ask him to allow the Minister to continue. Mr CONNOR: I rise on a point of privilege, then, and personal explanation. Mr MILLINER: He cannot do that. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr CONNOR: I made that information available to the police and the CJC. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member cannot make a personal explanation. Mr MILLINER: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The member for Nerang stands disgraced before this Parliament as a dupe, a channel for the disgruntled and the disgraced, and a disruptive influence contributing to escapes. Even worse, he is a person who arrogantly poses as a defender of law and order while purposely hindering police in the execution of their duties. He should at least do the honourable thing and apologise to the Parliament for his untrue and unsubstantial allegations. Legislative Assembly 1651 10 October 1991

Mr CONNOR: I rise to a further point of order. Mr Chairman, I do not have to take character assassination in this Chamber, do I? I find the remarks offensive. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The only word that I think the honourable member could find offensive is the word “purposely”. Mr MILLINER: Mr Chairman, I will withdraw the word “purposely”. Today, he will undoubtedly follow his usual form and contribute another negative, inaccurate and misleading beat-up disguised as a thorough investigation. When he does, I ask honourable members to just bear in mind that the last time he disgraced himself in that manner, it cost Queenslanders hundreds of thousands of dollars. The CJC inquiry cost the Queensland Corrective Services Commission in excess of $150,000. In addition, about 6 000 man-hours were expended by the police investigators. Lawyers employed by the CJC spent almost 1 000 hours on the inquiry and the report, and the CJC did not even try to calculate the countless hours taken up by support staff and all those people involved. After reading the findings of the CJC report, I am sure that most Queenslanders would be inclined to do what I do: that is, treat his claims and actions with contempt. In spite of the difficulties caused by inquiries and the temporary aberration of an increase in escapes, it is with pride that I remind the Committee of some of the outstanding achievements of the commission over the past three years, and especially during the past 12 months. In spite of all the obstruction, all the upheaval, and all the trauma experienced during this massive change process, Queenslanders are now paying less in real terms for their corrective system. The adult imprisonment rate has fallen from 133.8 per 100 000 population in June 1988 to 110.4 in June 1991. This has allowed the commission to take off the drawing board two prisons planned by the previous Government under the antiquated lock them up and throw away the key regime. It has also enabled the commission to close an existing prison. This has saved Queenslanders many millions of dollars in construction costs and ongoing operation costs. When that is compared to the 50 per cent increase in the number of people in New South Wales gaols, it shows that the policies being followed in Queensland are working and that those of the New South Wales Liberals are a total failure. If people want to talk about escapes, let me point out that, in New South Wales, the number of escapes rose from 74 in 1988-89 to 100 in 1989-90, and then to 131 in 1990-91. If some of the members on the other side of the Chamber derive pleasure from gaol escapes in Queensland, maybe they should reflect on the results of Liberal Party policies just over the border. The commission has also worked towards a system of using prison as an option of last resort for violent and habitual offenders. The swing away from imprisonment as the main method of dealing with offenders is proving successful and is gaining public support. Proof of this is to be seen in the very successful flood clean-up and restoration program undertaken by prisoners in the Charleville district last year. This emergency work was not only continued at the request of the local people but also extended, and it will continue to expand for the benefit of many Queensland communities. We now have more than 80 offenders working in western areas on community projects which would otherwise not be done. More than 350 offenders have so far worked on this scheme. They are working in teams of 15 in towns, in national parks, on properties and in other areas where a need is established. This concept will be expanded to other areas of Queensland once this Government has consolidated the scheme now under way. The involvement of community agencies in corrections has continued to increase with two excellent examples being the community correction centres, now operated under contract by St Vincent de Paul and the Shaftesbury Citizenship Centre. Queenslanders are now seeing more offenders doing meaningful work in the community instead of wasting time, money and human resources as they sit around in prisons. Last financial year, more than one million hours’ work was Legislative Assembly 1652 10 October 1991 performed under community service orders, worth in the vicinity of $10m to Queensland’s taxpayers. Another area of major achievement is the continued fall in the number of Aborigines and Islanders languishing in Queensland’s gaols. The number has dropped for the third successive year, representing a decrease of 21 per cent since June 1988. There are many other areas of achievement by the commission in the last 12 months. These include the expansion of the home detention program, which has seen an approximate 70 per cent increase in the number of offenders now on that program; the expansion of the innovative drink driving program; the development of the sex offenders program; the commencement of work on the program for violent offenders, particularly in the area of domestic violence; the opening of four new community corrections area offices at Innisfail, Emerald, Roma and Kingaroy; the establishment of infrastructure on remote Aboriginal communities as a precursor to the establishment of both contract and commission managed community correction centres in those communities; the establishment of a court advisory service with the dual function of servicing the metropolitan courts, and acting as a resource for community correctional officers Statewide; and the contracting of private companies to deliver specific programs. I can assure honourable members that this work will continue, despite the best efforts of certain people to try to stop it. This financial year the Corrective Services Commission has received a total Budget allocation of $145.5m. This allocation represents a decrease of about $16m on expenditure last year, with the major reduction occurring in the area of capital expenditure. It should be remembered that the bulk of the capital expenditure last year was on the new Wacol Remand and Reception Centre. This project will be completed this year, and the necessary funds have been allocated. Other capital works projects include the construction of a new laundry facility at the Sir David Longland centre, upgrading perimeter security at a number of centres, and the completion of the hospital security unit at Annerley. The recurrent expenditure Budget allocation this year is almost the same as last year. In real terms, it represents a decrease in funding of around 4 per cent. This is a tremendous benefit to all Queensland taxpayers and it comes as a result of the commission’s courageous reform program supported by the Government and the National Party. To its shame, the Liberal Party continues to hinder genuine attempts to provide a better system, and continues to present ad hoc policies that will increase costs and, indeed, increase the crime rate. Last year the commission entered into contracts with outside agencies to open four community corrections centres—three in south-east Queensland and one in Cairns. In addition, $1m has been allocated to community correction centres this year, emphasising the commission’s commitment to using community supervision options whenever this is preferable to imprisonment and practical from a community point of view. To remain within budget, the commission is introducing more efficient work practices and more economical management options. I can assure all honourable members that this Government will not allow the safety of the public to be placed in jeopardy, but it is committed to reducing the cost of the delivery of corrective services. Initially, the commission was given five years to implement the Kennedy report. In just over half that time, it is well on the way to doing that. In addition it has implemented many innovative programs that will eventually provide this State with an efficient corrective system—a system that puts real meaning into the word “correction”. I must again note the continued support given to the reform process by the honourable Leader of the Opposition, Mr Russell Cooper, and the Opposition spokesman, Mr Tom Gilmore. Finally, I must pay tribute to the excellent work and support of the members of the commission’s board and the various community and volunteer agencies. I Legislative Assembly 1653 10 October 1991 pay tribute to the staff of my Department of Justice, who work under the capable leadership of the Director-General, Mr Barry Smith. I thank the Corrective Services Commission and its Director-General, Mr Keith Hamburger, for the outstanding effort put in during a year which presented major difficulties. Without the efforts of all these people, together with those of my personal staff, I know we would not have achieved as much as we have. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I inform the Committee that, on the Chief Office Vote, I propose to allow a full discussion on all of the Minister’s departmental Estimates (Consolidated Revenue, Trust and Special Funds). Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (4.59 p.m.): In response to these departmental Estimates, I will focus on a number of issues involving a number of the areas of responsibility of the Ministry. It is an extremely large Ministry, in fact. It is predicted that Corrective Services will feature prominently, due to the nature of the beast and difficulties that have arisen during the year. In all, total expenditure of the Corrective Services Commission is $167m, down 34.3 per cent on the previous year. To some extent, this is due to the fall in the capital works program, which is considerably down. Excluding the capital works program, the Vote for the Corrective Services Commission is $145.518m, which is 10 per cent below the Vote for the previous year. The cut is in the Custodial Corrections program, which is down 15 per cent, or some $22m, from $144m to $122m. It would seem that the big cut is in the fixed capital expenditure line item. It is important for the Committee to appreciate the area where this cut has been taken. The program description in Budget Paper No. 3 is— “The custodial corrections program is responsible for providing programs in accordance with the individual prisoner’s needs and meaningful work as part of that program aimed at correcting offending behaviour. The program’s role involves ensuring the safe and secure custody of inmates to contain and reduce the assessed risk they present; ensuring the safety of officers and inmates; maintaining the security and good order of the safety of correctional centres; maintaining prisoner welfare and providing human treatment; and ensuring inmate management is driven by an integrated sentence management plan.” This is the area where the dollars were shed or, more precisely, where the Budget committee chose to wield its knife. The total estimated expenditure for the Queensland Corrective Services Commission for 1991-92 represents 0.86 per cent of the entire State Budget. Whiet entire Government spending will rise by 7.5 per cent, the Corrective Services Commission budget, excluding the capital works program, will fall by 10 per cent. I sincerely hope the Minister will advise the Chamber that the shedding of dollars was derived from savings from award restructuring and structural efficiency and not from prunings because of the Treasurer’s edict that all departments and commissions had to cut their Votes by 8 per cent. For example, it is on public record that the Rockhampton Correctional Centre has experienced budget restrictions. It is timely, therefore, to refer the Parliament to an article in the Sun newspaper of 4 October 1991 in respect of the gaoling for life of Francis James Carter. In sentencing Carter, Mr Justice de Jersey spoke in the most disparaging terms of management at the Sir David Longland Correctional Centre and of lack of discipline at the centre at that time. The articles states— “A convicted murderer who killed again in gaol had virtually run a Brisbane prison with warders taking a subordinate role, a judge said today. Mr Justice de Jersey sentenced Francis James Carter, 36, to life for the murder of inmate Scott Wallace at the Sir David Longland Correctional Centre. . . . Legislative Assembly 1654 10 October 1991

But Justice de Jersey also lashed gaol authorities over discipline at the prison at the time of the brutal murder. He said Carter and an accomplice had run the prison unit. ‘You laid down the law and the warders effectively took a subordinate role,’ he said. ‘The situation was unacceptable and I hope it will not re-occur.’ ” The article states further— “Justice de Jersey also said it had been absurd that prisoners, including convicted murderers, had free access to knives and other weapons at the Sir David Longland jail. It was also absurd that prisoners in the unit were able to brew and drink alcohol with virtual impunity. ‘I am concerned about the lack of discipline at that time (of Wallace’s murder),’ he told Carter.” I do not raise this subject for sensation but, rather, to make a point about community perceptions and expectations in respect of corrective services, prisons and those persons who are contained within them. Let me make it absolutely clear that my view of the public perception is that Mr and Mrs Citizen do not care one whit about programs, rehabilitation, self-management, counselling or any of the other myriad fancy names for myriad fancy programs. Their primary interest is in security—prison security, the security of their homes, and the security to go about their lawful business, undisturbed by escapees from lawful custody. The confidence of the community at large is of paramount importance to the successful operation of corrective services. Nothing should be said or done which might diminish public confidence, and at no time should the desire for reform or change or the imperatives of budgetary restraint be allowed to impinge upon a public view, which is all-important. I remind the Committee that prison security was the top subject of the Cabinet meeting in Cairns. Following that Cabinet meeting, the Premier announced that the reform process would be put on hold for three months and that penalties for escaping would be increased from three years’ imprisonment to seven years’ imprisonment. Security is a top priority. It is a major concern, so it is very surprising that the knife was applied in this area. Second in importance in the public mind is that guests of Her Majesty must, wherever possible, be fully and profitably occupied. It is not the view of the paying public that prisoners should be mollycoddled and allowed to descend into a state of sloth, indolence and lack of discipline—and rightly so. It is therefore obvious that, in his sentence, Mr Justice de Jersey reflected accurately the public concern. It is a matter of grave disappointment to me that his findings reflected so poorly upon this system, which is in its early days—still settling in, as it were. Nonetheless, it is easy to apprehend how fragile is public confidence and how zealously we must cultivate it. This year there have been a record number of escapes from custody, but what is worse is the extraordinary number of escapes from secure custody. I must tell this Parliament that I have no brief for those merchants of emotion and sensation who publicise every abscondment and walk-away from prison farms, half-way houses, leave of absence and other areas of low security. Those kinds of incidents are inevitable, given that large numbers of prisoners are undertaking rehabilitative programs such as release to work and leave of absence, and no-one should or could properly seek to end those programs on the basis of a few abscondments. What I do have a problem with—and, believe me, so does the public—is the unprecedented number of escapes from secure custody. If ever anything was set to destroy public confidence in a system such as this, then dozens of escapes—some of them mass escapes of highly dangerous Legislative Assembly 1655 10 October 1991 criminals—will do it. With respect to this Minister and the Labor Government, I say that the community wants better than they have had in the last 12 months. It is not good enough for the Minister and the Government to hide behind Corrective Services. I believe that the Minister should be adopting a far more public profile in respect of the bad news that sometimes comes out of Corrective Services. After all, the buck does stop with the Minister. Of supreme importance to the whole process is the provision of sufficient funds to ensure not only the security of our prisons but also sufficient funds to satisfy the expectations of all Queenslanders in this area. In this, I believe that the Government has failed the test. The loss of 306 security officers Statewide must affect security. To make matters worse, these retrenchments come at a time when the new remand and reception centre is being manned. That centre alone will require at least 180 personnel. Let us assume that 150 of those will be new recruits. It then stands to reason that 456 existing staff will have to go. If full allowance is made for the loss of staff at Woodford, then we will still see the retrenchment of at least 300 staff who are on the payroll this day. Mr Milliner: I think you are drawing the longbow. I will answer it later. Mr GILMORE: I will be interested to hear how the Minister answers it because it is a matter of concern when the Budget documents clearly show that 306 custodial corrections staff or security staff must go. The ramifications of such savage cuts to staff levels are obvious. Morale must suffer. Security must suffer. As a consequence, public confidence will also suffer. The secretary of the Queensland State Service Union, Laurie Gillespie, said that the Cairns Cabinet decision was an acknowledgment of the very serious shortcomings in the standard of security. I remind the Committee that the reform process was put on hold to enable more emphasis to be placed on security. He said— “It needs to be said that a higher standard of security is going to be required upon an ongoing basis and 3 months won’t be good enough. We need to sustain the effort on an indefinite basis.” It is patently obvious to me that some of these intended cuts in staff numbers are aimed squarely at a number of correctional officers who are considered to be dissident, disloyal or actually subversive. This may or may not be desirable, but the commission must not allow itself to fall into the old trap of trying to silence a contrary view by threats, sackings or other stand-over tactics, however carefully camouflaged in the rhetoric of efficiency or cost-cutting. I refer now to an article in the Sun of 8 October headed “Plan to privatise Wacol prison”. I have this article with me. I wish that this little piece of kite- flying—and I mean “kite-flying”—meant what it said, as there would then at least be a basis for an informed debate on privatisation. I suggest that, once and for all, the Government should desist from using the threat of privatisation as a means of gaining a pre-eminent position in discussions regarding award restructuring. That is not worthy of the Government, nor is it worthy of the commission. Mr Milliner interjected. Mr GILMORE: It was the policy of the National Party in Government when it privatised the Borallon prison that there would be a three-year contract, after which time there would be a properly audited result—a clear accounting of what was happening out there—after which it would make a policy decision on further privatisation. If the Government cannot wait three years, what should be done is that a complete and independently conducted audit of several correctional centres, such as Borallon, Lotus Glen and the Sir David Longland Centre, should be commissioned and the findings made public in the interests of informed debate. That should proceed now, rather than later, if we are going to indulge ourselves in the plan to privatise other correctional centres. Care should be taken to ensure that real comparisons are made. To coin a phrase, apples must Legislative Assembly 1656 10 October 1991 be compared with apples. I know that that is a most difficult area of comparison—between two correctional centres—because there are a number of functions carried on in each of those centres that are not necessarily carried on and accounted for at other centres. However, there can be no room in this debate for fanciful accounting. It is then, and only then, that a reasonable and properly reasoned decision can be taken. I will be delighted to take a role in that debate, because I know that centres such as Lotus Glen will be shown to be as efficient as any in the world, whether they be private or public. Should that assertion prove correct—I believe that it will—the acid would then be applied directly to the Government's policy on privatisation. It would become a matter of two clear options—to privatise or not to privatise; a question of whether privatisation is beneficial in terms of quality of security, service provided, programs, rehabilitation and cost, as well as the basic philosophical argument—private enterprise versus Government enterprise. I look forward with anticipation to the provision of those details, and the ensuing debate. Second only to security, as I have already mentioned, is work, the work ethic and discipline within a prison. All three are seen as part of a single package most likely to achieve a good outcome in terms of prisoner rehabilitation. The National Party believes that every man and woman in custody should do at least eight hours of work a day, each day, with the exception of Sunday. We do not care what form that work takes, whether it be physical labour, education, trade training or citizenship training, or general rehabilitative programs; but, whatever it is, there can be no compromise on that demand. No longer should hard-working, free citizens feel obliged to complain to me that, while they were working at or near a prison digging a trench in the hot sun, prisoners were lazing around in the shade watching. My basic philosophy on this matter is a simple one. Once again, I believe that it is important that I place it on the record of this Parliament. It is this: if we fail to take the, hopefully, once-only opportunity offered to us by virtue of a person's imprisonment to alter that person's attitude to one acceptable to society, to imbue that person with a desire and a will to work, and to provide some requisite skills and develop personal disciplines, desirable habits and healthy practices, then we will have failed not only the prisoner but also our community, and ourselves. These desirable traits can only be developed through the application of work, study and personal development in a highly disciplined environment. This is not—I repeat “not”—advocacy of gas and bash, or a return to those silly and ridiculous days prior to the Kennedy inquiry. This is nothing more than a statement of the obvious—a statement of the factors which rule all our lives and which allow us individually to function normally within society every day or our lives. It is also a statement of those things which, if possessed and followed in the first instance, would have kept our prisoners free from offence. I therefore clearly perceive a failure in this Budget to provide for adequate industry for those in secure custody. More must be done to encourage private enterprise to join with Corrective Services to provide inside employment. The move towards a slate tile plant at Lotus Glen is a sterling example of what can be achieved. Sadly, it remains but a singular representation of that which should be commonplace. I am disturbed to see real Budget cuts this year, which must compromise the commission and its program. The closure of Woodford prison will provide a saving of about $8m in a full year—funds which, by any reasonable reckoning, should have been employed within the system for a couple of years to provide for industry and other meaningful rehabilitative programs, not as has been the case this year, where every available cent has been ripped out of corrections and put into social equity programs. Cuts to employee conditions, reductions in staff levels and demands that employees work back-to-back or split shifts can only lead to dispute and general disharmony within the system. We should not attempt, as I believe this Government is attempting, to gain some budgetary advantage on the backs of our workers. The whole process is too fragile, as has been clearly demonstrated in recent times. Legislative Assembly 1657 10 October 1991

On a number of occasions, I am on record as advocating the development of a centre for intractables—maximum security prisoners who have demonstrated no remorse, no compassion and no desire to become compliant with the demands of the corrections system, or society at large. Today, I do not resile one bit from that statement. The experiment at Moreton failed for a number of reasons, not the least of which, in my view, was the choice of the wrong centre for such a purpose. Secondly, it was a complete and successful demonstration of how not to run a maximum security institution, as investigations into the matter have pointed out. Bleeding hearts, civil libertarians and social engineers have no role to play in this, the toughest game in town. Let them indulge themselves with the more compliant, reasonable, rehabilitative inmates. Moreton was a spectacular failure, but should not be considered to be the end of the line. We must have an intractable centre and we must also demonstrate that we have the resolution to make it watertight, so that we might then get on with the main game—the correction of those who are able to be corrected. Given the fact that our client group, generally speaking, comes from the lower educated, socially disadvantaged and Aboriginal groups of our society, there is little wonder that recidivism is common. There have, however, been remarkable advances in Queensland Corrective Services in recent times, Queensland and New South Wales being the only States with a steady decline in recidivism since 1984. Queensland is the only State to record a real decline in the imprisonment rate, and the rate of imprisonment of Aborigines is falling. This is the good news, and indicates that the recommendations of the Kennedy inquiry were on track, and that the Corrective Services Commission of Queensland, in following those recommendations, is on track. Community corrections is the area in which I believe the greatest advances have been made. No person could properly suggest that the Western Campus or the Shaftsbury Campus, run by that extraordinary Queenslander Reverend Alan Male, or the Gwandalan Centre at Trinity Lane, run by the equally extraordinary Don Davidson, were anything short of spectacular successes. Surely some notable critics must by now have had to swallow their scepticism. Nonetheless, there are remaining areas of difficulty with the management of community corrections. It is of absolute importance that fine option orders and community service orders are obeyed and adequately complied with. Any relaxation by authorised personnel will inevitably lead to the process being brought into disrepute and ultimately undone. Convicted persons opting for these alternatives must understand that they are not soft options. As the Minister pointed out recently in the debate on Corrective Services legislation, they are penalties and they must be observed. At this juncture, I will briefly address an interesting legislative conundrum which should be resolved, but if it cannot be resolved, at least it should be considered. On 4 September this year, the Parliament passed amendments to the Corrective Services Act to allow for persons to apply for fine option orders, even after default, and expressly after a warrant had issued and had been executed. The philosophy behind this move was allegedly to save Queenslanders from the indignity and possible personal danger of gaol. They were noble sentiments indeed and ones with which we all concur. We now discover that persons granted fine option orders, having completed those orders, are imprisoned for the princely sum of $47.50, being costs of court. Where are our civil libertarians now? Having pursued this matter at some length, I clearly understand the reasons why costs were not included in fine option orders. However, it clearly puts the lie to the noble tears of blood, shed in such volume in the back corner of this place such a short time ago. Is this not imprisonment of the poor? Is this not equally imprisonment of those unable to pay costs, as would be imprisonment for the lack of ability to pay a fine? Surely those taut heartstrings on the Government benches throb with equal compassion for those imprisoned for being poor, regardless of the reason for that imprisonment. It is time Legislative Assembly 1658 10 October 1991 that the whole issue of imprisonment of fine-defaulters be re-examined. Obviously, there is some duty of responsibility on offenders. Equally, as I said in a previous debate, it is not too much to ask that individuals, having been brought before a court, should do everything required by that court as expeditiously as possible. However, in the spirit of the earlier legislation, when all else fails, and the offender demonstrates that he cannot pay, there must be a means available to keep people out of gaol for the want of $47.50. Regardless of the difficulties involved, it is incumbent upon the Parliament to discover it. Before I move from corrections to the area of justice, I have an obligation to express my appreciation of two things. Firstly, as the Opposition spokesman for Corrective Services, I am thankful for the courtesy extended by the Minister, the commission and the staff to me. It is a practical, mature and open commitment to the advancement of corrective services in this State. Secondly, I acknowledge the quality of the annual report of the Corrective Services Commission, which was tabled recently in the Parliament. The report is clear, concise, informative and attractively presented, and shows corrections in a good light. Before ending my comments on the corrections Estimates, I raise the concern of the impact of the closure of the Woodford prison on the town of Woodford. I challenge the Labor Government to provide a compensation package for that town. It is fair to say that the closure of the prison will have an impact similar to that determined to have been suffered in Maryborough by the cessation of logging. As a result of the loss of 86 timber-workers' jobs, the Maryborough region will receive some $38m in assistance. Woodford should receive a comparable scheme to compensate for the displacement of 180 prison officers. The Woodford region, its businesses and organisations will suffer the same adverse impacts through loss of jobs and income which flowed from the prison's operations. The point must be made that a worker who spent more than 20 years in the Maryborough region's timber industry will receive a lump sum entitlement of $35,000 and other important benefits—and this is the important point—under the Great Sandy Region growth and development package. A prison officer who has served at Woodford for a long period faces transfer, redundancy or retirement. There is nothing in the way of special adjustment package; nor is there anything in the way of employment-creation or industry- creation initiatives. I turn now to the other areas of responsibility of the Department of Justice. The total Vote for 1991- 92 for the Department of Justice is $240m, an increase of 16.9 per cent. Expenditures for the various programs are: capital works, up 34 per cent; courts, up 34 per cent; protection of public interest, up 11.9 per cent; and public trust, up 31 per cent. It is clear that, in terms of the Budget, along with Environment and Heritage, the Department of Justice is one of the glamour portfolios. One of the matters of great curiosity to me is the division between Justice and the Department of the Attorney- General. Indeed, some of the decisions which were made in that regard remain a mystery. I might add that I also am pleased to see the Public Trust Office returned to the Department of Justice. The management of the courts falls squarely within the jurisdiction of Justice. Court delays, especially in the Supreme Court, are serious and impinge upon the basic right of citizens to justice. Running lists, wherein cases are listed in order of appearance, cause uncertainty and delay, and certainly add considerably to the cost of trials. Witnesses are often required to travel long distances for brief appearances, only to find that the matter does not come on for hearing. The recently announced intention of the Government to introduce legislation relevant to good case management is a welcome initiative. Reference was made to that in this Chamber last night, but much more needs to be done. In recent times, much has been made about the cost of justice—the cost of getting a fair go through our courts system. Most of the criticism has been directed towards solicitors and other practitioners of the law. There can be little doubt that such criticism has some Legislative Assembly 1659 10 October 1991 validity. However, much of the delay could be avoided by the imposition of the sternest of measures in respect of the progress of cases through the courts. Delays, deliberate or otherwise, and failure to lodge documents and requests for further information, all add to the cost burden and heighten the view that only the wealthy can ever successfully pursue a matter through the courts. I state once again that we look forward to those initiatives. Unscrupulous practitioners can destroy the financial capacity of opposing litigants, thereby achieving success through attrition and not through due process. This situation can no longer be ignored and will no longer be ignored. I turn now to an important program within the Justice Department Estimates, that is, protection of public interest. The subprograms include investigations, licensing and registrations, non-bank financial institutions, etc. Under the protection of public interest program is the Trust and Special Fund called the Auctioneers and Agents Fidelity Guarantee Fund. This fund was established for the purpose of reimbursing persons who may suffer pecuniary loss as a result of a breach by a licensee or certain other persons identified under provisions of the Auctioneers and Agents Act. That was the original intent of the fund, but this Labor Government saw it as a hollow log and dipped its fingers into it. I remind the Committee that when the Auctioneers and Agents Act and Another Act Amendment Bill was introduced in the House, the Opposition opposed it. At that time, the Labor Government said that $5m should be sufficient to be retained in the fund to deal with defalcations or other criminal or negligent activities. In July, the fund contained $95m, and is reported to be climbing to $101m, prior to the most recent withdrawals. The “Beagle Boys” have been out! According to the data contained under the protection of public interest program, some $43m has already been transferred from the fund into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The concern is that the trend has been established; the pressure is being put on special purpose funds. Five million dollars is only a paltry sum when claims of some $600,000 are made against it, as was the case last week. For the coming year, total current outlays are some $63m—up $3m on the previous year. This is the funding result after the closing-down of some 26 courthouses. The Minister said that the closures would save $1m a year. The dollar savings to the Government are at the expense of services to the rural sector. The clerk of the court forms an integral part of small communities, particularly where there is no solicitor resident in the town. The Miles Court House, which was on the hit-list, provided some 41 separate Government services. It is understood that the caning that the Labor Government has received about the cut-back of services to the non-urban sector has caused it to rethink some of its decisions. Some closures have been put on hold until the Cabinet committee—yes, another Cabinet committee—headed by the Deputy Premier reports to Cabinet on services to rural areas. Separate policy decisions by the Labor Government overall have been biased against provincial and rural Queensland. The withdrawing of services relating to the Justice Department is a continuation of its prejudice against non-urban Queensland. As time runs short, I shall conclude my address to the Estimates of the Minister for Justice and Corrective Services on a strange note, I suppose, for an Opposition member. Even though I have offered some fairly stern criticism of the actions and programs provided by the Department of Justice and Corrective Services, I believe that, essentially, the department is doing a sterling job. It is following in the paths that were laid down very carefully by the Kennedy review. There have been very few changes to that direction. I believe this is the strength of that department. In the long term, I believe that will bear some considerable fruit in terms of benefits to the people of Queensland. I must say that I have received the utmost courtesy from the personnel in the Department of Justice in all matters on which I have ever approached them. I thank them for that. It is a large, complicated and difficult department. It has managed to remain out of the press. I Legislative Assembly 1660 10 October 1991 suppose that, if there is a measure of the success of a department in this day and age, it is that if it stays out of the press, it is probably somewhere on track. Mr WELFORD (Stafford) (5.27 p.m.): I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on the Estimates of the Minister for Justice and Corrective Services. I agree with the Minister that it is pleasing to see a constructive approach being taken by an Opposition spokesperson to the departmental Estimates debate. That is a welcome change, and a practice for which Mr Gilmore is developing a reputation. I thank him for that. It is certainly different from the contribution that members are likely to hear from the Liberal Party’s spokesperson. The department has three major programs internally, as it were, and a fourth program, which is effectively the Public Trustee. I wish to make a few cursory comments about various matters with which the department deals, as well as matters with which the department and the Minister will be dealing in the next 12 months. Firstly, the courts program has an estimated budget for this year of just over $99m. That shows what a major expense it is to the Queensland community to operate our justice system—in particular the courts—which is our primary mechanism for resolving disputes between private citizens and for dealing with alleged criminal offenders. One of the important things that our Government is going to try to achieve in the courts system is greater efficiency. Yesterday, during the debate on the Attorney-General’s Estimates, I spoke about the proposed permanent court of appeal and the introduction of a system of case management. I commend the Minister, Mr Milliner, on his role in bringing this to fruition in the courts. I look forward to the appointment of a judge administrator in the Supreme Court to see that case management does indeed operate effectively and more efficiently in our courts system. Magistrates Courts perform an enormously important function. Their monetary jurisdictional limit has been increased from $5,000 to $20,000. This means that, by and large, most of the minor civil disputes between people can be dealt with in the Magistrates Courts. Because the scale of costs chargeable by lawyers in the Magistrates Courts is lower than in the other courts, the Magistrates Courts do provide a mechanism for rather swift and less expensive justice for citizens who need to use that system. The annual report shows that there has been a significant increase in the number of trials dealt with by the Magistrates Courts, not the least because of the increase in its jurisdictional limit. Notwithstanding that, it is very pleasing that the average time taken to hear and determine matters that are brought before the Magistrates Courts has been reduced significantly to approximately two months, and I think that further gains can be made in that regard. As they say, justice delayed is justice denied. If we can continue to improve our performance in the processing of cases before the courts to either achieve a settlement or have cases heard swiftly, we will do a lot to reduce the costs that people incur in having their matters resolved before the courts. In pursuing the question of the cost of justice, I give credit to the Small Claims Tribunal for its role. The Small Claims Tribunal is very often overlooked by people who see the grand scheme of our court system as the Supreme and District Courts and, to a lesser extent, the Magistrates Courts. In the past year, more than 4 000 claims were brought before the Small Claims Tribunal. That tribunal plays a very important role in facilitating the resolution of disputes at minimal cost to people who make claims before it. Its determinations that result in the requirement that money be paid by one party to another can be enforced in the normal way in the Magistrates Courts. Another recent improvement in the administration, or the management, of cases before the Magistrates Courts is the training of clerks of the court to provide for pretrial conferences. That has been in operation since January of last year, and I am sure that the department will continue to Legislative Assembly 1661 10 October 1991 improve its use of that facility as a means of resolving disputes without matters having to go to lengthy trials before the courts. As a member of the Minister’s committee, it was my pleasure recently to work with an industry committee on a review of the law relating to residential tenancies. One of the important functions of that committee is to consider the possibility of establishing a tribunal specifically to deal with disputes that arise in residential tenancies. As is the case with small claims, the whole point of providing a better mechanism than the formal court system for resolving residential tenancy disputes is to try not only to minimise the delay in having those disputes resolved, but also to allow people to gain access to a mechanism for resolving their disputes that, firstly, does not require them to engage a lawyer and incur the costs of doing so and, secondly, gives people more information about their rights. Very often, disputes come before the courts simply because the parties are not clear about exactly what their rights are. In relation to consumer matters that can be resolved in the Small Claims Tribunal and residential tenancies disputes, which themselves need a simple and easy process for resolution—improvements could be made. In relation to the courts, and particularly the Magistrates Courts—I have already mentioned the pretrial conference procedure, which is an excellent example of a way in which disputes can be mediated and, hopefully, resolved much more swiftly than they would be by going through the normal procedures that bring a matter to trial in the courts. While I am on the question of ensuring public awareness of the rights of consumers, I turn to the Protection of Public Interest program of the department, which, in the coming year, has an estimated budget of some $97m. The Minister already mentioned that plans are being made to establish a number of one-stop shops to provide delivery of the services in which the department is involved. In this year’s budget, provision is made for capital expenditure of some $631,000, presumably partly for that purpose. A number of sections within the department deal with consumer or public interest matters. Firstly, the charities and associations section is an important part of the department because so many community groups and organisations throughout the State, which perform a very valuable social welfare role in our community, need advice from time to time. The charities and associations section also administers the incorporation of non-profit associations under the Associations Incorporation Act. From personal experience with organisations in my own electorate, I know that the charities and associations section of the department plays a very valuable role in assisting people in managing their local community groups, clubs and the like. The Electoral Office has an important role to play. I congratulate the Minister and his department on moving quickly on the EARC recommendations to appoint the first electoral commissioner and to move to reach agreement with the Commonwealth on the establishment of joint electoral rolls. We are all familiar with the problems over the years with the lack of accuracy in electoral rolls. I hope that one of the consequences of the new system of having joint rolls with the Commonwealth will be that, between the resources that we as a State and also the Commonwealth commit to those issues, we can have rolls that are indeed far more accurate than they were in the past. I turn to the Fair Trading and Consumer Affairs Branch, which, for a number of years in Queensland, has had a high profile. That should continue. The branch has a new telephone advice service which, in the past year, received more than 76 000 telephone calls. It is good to see that the Government continues to commit resources—just over $2m this year—to the fair trading and consumer affairs branch, which is so vital as a source of information for consumers. One of the matters that our residential tenancies committee will consider is whether the role of the consumer affairs branch might also be extended to provide consumers with advice about their rights and obligations as tenants or lessors in relation to residential tenancies. There is an important role for consumer Legislative Assembly 1662 10 October 1991 information, consumer awareness and consumer advice and I am pleased that the Minister is again committing resources to ensure that this valuable function is maintained. The Public Trust Office, recently transferred to the Department of Justice, performs an historic and important function for Queenslanders. Queensland was the first State to establish a Public Trustee, originally under the name of the Public Curator. Members of the public are aware of the role of the Public Trust Office in providing a free wills service for citizens throughout the State. Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr WELFORD: As the member for Rockhampton North indicates, I am pleased that in future the Public Trustee will draft wills and other documents for its clients in plain English. I recently had a complaint from a constituent concerning the administration of an estate. I thank the staff of the Minister’s office for their help in resolving that problem. There is still room for improvement in the quality of service provided by the Public Trust Office. I note that the office is undergoing a program of commercialisation so that it can compete in the commercial marketplace. From my experience so far, it is fair to say that the office must lift its game in terms of the service that it provides if it is to compete effectively in the commercial market. I turn now to briefly consider corrective services. The policy of corrections in Queensland is one of the great challenges of our time. If ever there was a Ministry which anyone would least wish to have responsibility for, it is the Ministry that has responsibility for corrective services in this State. On the one hand, we are introducing one of the most innovative corrective services policies in Australia—or indeed the world—and, on the other hand, we are dealing with a changing industrial relations environment which has a good deal of instability in it and causes many problems, including the escapes which we are all most disappointed about. None of us regards an excessive number of escapes from Queensland’s correctional institutions as acceptable. It is fair to say that the Minister and the staff of the Corrective Services Commission—and I pay particular credit to Mr Keith Hamburger—have been working very hard to try to perform their jobs under very difficult conditions. Those conditions are not assisted by people in the political arena who engage in cheap political point-scoring. The Minister may have touched a sensitive point when he suggested that the member for Nerang, who is the Liberal spokesperson on these matters, was purposely impeding investigations concerning problems within Corrective Services, but it is fair to say that, if it was purposeful or deliberate, then one can only imagine what danger a person of such foolishness would cause in relation to police matters. Mr CONNOR: I rise to a point of order. I object. I find that remark offensive and would like it withdrawn. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Stephan): Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Mr CONNOR (Nerang) (5.42 p.m.): Whether the Labor Government likes it or not, the people of Queensland measure a prison service by its ability to do its job. The number one priority in that job is the ability to keep criminals behind bars. The Government can argue until it is black in the face about its wonderful prison system but, when all is said and done, it cannot get away from the number of escapes this year. Since January 1991, the people of Queensland have endured 90 escapes. In a letter to the Minister which appears on page one of the Queensland Corrective Services Commission’s annual report, the commission chairman, Mr Ron Archer, states— “It is unfortunate that, particularly in the latter part of the year under review, the image of the Commission has suffered due to the failure of security in some of our institutions.” Legislative Assembly 1663 10 October 1991

With your permission, Mr Temporary Chairman, I would like to table a document and have it incorporated in Hansard. A Government member: What is it? Mr CONNOR: It is the Government’s escape record. To somehow excuse the Government for this indisputable evidence of a prison system teetering on collapse, the report states— “During the year the Commission came under scrutiny from two major inquiries brought about by sensational, but unsubstantiated allegations.” It goes on to say— “With the wisdom of hindsight, the Commission should not have attempted to continue with a reform program through the past year while under scrutiny of the aforementioned inquiry.” The commission and the Government are saying that there have been all these escapes because of these inquiries. It sounds plausible initially but, if one looks at the document I have just tabled, one finds that from 10 April this year to date there have been 60 escapes. The reason why 10 April is so important is that that is when the last of the two inquiries was completed. The argument that these inquiries had somehow reduced the effectiveness of the commission in its ability to contain prisoners is laughable. During the period of the inquiry between 22 January and 10 April—a period of about three months—there were 16 escapes. That was during the inquiry, but three months after the inquiry, in July, there were 22 escapes in one month, one of which was the great escape from Moreton. It is absolutely preposterous to suggest that all this came about or the performance of the commission was affected somehow by these inquiries. If that argument is used, inquiries should be held all the time, because during the inquiry the escape rate was one-third of its present rate. Three months after the inquiry was completed, one of the most dramatic parts of the so-called reform process occurred—the closure of the Woodford prison. The closure of Woodford was to occur in a phased process up until 1 September. During the month of July, major reorganisations of prisons and prisoners occurred to allow for this closure. Part of that process was to move prisoners from Woodford to make room for the movement of the most dangerous criminals in this State out of the new high-tech Sir David Longland prison and place them in the Moreton Correctional Centre. Moreton prison is the old security patients’ hospital located beside Wacol prison, and it is the reason why all the escapes occurred in July. They had nothing whatsoever to do with the inquiry. So far, it has been established that the Queensland prisons system has presently—by a factor of approximately 3—the highest escape rate it has ever had. The official figures show that the highest rate it had previously reached was approximately 30. This year, it has already reached 90 and we are not yet through the first 10 months. The argument has been put forward that somehow the performance of the commission—or, should I say, the lack of performance by the commission and this Government—in relation to security was caused by these inquiries, yet the figures do not show that. In fact, the figures show the opposite. During the inquiries, the escape rate was lower than that in periods outside that inquiry. If the reform process is examined, we see that, as escapes reached their peak, major reforms were occurring. This is, no doubt, the factor behind the escapes and security break-down. We also see this Government trying to blame the rash of escapes on prison officers who have left the service. What is the Government suggesting? Is it saying that these former prison officers are somehow throwing files or hacksaws over the fences to the prisoners? That is absolutely ludicrous! The members of this Government are blaming everything on anyone other than Legislative Assembly 1664 10 October 1991 themselves. Today’s headlines read “Milliner claims jail sabotage”. The story in the Sun states— “Some Boggo Rd prison officers had deliberately sabotaged award negotiations over the new Wacol jail to get large redundancy payouts.” The Minister was talking about the men at Boggo Road. Almost to a man, these prison officers are his own creation. Approximately two years ago, all the so-called Old Guard were either sacked or moved as a result of the proposed early closure of Boggo Road, so these prison officers who are the so-called saboteurs are the same ones who are the creation of the commission and this Government. Most of them have accrued less than two years’ service. Of course, then there is poor old Mr Osmack, the prisons’ professional rehabilitator, who was prepared to present an open letter setting out the problems in the prisons system which was signed by 40-odd prison officers who also agreed with what Mr Osmack had to say. Where is this father of seven children now? He has been sacked. He dared to be critical of the prisons system and its security. He called for security to be upgraded. One month later, it was upgraded by the Premier as a result of all the escapes, but Mr Osmak still got the sack. I point out to the Minister that Mr Osmak had already lost his job because of Woodford’s closure. By sacking him, all that the Minister did was take food out of the mouths of his seven children. The Minister has the power to stop that from happening. I will move on to one of the escapes that occurred in July—which was commonly known as the great escape—from Moreton prison. Eight prisoners escaped, and some of them are the most dangerous men in Queensland. They included Randall, Bradfield, Carter—he has just been convicted of murdering an inmate last year at the Sir David Longland centre—Morrell, Creevey, Vickers, Pittas, and Farley. It was a mass escape that everyone in the system—except the Minister, it would seem—knew was going to happen. Everyone in the system knew that if the Minister put prisoners of that type into a converted hospital, they would not be there for five minutes. That was certainly right. Queensland’s most secret document now would have to be the report into that mass escape. I have been told that it will never see the light of day. Even the people who have been suspended and others who have been sacked as a result of that report have not seen it. Who was sacked as a result of that report? I will tell this Committee who was sacked. They are the same people who were the focus of the CJC’s inquiry. At page 99 of the report, the second sentence in reference to Patrick O’Connor stated— “He resented the introduction at senior management of military officers who had management experience but no prison background”. Paddy O’Connor did not believe that a number of senior management people within the commission who had an army background were suitable for the job. In a letter dated 10 September 1990 to Dr Coaldrake of the Public Sector Management Commission, he stated— “It became apparent to myself and others within the Commission that the main criteria for management appointments and promotions was to have a military background”. Then he went on to refer directly to the Director of Custodial Corrections, Mr Ross Millican; his assistant, Mr Max Chambers; the manager of operations at the Moreton Correctional Centre, Mr Bruce Reid; and a couple of others. He maintained that they were all former army personnel and that he believed the appointments were the result of cronyism. He also stated— “. . . increasing problems being created by the obvious mismanagement and recommended that some of the management should be replaced”. Legislative Assembly 1665 10 October 1991

In another letter dated 15 November 1990 that he sent to the Minister, Glen Milliner, he stated on page 3— “Management, Moreton Correctional Centre. Total years of management and running prisons prior to appointment—nil. Some of the biggest blunders made by the Commission to date have been made by this team and be warned, this team will not only embarrass the Commission in the near future, but also yourself and the Government”. That letter was written on 15 November 1990, yet that team has caused the most embarrassment to the Government that any team has ever caused. The members of that team were the ones who were suspended as a result of the mass escape from Moreton prison. This occurred three months after the commission of inquiry had exonerated the prisons system. As a direct result of the mass escape, most of them have been sacked. The Government, the Public Sector Management Commission, the CJC and the Minister personally had been warned about this crew. The reason why the Minister spent $500,000 on an inquiry was to try to show the problems within our prison system; yet it had to be proven to the public through the actual escape that the team was the problem. As the famous Sir Humphrey used to say in Yes, Minister— “Never have an inquiry unless you know you can get the answer that you want.” The Government got the answer it wanted from the inquiry, but it was somehow different from the result of the inquiry into the mass escape in July. I can give the Government one further warning, and I will give that warning on behalf of past and existing prison officers right throughout the State. This Government is overseeing a prisons system that has the lowest morale ever among prison officers. This is the information that is being given to me by prison officers who have been involved in the prisons system for more than 30 years. The reason why morale is so low is not that they are against the reform processes; it is that they cannot stand having lies told to them all the time. They cannot stand being stabbed in the back by being told one thing one day, and another thing the next, and by seeing Treasury documents indicating that 306 prison officers will be losing their jobs this year, while members of the Government and their representatives say that that is not the case. I will read from page 6 of the Queensland Corrective Services Commission’s philosophy and direction, which states under “Core Values”— “Is it consistent and will it stand up to public scrutiny?” Without doubt, this Government would have to have the most inconsistent prisons system ever. One minute, prison officers have almost unlimited weekend leave, but when there is a by-election coming up in Nundah and Toowoomba, all weekend leave is cancelled. The by-election over, they are back on again, back to normal. There is then the mass escape from Moreton, and then the Government finally realises that it has a problem and there is an upgrade in security. The reform process has to be forgotten for three months. The Budget paper then comes out, and it is found that there is an 18 per cent reduction in real terms in funding to the prison. All of a sudden, we are then back to not only pre- mass escape funding, but even less. The security levels are now wound back all over the State and manning levels are being reduced all over the State. The warning that I have to give the Government is that if it continues to wind down the security and the staffing levels at these prisons, what happened in July will happen again. Returning to the core value which is, “Will it stand up to public scrutiny?”—let me say that since the middle of July, I have been trying to visit Frances Carter. He is the person who has just been convicted of the murder of an inmate at the Sir David Longland Centre. Carter was the person over whom Justice De Jersey bitterly criticised the Corrective Legislative Assembly 1666 10 October 1991

Services Commission in that he was running the prison and the prison officers were just looking on. Justice De Jersey said to Carter— “You laid down the law and the warders effectively took a subordinate role.” That is the result of all the prison staff cuts and all the prison funding cuts. The Government cannot run a prison on the cheap. If it wants reforms, it has to pay for them. If there are no prison officers to run the prison, the prisoners will run the prison themselves. That is what is happening in Queensland prisons. It has been found that the prisoners are opening the cells for each other because there is not the staff to do so. I wanted to see Mr Carter, because his relatives had complained to me of his treatment after the mass escape, in which he took part. His relatives complained that he was being treated inhumanely. I asked whether I could visit him. The commission said, “No, not during this period of upgraded security.” Mr Carter, through his solicitor, complained of inhumane treatment to the court. His lawyer contacted me in writing and stated that because of alleged inhumane treatment he wished me to visit Mr Carter. I contacted the commission again, and the Minister, for permission to visit Mr Carter. I did not want a contact visit, I was happy to look at this fellow through a screen. I accept that this fellow is a dangerous criminal. Again, the reply was “No”, for the same reasons. I asked again. This time I was refused because he was on trial. When his trial had finished, I again wrote and asked for permission, and again I got a “No”. I asked whether I could visit some prisons. For two months, I did not even get an answer, until finally the commission said to me, “Yes, you can visit a gaol, but you cannot talk to any prisoners”. So, two or three weeks ago, in Mareeba, I visited Lotus Glen prison. I then visited the prison at Townsville, but I was not able to talk to any prisoner. I have news for the Minister: it is not the prisoners who give me information. Can the Minister honestly say that he is living up to the core values as expressed in the philosophy and direction of the commission, “Will it stand up to public scrutiny”? If I cannot visit a prisoner who has complained of inhumane treatment, if I cannot visit a prison and talk to prisoners, who can? Why have I been singled out as not being able to visit prisoners? Is criticism of the prison system now unacceptable in Queensland? Sitting suspended from 5.57 to 7.30 p.m. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (7.30 p.m.): Social reform in the justice area is a most important aspect of these Estimates. Anyone who is concerned about the issues of equity and fairness would know that the portfolio administered by this Minister provides ordinary citizens with the opportunity to get justice in the courts. It therefore gives me a great deal of pleasure, both as a solicitor and as a member of this Parliament, to discuss briefly tonight the significant initiative outlined earlier this week by the Minister and the Premier. I want to go on public record as fully endorsing and supporting the Minister’s initiative in relation to the courts. Early this week, an announcement was made that the court system in Queensland would be overhauled to provide for an additional three judges, bringing the Supreme Court back to full strength. A review of the court system would involve major structural changes, with the setting up of a permanent court of appeal and a litigation reform commission—initiatives that have been supported by both the Bar Association and the Law Society will be held. The immediate task, and the reason for this announcement, was to clear the backlog of cases before the Supreme Court. It will also provide for the review of the administration of courts to simplify procedures and to make court operations more cost effective—— Mr CONNOR: I rise to a point of order. Mr Chairman, I draw your attention to the state of the Committee. The Committee does not have a quorum. Quorum present. Legislative Assembly 1667 10 October 1991

Mr BEATTIE: The honourable member is becoming repetitive. He is yet to get one point right. I look forward to the day when he does so, although I do not expect it to be in the near future. As I was saying, the Government has taken a major initiative in this area, and it will be an initiative that will bring about major benefits for ordinary Queenslanders. The reason why I attribute such significance to the appointment by the Justice Minister of a permanent court of appeal and the other reforms that have been put in train is that the quality of service provided by the courts impinges directly on the implementation of justice and the citizens in this State being given a fair go in the courts. When I practised, most recently for 13 or 14 months just before coming into this place after retiring as party secretary, I was absolutely appalled at the delays in the court system. I practised in the area of personal injuries, and in that area there were many, many people who, after their case had gone through all the procedural stages, after all the work had been completed, had to wait 12 to 18 months before the matter could be set down for hearing in court. That is totally unacceptable. It means that a lot of ordinary citizens in this State are suffering, and they are suffering at a time when they are least able to suffer. By that I mean that they have not only suffered an injury; usually, they are also in the position of having suffered a loss of income. Many of these injuries are work-related—— Mr Veivers interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I am about to come to the expense involved in legal fees. If the honourable member had been in the Chamber last night, he would have heard me deal with that issue then. It is not only a case of there being delays—and, as I said, many of these people have suffered personal injuries—but also, very often, these people are out of work, for whatever reason. They are often on workers’ compensation and, if they have been involved in a motor vehicle accident, or the like, are in severe financial distress. When people are in that vulnerable financial position, they should be given every opportunity to have their matter tried, to have their day in court. That has not been happening in this State to the degree that is necessary. As I have said, the delays are totally unacceptable and, notwithstanding all the rhetoric from the previous Government, it took this sort of initiative by the Premier, the Minister and this Government to do something tangible about it. Simply appointing three additional Supreme Court judges is not enough. I believe that the judiciary needs the support that these initiatives are providing. There needs to be an understanding that the court system is there to serve the people, and if there are long delays it will have no credibility at all. I want to put on record that although the courts are obviously an expensive area within this Minister’s jurisdiction, these reforms will pave the way for greater efficiency. I say that from the position of having had clients who have experienced personal hardship as a result of delays in the court system. It is not good enough for lawyers or anyone else involved in the process to simply sit back and say that that is the system. If the system is not good enough, it should be changed. I reiterate the remarks that I made last night in this Chamber, that there also needs to be a re-assessment made about legal fees. I will now move on to other matters. I am delighted to see a number of initiatives that have been taken by this Minister over the last year which fit within the Budget allocation. I was delighted to see that the Minister recently made another announcement that will be of some assistance in removing the backlog in the courts. I refer to the inaugural settlement week that will take place at the beginning of next year—from 20 to 24 January. The inaugural settlement week to be held during that period will involve barristers and solicitors who have at least 10 years’ experience in practice and who are trained mediators and will be able to help litigants settle their disputes. The whole idea—and it has the cooperation and support of the legal profession—is to give quick results to matters which can be dealt with in that period of time. Unfortunately, litigation essentially results in a win/lose Legislative Assembly 1668 10 October 1991 situation for the parties involved, but mediation, which involves both parties agreeing to a compromise, means that both parties can walk away in a win/win situation. For that reason, this idea of a settlement week is a very good one and an important initiative. As the Minister pointed out, hopefully, it will have a tremendous impact on the existing court lists. Only 5 per cent to 10 per cent of cases listed actually go to trial. The rest hang around, clogging up the court lists. Because we have this adversary system of law, it is not necessarily in the interests of some lawyers to have cases settled, which is why settlement week is important. I congratulate the Minister on that initiative. I congratulate him also on the case management system that he is proposing to introduce for the courts. When we debate these Estimates next year, I hope that we will be in a much more favourable position than we are now. I have every reason to expect that that will be the case. I conclude my comments on the courts by saying that, from my view as a relatively recent practitioner, the situation as it exists and has existed has done this State and the people who live in it a great disservice. I am delighted that the Government has had the courage to implement these reform packages and to tackle these issues head-on in the way that they should be. Not everyone will be delighted, but those who are genuinely interested in the people of this State, who are genuinely interested in getting a court system that operates effectively, will applaud these measures. Only those who are operating on a different agenda will oppose them. I say that as forcefully as I can. Let me now deal with a couple of other matters that are important. The head office of the Society of St Vincent de Paul is in my electorate. On 30 June this year, I was delighted to attend the opening of the St Vincent de Paul Community Corrections Centre with the Minister, the Honourable Glen Milliner, and the various Corrective Services Commission representatives, including Keith Hamburger. It was a milestone in the sense that the concept which resulted from the Minister’s trip last year to Europe is proof that community repatriation is now firmly entrenched. I am delighted that the centre is in my area and I am delighted about this initiative. Mr Palaszczuk: Carried on by Bernie Green. Mr BEATTIE: Indeed. Bernie Green is a personal friend of both the member for Archerfield and me, and I acknowledge that he is a person who has made a significant contribution in his own right. Eventually, 27 non-violent, low-security offenders will be housed there. They will be required to work for the St Vincent de Paul Society, the Corrective Services Commission and other non-Government agencies. This is a win/win situation for everyone involved. The offender is provided with a stable environment as a safety net for re-entering society as well as being given the opportunity to increase skills, and the society reaps the benefit of the additional workers. This project is important for another reason, that is, one in four of the guests in the society’s male homeless hostels has been involved with the correctional centre within the previous 12 months. Indeed, in many ways, homelessness is just one step away from incarceration. The society has already benefited from the contributions of a number of prisoners, particularly white-collar offenders. At this stage, it is appropriate to say that, although in recent times there have been some who have sought to make Corrective Services a bit of a football, these sorts of programs should receive all-party support. I do not believe that, when this debate takes place, enough attention is focused on the positive things. I am delighted to see the honourable member for Nerang indicating his full support. That is the most positive thing he has said today. Let me move on, for that is not the only initiative. The reform continues in the Maconachie Lodge. The opening of the Maconachie Lodge Community Corrections Centre also represented another huge step along the reform path. Up to 20 low-security inmates will reside in the Shaftesbury campus under the control of the Reverend Allan Male. Legislative Assembly 1669 10 October 1991

Despite initial attempts of the member for Nerang to scare people with his claims that 65 high-security prisoners from Woodford were to be housed there—— Mr Connor: I never said that. Mr BEATTIE: The honourable member did. That was an allegation which resulted in Mr Connor’s receiving a good belting from the reverend. The campus enjoys strong community support. Tomorrow, I hope to hear the honourable member for Nerang publicly state his full support for that measure, if he indeed states it tonight. I think that he should state it publicly, and on the record I will acknowledge his full support for this plan. Other measures which I think should be applauded include the fine-defaulters legislation, which was a major step forward. The tragic bashing of Jamie Partlic in New South Wales Long Bay gaol in November 1987 helped focus public attention on the problems associated with the imprisonment of fine-defaulters. The passage of the Corrective Services Amendment Act in September this year was a major win for the humane and just treatment of non-violent offenders, as well as for taxpayers, particularly when one considers the cost of incarceration. I would have liked to deal with a number of other matters, but time does not allow me. In the few minutes left to me, I will deal with the issue of crime, because it is a relevant matter. In a recent address to the Queensland Council of Social Services, Professor Paul Wilson, Dean of the Faculty of Arts at the Queensland University of Technology, addressed this issue at some length, and at the end of this speech I intend to table his speech for the information of all members. What he is basically saying is that we have to adopt a long-term strategy, a sensible strategy, for dealing with crime. Those in the community who do not acknowledge that in the area of juvenile crime we have to work out more long- term solutions are doing a great disservice to our community. Those people who suggest that juvenile offenders should be simply locked up and the key thrown away are doing themselves, their families, and the community, a disservice. Mr Schwarten: They don’t know what they are talking about. Mr BEATTIE: I accept that they do not know what they are talking about, because the statistics show clearly that, if young people are incarcerated in some way, they become repetitive offenders. In the address, Professor Wilson refers at some length to the Bonne Maison scheme in France, a matter to which the honourable Minister has made particular reference when he has reported in this Chamber about his studies overseas. I appeal to all members of the Committee to read the speech by Paul Wilson. He is not associated with any political party, but he talks about a broader view of how to deal with crime. No-one is suggesting that we go easy on criminals. However, we are suggesting—and he suggested in his speech—that we work towards long-term solutions, such as Bonne Maison and giving kids a real outlet instead of simply locking them away and turning them into repetitive offenders. I hope that, as the debate ensues about Corrective Services, which is a controversial area, people try to get to a bipartisan position on it. It is easy to score cheap points and it is easy to get a headline, but it is hard to solve these long-term community problems. We must remember that the community is not going to be better off if we have headlines only; it will be better off if we look towards long-term solutions. Quick fixes are easy; long-term solutions are hard. Mr SLACK (Burnett) (7.45 p.m.): I wish to respond to the claim made by the member for Brisbane Central about people being incarcerated and, in the case of young offenders, the key being thrown away. The Opposition has made no suggestion of that whatsoever—or anything like it—in this place. Mrs Edmond: There is from the Liberal Party—the other half of the Opposition. Mr SLACK: I am not arguing on behalf of the Liberal Party. It is in a position to put its own policy. I did not take the honourable member’s remarks as being a criticism of the Legislative Assembly 1670 10 October 1991

Opposition. However, I am putting on record our position, which is that in no way would we ever suggest that young people should be incarcerated and the key thrown away or whatever. We realise, as members opposite do, that major problems exist. It is an increasingly developing social problem that has to be addressed. As shadow Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, I want to make a few comments relative to Corrective Services as they affect those areas. In its annual report, the Corrective Services Commission indicated that it is endeavouring to reduce the number of Aboriginal and Islander prisoners within this State’s correctional centres. I commend the commission for that. I hope sincerely that it is able to achieve its aims and do even better. I also commend the commission on the training and acceptance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait island people into the Corrective Services Commission in an endeavour to come to terms with the very real problem that exists because of the many people of Aboriginal and Islander descent who are incarcerated within Corrective Services institutions. I wish to pay a tribute to Don Davidson of the Gwandalan Centre and the Brisbane Tribal Council. I know that our spokesperson for Justice and Corrective Services referred to his contribution, and I know that the Minister is aware of his contribution in that area. The development of the Gwandalan Centre is something of which he and the people of the Brisbane Tribal Council can be very proud. I know that it has had some problems, obviously, as all centres such as it would have. By the same token, it has developed, and measures have been taken to come to terms with and overcome some of those problems. Don Davidson has made a submission to the Minister and, I gather, to anybody else who will listen. We support him in his submission for the setting-up of a legal service. Obviously, such things cost money. By the same token, there is a real need for such a service. I have read very carefully the submission in which he explains very well the need for that service. Mr Gilmore: A bail hostel. Mr SLACK: I am coming to that. As the honourable member for Tablelands mentioned, Mr Davidson made a further submission relative to a bail hostel. Equally, the case can be argued for the necessity of such a facility, particularly for the underprivileged group in our community who, quite often, have absolutely nowhere to go. Many times in this place, diversionary centres are spoken about in relation to Aboriginal and Islander people. I would expect that the Minister and the Government will be addressing that matter and will be sympathetic to claims and requests for assistance in establishing those types of centres. I see in them a way in which help can be given to overcome one of the problems faced by Aboriginal and Islander people, in particular, relative to their cultural upbringing and background. Mr Milliner: Have you seen what we are doing at Aurukun? We are trying community corrections at Aurukun. Mr SLACK: That is good. I have not been to Aurukun yet. With the member for Tablelands, I have been to Hope Vale. I have also been to Yarrabah. I hope to go to Aurukun in about November. Hopefully, I will be able to do that and have a look at what is being done there. Mr Milliner: It appears to work fairly well at the moment. We hope it is successful. Mr SLACK: That is good. I notice from the annual report that at the Moreton Correctional Centre a program has been instigated for the counselling of sex offenders to help them overcome some of the problems that they may have. It is hoped that they will be able to come to terms with their problems and have them corrected, or whatever one likes to call it, so that when they go back into society they are not likely to face the same sorts of problems which will result in their return to prison. Consideration has to be given also to Legislative Assembly 1671 10 October 1991 the victims of the crimes. In the future If any measures can be taken to prevent a person returning to prison, it is obviously an ideal way to go. Although it is pleasing that a person will receive counselling while in the prison, I ask: do the Government and the Minister have any intention of providing follow-up counselling services that will be of benefit to the community at large? When I speak of counselling services—— Mr Milliner: Before you go any further, the short answer to that is “Yes”. I will give you a more detailed response to that in writing. Mr SLACK: Okay. Mr Palaszczuk: Okay, you can sit down. Mr SLACK: I am not quite ready to sit down. When I talk of counselling and help for prisoners, which obviously is the way in which the Corrective Services Commission has gone, I acknowledge that the commission has had fine ideals and that their implementation has been brought forward by Kennedy and those who have served on the commission. Before I resume my seat, I would like to raise a very important matter that I think needs further attention. This is a matter of which I have become aware just lately. Many people in correctional centres have obviously committed a crime against society, or whatever. While in prison, they receive counselling and help. The problem that I raise now relates to the families of those people who are in prison. Irrespective of whatever the prisoner may have done, many families will stick by that person while he is in prison. In many cases, that person is a husband and a father of two or three children. Mr Palaszczuk: There are family support groups. Mr SLACK: I am glad to hear that there are family support groups. A woman in the city would have access to community counselling if her husband was in a correctional institution. If the wife resides in the country, no such counselling is available. In most cases, the family does not have any money. They have lost the person who has been the authority in the house, or who has been the bread-winner. Mr Veivers: They suffer the sentence as well. Mr SLACK: That is right. As the member for Southport correctly said, they suffer the sentence as well. I have heard of cases in which the husband is getting counselling and the wife is at home trying to meet all the bills. She has a house to pay off, or whatever. Those are really very emotional crisis situations. I believe that society has some obligation to help those people who are really also victims of the crime in an indirect sense. Just recently, I have come face to face with that situation. Mr Milliner: That is why we have got to look at diversionary methods, so people don’t go to prison. They make a contribution to the community. We don’t want to go soft on them, but we have to look at alternatives. Mr SLACK: That is right. I take the Minister’s point. I wholeheartedly support the Government in the initiatives which really were a follow-on of the initiatives that the National Party had taken. With that contribution, I await the Minister’s reply. I have accepted, by way of interjection, his statements or responses to matters that I have raised. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN (Glass House) (7.54 p.m.): There is no doubt in the mind of anybody, I believe, that corrections is one of the most difficult areas of all public administration. How often have we as members of Parliament jokingly said to each other—or perhaps not so jokingly—that there are no votes in prisons? This experience is not unique to Queensland. It applies to other States of Australia and throughout the world. Prior to the 1989 election, we in Queensland were virtually the envy of this nation, and perhaps of other parts of the world. The Forty-Fifth Parliament of Queensland reached an accord. All three parties represented in this place at that time agreed that there were Legislative Assembly 1672 10 October 1991 problems with the prison system and that those problems needed to be addressed and fixed. A vehicle for reform was chosen. That vehicle was the recommendations of the commission of review into corrective services in Queensland, which was headed by Mr Jim Kennedy. This commission was established by the previous Government, and the recommendations and findings of that commission were endorsed by all parties. I do not wish to read out the key findings. Honourable members will find them on page 2 of the annual report of the Queensland Corrective Services Commission. All members should take the time to read that report. I believe that Mr Kennedy has given us a model for a correction system in Queensland that will be the envy of the rest of the world. The Labor Party and the National Party had the maturity to bring this agreement into the Forty-Sixth Parliament of Queensland. The Liberal Party—— Mr Beattie: Where does that leave the Liberals? Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: It leaves the Liberals unashamedly lacking in integrity. They cast off this burden of cooperation, and preferred instead to take the cheap shot to receive the instant gratification of a newspaper headline. They are not prepared to participate in this Parliament in progressive change for the benefit of all Queenslanders. Mrs Woodgate: The lost Liberals. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: The lost Liberals, indeed. Believe me, there is nothing that could be said in this Parliament that would be too tough on the member for Sherwood or too tough on the Liberal Party. Custodial corrections in Queensland have been designed to be the option of last resort. They are designed to house only the violent and habitual criminals. We have a number of correctional facilities throughout this State. We have one less than I might like us to have, and I will mention that shortly. The major concern of custodial corrections is the safety of the public. If the public’s safety is to be brought into question, obviously we need to incarcerate the offenders. I believe that we are fortunate in Queensland—unlike most other States, although not entirely unlike New South Wales—to be reducing our recidivism rate. The figures available for Queensland for 1991 show a recidivism rate of 50.5 per cent, which is considerably down from the 1989 figure of 56 per cent, although slightly higher than the 1990 figure of 48.8 per cent. The cost of maintaining an inmate in a correctional centre ranges from $16,000 to $62,000 per annum, depending on the style of the centre. When one considers that cost as opposed to the cost of the community corrections of $500 per annum, which has been mentioned glowingly by members thus far in this debate, one realises why we should be moving, where possible, to use custodial corrections only as an option of last resort. As to custodial corrections—as the member for Tablelands pointed out, this year the budget has been reduced by $22m. This is a second reduction. The 1990-91 Budget also indicated a reduction in this area. This reflects the continuing downward trend of the imprisonment rate in Queensland. Figures from the Australian Institute of Criminology show that the imprisonment rate in Queensland is at 110.4 persons per 100 000 of the adult population. That is down from a figure of 129.3 persons per 100 000 in December 1989, when this Government took office. It is also slightly lower than the 132.1 persons per 100 000 in December 1988, when the Corrective Services Commission was formed. This reduction in the Budget also reflects that the inefficiencies in the system have been identified and remedied. Unfortunately for me, as the member for Glass House, one of those has been the identification of over 300 empty cells in custodial correction institutions throughout the State, which led to the commission’s decision to close one prison. I think that everyone realises that the centre that closed was the Woodford Correctional Centre. Mr Connor: You sold them out. Legislative Assembly 1673 10 October 1991

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: The member for Nerang believes that I have sold out my electorate. On this issue, let me talk about the member for Nerang. After the announcement was made that the Woodford prison was closed, at his first chance this great saviour—this man who is the Messiah of prison officers in this State—got to his feet in this place and I thought, “Beauty, I will get some help.” What did he do? He moved a censure motion against the Minister for copying videos. Did he talk about the Woodford prison? No. The honourable member for Nerang is a fraud. He always has been and he will remain so. In my electorate, 180 jobs have been lost. What did the Liberal spokesman say about it? He said, “Mr Minister, you have been very naughty. You have been copying videos.” He said not a word in this place about the Woodford prison. He may have gone to the press about it. Why did he go to the press? He wanted to get a headline. That is all he is interested in—a headline. The member for Nerang is not worth the oxygen that he breathes. With the closure of the prison, 180 jobs in my electorate were lost. Mr Connor: What did you do about it? Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: If the honourable member would listen, he would hear what I have to say. Not all of those 180 people resided in my electorate. Many of them resided in the electorates of my colleagues the member for Caboolture and the member for Redcliffe. Together, we made some approaches. We had a number of discussions with various people, including the unions. As the local member, the thing that pained me the most was that the redundancy package offered by the commission proved very popular indeed. At the Woodford show, in the face of the moves to keep the prison open, some of the older officers pleaded with me not to take away from them the redundancy package. I admit that the package was popular for a number of reasons. Firstly, some of the elderly officers, or those who were a little closer to retiring age, thought that they would like the extra money. Secondly, some people who lived in the area and who, quite understandably, liked living in the area felt that a job in another institution under the Corrective Services Commission would mean too much travelling. Instead of the travelling, they chose to remain living in the area. Thirdly—and I recognise this—a number of officers had, quite frankly, had enough of the commission. I recognise that all of those reasons came into play. What saddened me was that so few of the 180 officers sought to continue employment with the commission. The community formed a committee, which is chaired by a local councillor—Councillor John Bateman. On two occasions, that committee has had access to the Minister. In a recent newspaper article, the committee indicated that it had not at this stage sought any compensation package for the town of Woodford. Mr Connor: Yes, they did. That is not true. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I beg your pardon. The committee has not sought a compensation package through my office. In the newspaper article, the committee said that it had not sought a compensation package because it was waiting to see the eventualities in the town before it formulated a package. In July of this year, while travelling in western Queensland, I visited the western outreach camp in Charleville. That camp was set up in response to the quite severe floods in that area. At the moment, about 60 prisoners are still residing there in what I would regard as extremely primitive conditions. However, the smiles that I saw on the faces of those inmates indicated that they thought that the work that they were doing, and the fact that they were away from the imposing correctional centres in south-east Queensland made it worth while to put up with those primitive conditions, at least for some time. I am pleased to see that, in the next 12 months, that program will be expanded. It gives the inmates themselves a great deal of self-esteem. It gives the community the opportunity to have provided for it work that it might not otherwise be able to afford. It also expands our custodial options. Some consideration is being given to making the program an option for the courts to impose in certain circumstances. Over the past 12 months, the farm industries have moved to Legislative Assembly 1674 10 October 1991 become fairly highly commercialised. The net revenue for the preceding 12 months was $1.4m. Again, that provides meaningful employment, which is vital to correcting offending behaviour. It provides for the inmates a work ethic. It improves their self-esteem. Both of those elements will be more than beneficial for prisoners on their release. I refer to the courthouse closures that have been the subject of some controversy in recent months. In January 1991, 16 courthouses were closed. In July, a further 10 were closed. There is a very interesting point about the closure of those courthouses. The initiative to close those courthouses can be traced back to November 1987. I am not sure who was the Minister at the time, but I do not believe that it was the current Minister. In November 1987, the Department of Justice commissioned a management consultant, Price Waterhouse Urwick, to undertake a study into the rationalisation of the Magistrates Court service. It was given a brief to formulate and propose a comprehensive strategy for the optimal utilisation of Magistrates Court facilities throughout Queensland, with particular emphasis on the distribution of civil-staffed Magistrates Court offices and to prepare an impact study on the effect of various alternative strategies. The conclusion of the consultancy was the finding that the department had a responsibility to ensure that those services did not continue to be provided where the need for those services no longer existed. They recommended that, in order to address overservicing throughout the State, those centres which had insufficient court and registry work to justify their continuing operation were to be closed to enable resources to be deployed more efficiently. In the one minute left to me, I recognise—as do most Government members—that the loss of these services in country towns is very deeply felt. That does not take away from the fact that services provided through the Justice Department are provided on behalf of a large number of other departments. If these courthouse services cannot continue to be provided or the agency services at the courthouse cannot continue to be provided, I call on the Deputy Premier, in his position as spokesperson-elect for rural Queensland—— Time expired. Mr SPRINGBORG (Carnarvon) (8.08 p.m.): It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise tonight to participate in this debate on the Estimates of the Department of Justice and Corrective Services. Government members interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: Is that smile good enough for honourable members? That is enough frivolity. The Minister’s department is a very complex one—a fact that we all recognise. The Minister is charged with the extremely important responsibilities of looking after consumer affairs and the very controversial issue of corrective services, which is an issue where, regardless of what the Minister does, he finds himself in the position of being damned if he does and damned if he does not. I express a certain amount of sympathy for the work he is attempting to do in corrective services and how difficult that job is. The Minister is also charged with the responsibility of ensuring a certain level of justice for all Queenslanders. Mr Veivers interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! I warn the member for Southport under Standing Order 123A. Mr SPRINGBORG: The Minister must make sure that people who are seeking justice are able to achieve it. He is charged with the responsibility of delivering justice to all regions in this State. Previous members speaking in this debate have referred to their pet areas and I will focus on—— Legislative Assembly 1675 10 October 1991

Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: Exactly, on courthouses. However, I will be constructive in what I say. I would appreciate hearing the Minister’s comments on my remarks when he sums up. I implore this Government and Governments throughout Australia not to get caught up with the idea of false economy. It is great to chase this goal of regionalisation and rationalisation in departments throughout Queensland and say at the end that we can provide a better level of service for the people in the community. I do not necessarily think that this will be the case in every area. By closing some of these courthouses we have failed to recognise and address a number of issues which are important to local people and which will perhaps cost the State more money in the long run and cause more remorse for members of our community. Mr Palaszczuk: Is Gerard Walsh worried about these courthouses at all? Mr SPRINGBORG: Gerard Walsh and all my other preselection contenders are worried about the closure of courthouses, as is everyone else in country areas, and they are worried about the level of services that they will receive in the end. As a result—and it will not just happen as a result of members of the Opposition scaremongering in the community—people can see the services being taken away. They are told that they will be provided with a better level of service in the end, but that is not happening. If Government members can tell me that by taking away a courthouse from a shire and forcing people to drive two or more hours up the road so that they can achieve the same level of service that they had previously, they are kidding themselves. We are certainly depriving those very important people of a very important service. We as members of Parliament both in Government and in Opposition must recognise those problems. Not only are people out in those communities affected economically and in level of the services they receive, but also it affects them psychologically. I have mentioned this before, and the member for Mount Isa, Mr McGrady, recognises the fact that if people know they do not receive a certain level of service, they feel that the Government is not concerned about them. Some people have said to me, “We live out here. We like the life. We have lived here all of our lives and we are producing a lot for this State.” Their children are at a distinct disadvantage to start with, because they do not receive the same level of Government services. Those people say that it is up to the Government to provide these things. The Government should not be motivated only by profit. It must be motivated by the fact that it has an obligation to these people. I turn now to talk about certain aspects of the impending closure of courthouses. Some have already been closed and some were earmarked for closure on 30 June or 1 July this year, but are being kept open with a skeleton staff. Perhaps the Minister is looking at retaining some of those courthouses, and if he is, I applaud him for that. I thank the Minister for his response to my letters concerning this matter. He was objective in his approach, although I was not happy with the fact that my arguments were not successful concerning the Inglewood courthouse in particular, but nevertheless the Minister did look at it, and I make the plea that he look at it further. There are certain poor members of our community who might be charged with an offence such as stealing but who cannot travel to court to defend the charge. I know of one particular case in which, because of the lack of public transport from Inglewood to Warwick, the person has not been able to travel to Warwick. A warrant for failing to appear on a minor charge of stealing was issued for that person’s arrest. Mr Welford: That’s not a minor charge. Mr SPRINGBORG: Compared to rape or the really serious charge of armed robbery or assault, it is a relatively minor charge, but nevertheless it is serious. That person could not get to the Warwick Court House to appear at the hearing and a warrant Legislative Assembly 1676 10 October 1991 was issued for his arrest. He was conveyed to the courthouse and an extra 20 hours of community service was added to his sentence as a result of his not being able to get to the courthouse. That is one minor aspect, and people who commit offences have to face up to those difficulties. Some people may say, “Make those people pay for what they have done”, but it should be remembered that in country areas, people do not have access to the public transport facilities that are available in the cities to help them get to the courthouse. The same difficulties are encountered by people who take other people to court to recover small debts, that is, small claims in respect of people who will not pay their bills amounting to $20, $30, $100, $400, $800, $1,000 or whatever the case may be. The claimants now have to travel long distances to attend court and have their cases presented. If they do not appear in person, they have to engage a solicitor to act on their behalf. Sometimes, the solicitor’s fees amount to quite a deal more than the sum they are seeking to recover in the claim. Nevertheless, these people would like to be able to obtain satisfaction as a matter of principle, which is a very important element to consider when discussing these Estimates. It is a matter of principle to provide access to justice for all people, not just those who live in areas that have a courthouse right on their doorstep. This is an important matter for people who live in areas where the local courthouse is to be closed down. Members of Parliament should be made aware that if people have to travel long distances to reach the next nearest courthouse, they may make a conscious decision not to pursue the recovery of debts of $30, $40, or whatever the amount may be. If that happens, I think it is a sad day for this society. In a small town in my electorate, a solicitor makes weekly visits. He is engaged by people to present small claims on their behalf. I suppose that is one way around the problem of travelling long distances to the nearest courthouse, but the solicitors’ fees are now up to $100 or more for these minor matters. Prior to the restructuring taking place, people tended to present their own minor cases in court because the costs of registering simple plaints were minimal, and they only had to walk up the street to lodge them. Although I realise that a rationalisation of services in certain areas is necessary, I believe that the closure of courthouses which results in people travelling for two hours to get to the next nearest courthouse is a very important matter. It is a travesty of justice. I believe that the Government is obliged to provide public services for people and that the Minister should not necessarily be guided by the profit motive. I accept that these services must be provided as cost effectively as possible, but in doing so, those services must not be affected adversely. Another issue that I wish to mention is the fact that police officers now have to drive a long way to go to court to give evidence. It is often the case that police officers are away from their police stations for up to three-quarters of the day because they have had to drive for two hours to reach the courthouse. In the past, minor cases—such as petty theft or stealing—would be adjourned three or four times a year, and all the charges would be heard at once. It is now the case that police officers have to drive up to 300 kilometres to give evidence. Because these duties take those police officers away from the police station, additional costs must be incurred by the Queensland Police Service. Perhaps while money is being saved by closing down courthouses, additional costs are being incurred in other areas. Another matter that needs to be taken into consideration by the Minister is the registration of motor vehicles. I have been informed that agency work will be the responsibility of one person in a small town. He will look after Housing Commission matters and Suncorp matters, etc., and that is commendable. However, the simple fact of the matter is that no provision has been made for people to register their vehicles or obtain a one-day permit to transport a vehicle, which means that people have to drive Legislative Assembly 1677 10 October 1991 considerable distances to a Transport Department office or a police station which has the ability to register a vehicle. In conclusion, I wish to mention two other minor issues that have emerged. The reason I mention these matters is that I wish to make the Government aware that these problems are cropping up. I am not trying to incense anyone but, rather, I am trying to be constructive. Although this is a minor matter, I mention the difficulties experienced by people who need to obtain booth permits or a liquor licence to host a function. Mr Welford: National Party functions. Mr SPRINGBORG: National Party functions, Labor Party functions, functions such as the local Miss Showgirl to raise funds, or any of those commendable fund-raising functions. Mr Elder: What about Mr Showboy? Mr SPRINGBORG: Mr Showboy, or whatever the function may be, or whatever the member for Manly wants to call it. I am sure he knows that I am referring to charity functions and social organisations. The closure of courthouses has resulted in added inconvenience for people involved in those activities also. Another issue that has not been previously mentioned is that book-makers need to be able to acquire books. In the past, they have been able to go to the local courthouse or local agency—— Mr Schwarten: It wouldn’t be the SP, would it? Mr SPRINGBORG: The Government would have us believe that Queensland does not have any SP book-makers any more. The point I make is that book-makers also have to travel for up to two hours to obtain their books. I accept that the Minister may not regard that as important, but I mention these matters because I do not believe that the Government, ministerial advisers and officers of the department have considered the ramifications when they put forward the proposals for restructuring. The rationalisation is supposed to be all about providing a better level of service for people in our community. I believe that the provision of a better level of service can be achieved by making justice accessible to all people, by providing courthouses—perhaps not in the numbers that were provided previously—but by rescinding some of those decisions, thus allowing a few of the country courthouses to continue to provide a service in isolated areas. At this stage, I make a plea in this Parliament for at least one courthouse to remain open in the Inglewood Shire. If the Inglewood Court House is allowed to remain open, it will make life a lot easier for the people of Texas and surrounding areas, particularly in view of the fact that the Texas Court House has been closed. I ask the Minister to address the issues I have raised. I look forward to hearing his response. Ms ROBSON (Springwood) (8.22 p.m.): After some of the comments that have been made tonight about correctional institutions, I would like to congratulate the Minister on some of the very bold and very necessary reforms that he has undertaken in Corrective Services. Mr Palaszczuk: Not too fulsome, though. Ms ROBSON: No, definitely not too fulsome. The reforms were definitely bold and necessary. I am sure that the Minister would agree that there are no votes to be won in prisons or in Aboriginal affairs, yet these two issues are extremely important. Although that may be a true statement to a certain extent, it ignores the fact that Governments have a responsibility and a duty to all the people they serve. Under Labor, there is a high priority, a commitment and a determination to address the neglect of the past. Both the correctional system and the treatment of our original Australians in custody are receiving the long-overdue attention that they deserve. It is a tragic fact of life that Queensland’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population is grossly overrepresented in Legislative Assembly 1678 10 October 1991

Queensland’s custodial correction institutions. On any day, more than 2 000 inmates are incarcerated in prisons and at prison farms as far afield as the Gold Coast hinterland and the Atherton Tableland. Of this number, about 15 per cent are Aborigines or Torres Strait Islanders. That is an astounding figure when one considers that less than 3 per cent of Queensland’s overall population belongs to this particular ethnic group. The position was much worse when the National Party was in office. The percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoners in the prison system then was as high as 20 per cent. Do not forget that 20 per cent is representing 3 per cent of the population. In effect, a black person was 17 times more likely to go to gaol than any other Queenslander. I consider that to be quite a shameful record. Today, imprisonment rates for isolated or remote Aboriginal and Islander communities in Queensland remains high, but the situation is changing rapidly. These communities provide more than one-third of Aboriginal inmates in Queensland prisons, and, on average, a black person from a remote part of the State is 15 times more likely than any other Queenslander to go to gaol. Research and official inquiries strongly indicate the need for intervention and prevention strategies. Of course, as has been said in this Chamber, various strategies are being implemented under the justice system, certainly under the office of the Attorney-General, and in other offices or departments of this Government to address those problems. It has been made crystal clear that professionals in the corrections field have to work closely with Aboriginal communities to achieve meaningful results. Without a determined effort by the Queensland Corrective Services Commission, which is an agency of this Government, Aboriginal children and youths will continue to enter into cycles of offending, non-serious adult offenders will graduate to prison, and serious offenders will spend years moving in and out of correctional centres. It is an indictment on our society that as many as 90 per cent of Aboriginal prisoners in north Queensland have prior criminal convictions. Eighty-five per cent have experienced a community-based order, and as many as 73 per cent have served a prior prison sentence. The Government recognises that the administration of the end product of the criminal justice system, that is corrections, cannot be addressed effectively under a system which involves mainly a monthly visit from a community corrections officer based in a distant provincial city area office. An enhanced service to these people offers real hope for the first time to reduce Aboriginal imprisonment. Figures recently compiled by the commission show that case-loads are high for community corrections staff in far-north Queensland. For example, 47 offenders were under supervision at Yarrabah, 37 at Aurukun, 36 at Mornington Island, and 31 at Edward River. In the Torres Strait islands, which include Thursday Island and the settlement of Bamaga on the cape, the case-load was as high as 51. Under this Government, through the Queensland Corrective Services Commission, the emphasis in the management of offenders is being placed firmly on rehabilitation rather than punishment. For non- violent law-breakers, this is best achieved through involvement in community-based programs, rather than being locked away out of sight, out of mind. The increased utilisation of community corrections has helped reduce the percentage of Aboriginal and Islander inmates by almost 21 per cent. That is a significant achievement in itself, but this Government and the commission is committed to seeing this figure drop even further. Since this Assembly last debated the Corrective Services Estimates, even more progressive initiatives designed to offer hope to Aboriginal and Islander offenders have been introduced. In the far north, the community corrections and custodial corrections arms of the commission have been working closely together to establish a Corrective Services presence among Aboriginal and Islander communities. There is no doubt that this will result in an even greater reduction in the number of indigenous people in custody with flow-on benefits to the taxpayer. A bonus, or Legislative Assembly 1679 10 October 1991 side benefit, will be the improved opportunities for offenders to address their own antisocial behaviour. The commission is currently considering a model in which a core group of Aboriginal residents is directly facilitated by a stand-alone community corrections office and its staff in the community. It is anticipated that this core group will have a number of functions. Firstly, it will act as a corrections advisory committee in respect of presentence and post-sentence strategies for offenders. Secondly, it will assist in the classification and assessment of prisoners detained in a local detention centre, watchhouse or community corrections centre. Thirdly, the core group will advise on prisoner transfers from custody to community-based supervision, such as parole or home detention. Most importantly, the core group will act as a task force to formulate, initiate and implement correctional strategies. Members of that core group will be able to address issues such as primary crime prevention, situational crime prevention, diversionary programs, local community justice schemes and so on. The stand-alone community corrections office will also perform the same functions as other community corrections offices throughout the State. I am sure this Committee is familiar with those functions. I am referring to the supervision of offenders on probation or parole, or those offenders serving sentences under a community service or fine option order. The office will also advise local courts on appropriate sentencing options for offenders and will ensure correctional programs are conducted in a way that is both effective and credible. The model now under consideration also includes a component in which the community can own or manage a community corrections centre similar to the half-way houses now operating in Brisbane and other cities. This model emphasises and fosters the local community’s ownership of and responsibility for correctional strategies. Consequently, the focal point of the model is the community corrections advisory or task group, and, by implication, the office and staff are directly charged with the full-time facilitation of the local group. The emphasis is not designed to appreciate the importance of the community corrections office and staff at the expense of other components. Rather, it underlines the intervention, prevention and community development approach to corrections as opposed to the traditionally adopted approach in Australia. In other words, it promotes corrections as community grouping. The commission recognises that it must play a role, the role of the quiet achiever, and carefully avoid a higher profile than the community task group. It must ensure that the confidence of the group and its effectiveness is enhanced and not inadvertently undermined. So far, I have concentrated on remote area Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. I can assure the Committee that urban Aboriginal issues are not being overlooked by the commission, particularly in the education and training field. In recent months, Corrective Services has entered into an agreement with the Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and Training to provide pre-release vocational training to a selected group of prisoners. This program is known as the Prison Education Program—Urban Aboriginals/Islanders, and addresses the fact that re-offender rates among ex- prisoners are reduced if the past offenders become employed or enter into formal training. The greater a person’s skills, the greater the chance of finding a job. Both the commission and DEET recognise the need to break the cycle of offence, prison, release, inability to assimilate into the work force, and re- offence. In other words, it is aimed at reducing the rates of recidivism. One way of achieving this is through education and training for life and job skills. DEET invited the commission to develop a submission for funding to research prisoners’ vocational training needs with a view to providing training for Aboriginal and Islander prisoners towards the end of the custodial phase of their sentence. Corrective Services responded to this as the proposal directly reinforced Legislative Assembly 1680 10 October 1991

the commission’s core value of “contributing towards correcting offending behaviour through positive self-development of the offender”. The commission also has a stated philosophy that offenders are to have access to pre-release programs to address specific individual problems relating to reintegration into society. This type of training, focusing on life skills, is already available in Queensland correctional centres. The DEET- funded program allows an extension of this by offering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander inmates an opportunity to find out more about their culture while gaining literacy, vocational and other skills to enable them to become contributing members of society. Inmates on the program will receive instruction for about 12 weeks, but this may vary to account for individual training needs. The program will also include the setting-up of post-release support systems and mechanisms to access further training and education. These may include participation in job clubs, other DEET-sponsored training, TAFE courses, a community mentor system to assist integration into the community, and so on. The commission will also help course participants establish links into the job market—obviously a positive initiative in these times of high unemployment. This Government is committed to addressing the injustices inflicted on our Aboriginal and Islander population since the early days of European settlement. Coupled with this, it is overseeing the reform of the correctional system in line with the recommendations of the Kennedy commission of inquiry in 1988. Already this Government has good reason to be proud of its record. I personally congratulate the Minister on his handling of a very difficult and controversial portfolio and add my support to the Estimates before the Committee. Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (8.34 p.m.): I am pleased to be able to join in this Estimates debate. No doubt the member for Archerfield will be able to assist me, as he occasionally does get out my way and would certainly be aware of the problems—— Mr Palaszczuk: Where were you during the flood at Charleville? Mr HOBBS: I was at Charleville every day during the flood. I might ask where the honourable member was. Mr Palaszczuk: You were flying over it in your aeroplane. That’s what you were doing. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr J. N. Goss): Order! Mr HOBBS: I thank you for your protection, Mr Temporary Chairman. Mr Elder: Are you pleased to stand up here tonight? Mr HOBBS: Yes, I am. I always make the point that the largest number of donkey votes at the last State election were cast in the Archerfield electorate. On a serious note, these Estimates need to be discussed. The closure by the Justice Department of many of the courthouses in my area has led to some serious repercussions. I do not doubt that the Minister has received a lot of complaints in that regard. People have certainly been very vocal about it. However, the simple fact is that the Minister must be told again of the consequences of that action. Many people would not be aware of some of the criteria that have been applied in the closure of these courthouses. The first criterion is that those courthouses that are less than 100 kilometres by sealed road from the nearest civilian centre may not be eligible. The second criterion is less than 75 in-court magistrate hours per annum. I will begin by dealing with the first criterion, that is, if the courthouse is less than 100 kilometres by sealed road from the nearest civilian centre. That might not seem very far when one says it very quickly. However, many pensioners and others who do not have a car or access to a car or public transport find it very difficult to commute to these Legislative Assembly 1681 10 October 1991 larger centres. Many of the smaller towns do not even have a taxi service. It is important to remember that. Mr Springborg: It’s all about social justice for country people. Mr HOBBS: It is all about social justice for country people. The member for Carnarvon is quite right. “Social justice” is the catchcry of the Labor Party, but at present people are not getting social justice in any shape or form with regard to courthouses and the facilities that are provided by the Justice Department. Mr McGrady: You wouldn’t know how to spell it. Mr HOBBS: I think that I probably could. The honourable member could put me to the test. At this time of night, I will not go into it. What I will do is point out the facts. I am very up to date in respect of the facts. Mr Elder: It would be the first time in months. Mr HOBBS: No. I am very up to date in respect of the facts. On 1 January 1991, the courthouses in my area that were closed down were Augathella, Eulo and Morven, and on 1 July 1991, the Mitchell Court House was also closed down. That basic action by the Government in that instance really triggered the Mitchell Action Group to get going. That was a non-political group of people who decided to try to get the Government to see common sense and reconsider the direction in which it was going. I think that that group played an important part. I take my hat off to them. They wanted to do it themselves. I did not get too involved. They said that they wanted to do it their own way. Mr Palaszczuk: Is there an airfield there? Mr HOBBS: There is an airfield there. I visit Mitchell often. However, they wanted to go about it their own way and they have failed. Mr Veivers: Do you fly? Mr HOBBS: The honourable member flies all the time, but only by the seat of his pants. Mr Elder: That’s very responsible of you. You are normally not like that, are you? Mr HOBBS: That is right. Mitchell has an active group which has pursued this issue vigorously. I congratulate that group on that action, because we rely on active groups to put forward community opinions. The Government, acting on ministerial advice, has stated that the closure of 26 clerk of the court offices throughout Queensland will lead to a saving of $1m. Working on the basis of approximately equal costs for each of the 26 centres, it involves a saving of approximately $38,000 for each centre. In Mitchell, that amounts to a saving of about $15 per person. That amount is reasonably cheap when one considers the service that was being provided and the satisfaction the people were getting from that service. The Government might claim that the employees at the particular courthouses were not very busy. However, they provided a valuable service. The people knew the service was available and it provided security for them, particularly for the elderly in the community. A cost of $15 per person is a reasonable cost to the Government to maintain that service. The Government claimed that 75 in-court magistrate hours per annum was unrealistic in small country towns. That is another matter of concern. According to statistics, the clerk of the court at Mitchell sat for 40.25 court hours. However, many of the matters which should have been dealt with in Mitchell were transferred to the Roma Magistrates Court. Those matters would have increased the magistrate’s court time in Mitchell considerably, bringing the combined hours of the magistrate and the clerk of the court at the Mitchell clerk of the court’s office to 71.6 hours. Mr McGrady: That’s a good point. Legislative Assembly 1682 10 October 1991

Mr HOBBS: Yes, it is a good point. The State Government is obliged to provide to people living in rural and regional towns Government services similar to those provided without question and at extensive cost to the people living in the higher-growth areas. The majority of the court closures throughout Queensland have been unnecessary and have been a retrograde step on the Government’s agenda for the following reasons— loss of services and extreme and unnecessary inconvenience; reduction in citizens’ expected rights to protection of law and administration of justice; and further erosion of business capacity and consequent effects on other services and the communities. Another important point is that, recently, the Government has removed the stipendiary magistrate from Roma to Toowoomba, which has compounded the problem. At the time, there was a debate as to whether they would take the magistrate from Charleville or from Roma. For some miraculous reason, the Charleville magistrate was left and the Roma magistrate got the boot. The stipendiary magistrate based in Charleville is expected to cover his own court district, which includes Quilpie, Cunnamulla and Thargomindah, and he must work in conjunction with the visiting magistrate from Toowoomba to cope with the court workload of the Roma district, which includes the towns of St George, Surat and Mitchell. The magistrate at Charleville covers an area larger than my electorate. Mr Beattie: How many hours a week? Mr HOBBS: I am not sure exactly, but it is certainly a very full week. I have not assessed the hours accurately, but I know from talking to the magistrate that he is extremely busy. From information I received from other people, I understand that the magistrate is having great difficulty covering the area. The removal of the magistrate from Roma has compounded the problem. Roma is a major centre and we need a magistrate based there once more. The decision has led to court hearings being subjected to a waiting list of five months and more, which compounds the issue even further. A further scenario has developed, that is, that the position of the clerk of the court at Blackall has been advertised on the basis of 36 and a quarter hours a week. Although I accept that the Government is trying to cut back costs—I appreciate that problem—I do not know how it will find a person with those qualifications to work 36 and a quarter hours or less a week in those smaller towns. I do not think the Government will find those people. Consequently, we will end up with a scenario similar to that which has occurred with doctors—we cannot get the qualified people we need. Somewhere down the track, the Government will have to bite the bullet and it will cost money. However, the service is so important that it will have to be done. Following the outcry from communities whose courthouse facilities have been closed, the Government has stated in the media that it would reconsider reopening some of the closed civilian clerk of the court facilities. However, at this time no action has eventuated. I hope that that will change. More thought needs to be put into the matter. I do not doubt that, in the early stages, the Government rushed in and decided that it wanted to make changes. Mr McGrady: Did your Government close any courthouses down? Mr HOBBS: We did not close them down to the extent that this Government has. We must understand the whole issue. We progress through time and have to adjust to things as we go along. However, the Government came into office and changed everything suddenly. It cannot do that. It must make progressive changes following a progressive direction. It should allow people to express their views. Legislative Assembly 1683 10 October 1991

Mr Elder: You would have closed them down but done it over a longer period of time. Mr HOBBS: No. We wanted to keep them open. Things can be closed down to a certain degree, but, once a certain limit is reached, one cannot go any further. The towns are so far apart that there is no scope for closing some of those facilities. Mr Szczerbanik: How dead is dead? Mr HOBBS: At present, the standing of the Labor Party in the west is very dead. Mr Szczerbanik: How dead is dead? Mr HOBBS: Quite frankly, I think that is true. However, I will not go into that. Tonight, I am trying to talk sense. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr McGrady interjected. Mr HOBBS: It is all very well for firms such as Price Waterhouse to produce a report. The simple facts of the matter are that there are people out there who hurt. Price Waterhouse, or whoever it may be, may not understand the complications involved and may have never crossed the road beyond Ipswich. Mr Milliner: You have got only three minutes left. What about the work scheme at Charleville? Are you happy with that? Mr HOBBS: Which one? Mr Milliner: The work scheme. Mr HOBBS: Yes, I think that scheme is going fairly well. All the way through, I have been very supportive of it. There have been some problems with it. As a matter of fact, there have been some real troubles out there. On the Minister’s behalf, we have hosed a lot of them down. I think that the scheme is worth while. I want to give people a chance to come back to Charleville again after they have served their time. That is being done. But some complications are occurring. We are slowly working our way through them. A good committee is working and it is in touch with the people who have had some problems. Mr Milliner: Weren’t the full-time jobs created in Charleville for the employees out there good for the area, too? Mr HOBBS: Yes. That is good. Mr Milliner: Thank you. Mr HOBBS: It certainly is a help. At present, we do not know how many there are. It should not be forgotten that, to a certain degree, Charleville was dudded. Charleville was to be the headquarters of the whole operation, but Roma ended up being nominated instead. I think that was the story. Mr Milliner: No. Mr HOBBS: That was the PR job. I do not know who was writing the speeches or the press releases at the time which stated that Charleville was to be the headquarters for the prisoners work scheme. However, it did not end up that way. Mr Milliner: It eventually will be. Mr HOBBS: We hope so. Mr McGrady: When the task force went to Charleville, you tried to make out it was a waste of time. You claimed on the ABC that it was a waste of time. Mr HOBBS: That is true. Legislative Assembly 1684 10 October 1991

Mr McGrady: In view of the decision of the Government now, would you change your view? Mr HOBBS: Yes. I was at that particular meeting. Nobody knew that the task force had come to the damned thing. There was no advertising. It snuck into town and snuck out. It should not be forgotten that all of the issues that were raised at the rural task force meeting in Charleville had been raised by me or by other members on this side of the Chamber, particularly the member for Gregory, Vaughan Johnson. We had put those issues up to the people’s Parliament. If the Government did not take any notice of them, we cannot help that. I cannot help it if the honourable member is too stupid to read Hansard and know that we raised issues such as daylight-saving. Someone in the Government went out to Charleville and said that a machine-gun would be mounted in the Charleville Police Station to control the angry land-owners. What rot! The Government lost all credibility. Fancy that! Time expired. Mr HOLLIS (Redcliffe) (8.49 p.m.): As the member for Carnarvon mentioned earlier, the role of the Minister for Justice and Corrective Services is indeed a very large one. In four hours of debate it is very difficult to be able to cover the whole area of his portfolio. I wonder whether next year the Minister may ask for two days to be set aside to debate his Estimates because I know that he enjoys the debate so much. Tonight, I want to mention the Auctioneers and Agents Act and the registry, and in particular, of course, the Fidelity Guarantee Fund that is administered under that Act. In this Chamber of late, a great deal of discussion has occurred on the subject of that Fidelity Guarantee Fund. Some mischievous comments indeed have been made by members opposite who have suggested that the Minister and the Government have ulterior motives in respect of the approximately $100m held in that fund. If we believed the stories from the Opposition, it would appear that $95m of that fund is already spent and only $5m is left. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. That money is an essential protection for the people of Queensland. It protects them from the unscrupulous and dishonest real estate agents and used-car dealers. It affords the person who has been defrauded the ability to claim full recompense for his or her loss. It is interesting to note that, of the claims for 1990-91 of $813,500 against this fund, 51 per cent were from the real estate industry and 49 per cent from motor dealers. The importance of the fund is again stressed as a protection mechanism for the consumer. The department offers further protection by conducting random detection exercises to identify those who set out to defraud their clients. In recent times, there have been many instances of unlawful dealings by dishonest real estate licensees and car dealers. Perhaps one of the most notable cases is that cited by my colleague the member for Redlands, Darryl Briskey, who on many occasions has referred to the Russell, Lamb and Macleay Islands land scam. He has been very concerned about that. The Minister also has been concerned—concerned to the extent that in September this year he announced that 94 people and five companies have been exempted from compliance with section 98 (4) of the Auctioneers and Agents Act. This means, of course, that all of those people can now claim against the Fidelity Guarantee Fund for any losses as a result of the land scam. That was a very worthy move. These days, we often find in society that once a person is found not to have a claim, that is the end of the matter. But this Minister at least went out, looked at the situation and made sure that people, some of whom were bankrupted by that land scam, were able to claim against that Fidelity Guarantee Fund. I think that is very commendable. But in spite of the acknowledged cases such as the island land scam, the REIQ president, Mr Dave Allen, claims that recent changes to the Act will leave some consumers unprotected if they suffer financial loss. The simple fact is that, if real estate Legislative Assembly 1685 10 October 1991 agents encourage their clients to place their deposit money in the agent’s trust account rather than suggest that that money be invested, the client will receive the full protection of the Fidelity Guarantee Fund. The principle underlying the Act is that, if a person chooses not to contribute to the maintenance of the fund, he should not have the ability to make a claim against it. The position that Mr Allen puts forward is unfair and discriminatory. He says that those persons who forgo interest so that the fund can be maintained should compensate those who intentionally opt out of the fund. All real estate agents should be encouraging their clients to cover themselves with the protection of the Fidelity Guarantee Fund. Another matter of great importance is the proliferation of footpath car-sellers. In my electorate of Redcliffe, the city council is fighting a constant battle not only because of the visual eyesore of dozens of cars displayed on nature strips and footpaths, but also to give some protection to the reputable car- dealers who pay rates, own property in the area, display their cars in the correct manner, pay licence fees to the Government and offer to the people who buy cars from them the protection of that Fidelity Guarantee Fund. I can appreciate the concerns of those car-dealers that the Government is not doing enough to curb the activities of those people. I can also realise the difficulties involved. Because of the vast area of Queensland, it is difficult to monitor and investigate the numbers of cars that are on the roadside for what are ostensibly private sales. Quite often, they are not; they are on sale by illegal car- dealers in disguise. Because of the proliferation of footpath car-sellers in cities and towns the size of Redcliffe, perhaps it is time for liaison between local government officers and officers of the Registry of Auctioneers and Agents to enable them to more effectively combat this problem. The Registry of Auctioneers and Agents is tackling the problem of unlicensed motor dealers on a daily basis. As soon as possible after the registry becomes aware of suspected illegal dealings, investigations begin. If there is sufficient evidence, a prosecution is launched. The main thing is that consumers should be aware that dealing with licensed motor dealers provides substantial protection. The risks involved in dealing with unlicensed and backyard motor dealers are not worth it. Dealing with persons who are unlicensed means that a person has no comeback if the car he buys is stolen or has finance owing on it. People should not take that chance, because if anything goes wrong, they are the ones who will probably have to pay for it. Dealing with a licensed reputable car-dealer means that people have the protection of the Fidelity Guarantee Fund. The legislation currently covering motor dealing is under review. The revised legislation could well include tougher penalties for illegal motor dealing. I return briefly to the recent changes to the Auctioneers and Agents Act. The amendments mean that the fund can now be used for other purposes. The sum of $25m has been provided to the Housing Accommodation Assistance Scheme. Of course, funding for vocational education and training has been approved from that fund. One of the problems in the real estate industry at the moment is the proliferation of agents. It is interesting to note that there are usually more than 10 000 salespeople in the industry at any given time, but it is also interesting to note that more than 4 000 new applicants are approved each year. I am sure that most members would know what happens in the real estate industry. People see a wonderful advertisement in the newspaper that says, “Come and work for Joe Blow’s real estate. We pay top commissions. We look after you.” But the real story is that Joe Blow’s real estate is lining up 20 or 30 people and giving each of them a phone. They work there for a period of one month to three months. They might make one or two sales, but then get out of the industry because they cannot afford to live on what they are paid there. But while they are making those one or two sales, the agent himself does not miss out on one cent; he makes his commission on every one of those sales. Legislative Assembly 1686 10 October 1991

I am sure that the Minister has considered that it is time that proper training was given to people entering the real estate industry in order to give them a chance to make sales. The Fidelity Guarantee Fund money could be spent on proper training, so that in some way the people who are trained would hopefully be paid a salary as well as a commission in order to help stabilise the industry. That is pretty important nowadays. The employment situation has not been good. There are a lot of problems out there. It seems a shame that some people—especially the middle-aged people—go into real estate thinking that it will be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and they find that they lose money and that there is not the future that they had hoped for. In the time left to me, I shall comment briefly on the Corrective Services Commission, particularly in relation to community corrections and community service orders. It is pleasing to note that this year’s Budget papers contain a $5m increase in the program outlay. That increase is greatly needed. In 1990- 91, community supervision case-loads increased by 16 per cent. Community service orders, in which I am particularly interested, increased by 20 per cent, and fine-option orders increased by 37 per cent. The definition of “change” in the Oxford Dictionary is: “make different, become different, change from one system or situation to another”. Over the past two years, it has been of concern to me that, whilst change has been occurring in corrective services, the finances to facilitate that change probably have not moved across as quickly as they should have. After visiting Redcliffe recently, the Minister would be aware—and I have made representations about this to him—that the accommodation problems of people working in community corrections at Redcliffe are deplorable, to say the least. Offenders should be given the option of community service orders or community corrections. But they should also be educated so that they do not reoffend. That is the philosophy behind the system. If we are going to do that, we must give the people concerned the correct resources and the correct accommodation so that they can do their job properly. The major problem with the proliferation of community service orders is that it has become very difficult for the supervisors to find work for the people carrying out those orders. The case-load grows and grows. When supervisors have case-loads of more than 100, it becomes very difficult for them, firstly, to find the correct type of job and, secondly, to effectively supervise the offenders in the field. I am concerned that, in a land-locked area—and I am talking about Redcliffe in particular now—those people can work in very few places without offending trade unions or businesspeople. It is incumbent upon all members of Parliament to give whatever assistance we can to those community service supervisors in finding jobs for the people who are carrying out community service orders. As the number of those people increases, the job of the supervisors will become even more difficult. The commission should consider where those people could undertake major tasks that might last for two or three years. That is the only way that I can see of achieving the aims of the program. A couple of months ago, I went to Wynnum to look at the Wynnum boardwalk, which was built partly by a group of people on community service orders. The boardwalk is a great example of what can be done with cooperation between the Government, the Corrective Services Commission and the community at large. It is a wonderful example of community effort. I urge the Corrective Services Commission to investigate further projects of that style. I realise that such projects cost money and I realise that the Government does not have a bucketful of that. However, some projects of a similar magnitude could be considered. I have one more concern about community service supervisors and leave of absence supervisors. I noticed that the supervisors at Wynnum had a mobile telephone. I am quite concerned about the security of the supervisors who monitor parolees in places such as Deception Bay and Caboolture, where they have no means of contact. They are left on their own with people who are potentially violent. I ask the Minister to give Legislative Assembly 1687 10 October 1991 consideration to the protection of case-load workers when they are on their own supervising people who are carrying out community service orders. I commend the Minister and the Corrective Services Commission for the community service orders and the fine option orders. They are a great step forward for the future and they will be one of the success stories of corrections. I wish the Corrective Services Commission well in its endeavours in that field. Mr DUNWORTH (Sherwood) (9.04 p.m.): In participating in the debate on the Budget Estimates for Justice and Corrective Services, I will put into perspective the outstanding job that the Liberal Party spokesman for Corrective Services has done for the community. The easiest way to do that is to show the appalling job that the Minister has done in his portfolio. That is of particular relevance to me because, by Christmas, half of the prison population of Queensland will be dumped on the border of my electorate. The Brisbane remand centre, the Wacol Correctional Centre, the Sir David Longland Correctional Centre, the Wacol prison farm and the John Oxley centre will imprison rapists, murderers, paedophiles, armed robbers, extortionists and assorted other criminals of every type one could think of right on my doorstep. That is a great worry to me because the Centenary suburbs, housing approximately 30 000 generally law-abiding citizens, are left defenceless by the Government by its continued opposition to the undeniable claim by me and my constituents for a police station to be built in my electorate. That sets the scene. When buttressed on one side by a matrix of correctional institutions, one of Brisbane’s most tranquil, law-abiding, hard-working and socially conscious communities is left without protection and the sense of security of a police presence. The Government tells me that that is not a worry. The answer undeniably is that it is a major worry. I say to the Minister: I do not like to do this. I think that the Minister is a decent bloke. However, the fact remains that it is only in politics, and nearly exclusively in Labor politics, that one would expect a plodder lacking in condition or any ball skills to play in the grand final. As I said, I do not like to belittle the Minister, but his performance in his portfolio is pathetic. He stumbles, bumbles, blunders and lashes out at the member for Nerang because he has been extremely effective in turning the white light of the media on the Minister and his department. He so totally lacks confidence—and rightly so—in his grasp of what is happening in his department and in his ability to coherently express himself that he refuses to discuss with the member for Nerang on the public airwaves any of the prison issues that rage in the community. What does the Minister do? He hides in the coat cupboard and puts his director in the invidious position of debating on the airwaves with Opposition politicians. That has had a very unfortunate result. If the Minister had the courage to publicly defend his position, we would not have the unfortunate situation of unnecessary litigation taking place. I do not get any pleasure out of my verbal assault on the Minister. It is a bit like shooting rubber ducks in the bath. It is just too easy to be a challenge. I appreciate that the Minister’s portfolio is an extremely difficult one and that caucus obviously overestimated his ability when it allocated corrections to him. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr DUNWORTH: The member for Archerfield confirms that daily. He expects to hear the call to the Ministry—or that is what he indicates publicly. Amazingly it is generally agreed that the Minister’s performance makes even the Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development look outstanding. That is an achievement. I now wish to look at the Minister’s record and that of the Corrective Services Commission in its responsibility to the community to retain dangerous criminals within the confines of correctional institutions. I have the information here and it is almost a case of This is Your Life for the Minister. The Minister wins the golden jemmy award for escapism. This is an Australiawide Legislative Assembly 1688 10 October 1991 honour that he has achieved, although it is certainly not a sought-after award. I inform the Minister that he is on what was previously rightly considered to be an unattainable goal. There have been 90 escapes in the first nine months of this year. For all those members who cannot believe the score, I have the evidence here. The member for Nerang publishes it in this Chamber daily. The Minister will certainly achieve his maiden century in only his second year, but the Liberal Party does not applaud the Minister for it. For those honourable members who have not received one of the thousands of copies of the document that adorn the walls of nearly every police station in this State, together with every correctional institution, the member for Nerang will obligingly put them on his weekly bulletin mailing list. This document is a tragic indictment of the Minister’s performance in his No. 1 responsibility to the people of Queensland, which is to keep dangerous prisoners behind bars. I have highlighted the escapes from institutions which border my electorate. I shall now give further examples from the Minister’s record. This year, the escapes started on 6 January, but the first escape that directly affected my electorate and the 30 000 unprotected people living in the Centenary suburbs was on 14 January when two prisoners escaped. One was recaptured on 17 January and the second on 20 January, but what happened in the mean time? The Minister extravagantly wasted police resources of the western suburbs of Brisbane. I will not go through all the escapes because I do not have an hour, but on 15 January another prisoner, Gary Andrew Dewey, failed to return to Wacol after leaving on compassionate grounds. The Minister might say that this is an absconsion and not an escape, but it is his job to retain these people within institutions for the term of their sentence. Well might the Minister sit there nodding his head and sliding lower in the seat as he usually does. He tries to hide and pretend he is not there when he is asked a question. Mr Milliner: You’re mad. Mr DUNWORTH: No, I am not. I have sat in this Chamber all year listening to the Minister and his cronies try to belittle this man who has done an outstanding job. Mr NUNN: I rise to a point of order. How long do I have to put up with this man spitting on me from the back? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr J. N. Goss): Order! There is no point of order. Mr DUNWORTH: It is an indictment when the member for Isis stands up to defend the Minister. I wonder why no other Government member jumps to his defence. On 20 January, another three prisoners escaped from Sir David Longland centre, two of whom were among the most dangerous prisoners in Queensland, Morrell and Creevey. On 9 and 10 March, Terrence Cummins escaped from Wacol. This is almost like a Clint Eastwood movie because then there was the great garbage truck mass escape from Boggo Road. The prisoners jumped in the garbage truck and drove out through the gates with guns firing. What did the Minister do? He sat there and did nothing. Mr Beattie: Is this a movie? Mr DUNWORTH: Unfortunately, this is not a movie on television but is something that actually happened in the capital city of Brisbane, yet the Minister sits here and laughs. I know it is an embarrassed grin. I will not take up all the time of the Chamber, but the most damning indictment is the fact that some of these prisoners have escaped two or three times. That is unbelievable. I will distribute this document widely for honourable members. One prisoner who is serving a sentence for rape, murder and burning the body was out practising his tennis shots. Can he ace the Minister? I would say that he probably could. One could call the next escape “sex, drugs and rock’n’roll” because prisoners from Numinbah Valley were out in the nightclubs of Surfers Paradise. If this was not true, who Legislative Assembly 1689 10 October 1991 could believe it? One prisoner was found drinking in a Townsville club in the early hours of the morning by an off-duty prison officer. This is quite incredible! I turn now to look at what the Minister did to control these escapes which have wasted valuable police budgets, particularly in the western suburbs. This has left my constituents dramatically underpoliced. It is very difficult to come to terms with what the Government has done in this Budget. It has slashed staff numbers and run the commission’s budget dry by over $23m. The Government is cutting numbers and the only thing that is increasing is the number of criminals escaping from our institutions and putting people in danger. There are more armed robberies and yet the police are wasting their time catching prisoners for the second time. Perhaps in the Minister’s reply he will explain the logic behind slashing Corrective Service numbers and decreasing the budget as Queensland heads towards the next century. The program goal states— “To correct the offending behaviour of assigned prisoners while ensuring a sufficient degree of custodial control to contain and reduce the risk presented by the prisoner population.” This directly relates to keeping people locked up when they should be behind bars. Mr T. B. Sullivan interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Nundah will cease interjecting. Mr DUNWORTH: To achieve that goal, the Minister reduced the number of full-time employees from 1 632 to 1 326. He has decreased staffing by 306. Even with an additional 306 staff members, the Minister would not be able to keep prisoners behind bars. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mrs Sheldon: Even the member for Archerfield thinks so. Mr DUNWORTH: The member for Archerfield is always nodding. The budget has been decreased by 18 per cent in real terms. In conclusion, I wish to discuss the privatisation of maximum security prisons. The Minister told the media yesterday that a maximum security prison is to be privatised. To my knowledge, there is only one private maximum security prison in the world, and that is in Texas. Even in the United States—the home of free enterprise—maximum security prisons are prohibited from being privatised in many, many States. Mr Hobbs: Don’t go. Mr DUNWORTH: The member for Archerfield should not leave the Chamber. He will have the Minister’s job soon enough. I ask the Minister: how are members of the opposition parties to judge whether or not privatisation is the way to go? The Borallon Correctional Centre can be related directly to the Sir David Longland Correctional Centre because, to my knowledge, they have about the same capacity. How can people make a decision on which form of management is the most cost effective way to go when the expenditure table in the annual report shows administrative expenses of $8,904,000 for Borallon and a total of $8,904,000, whereas the expenditure for the Sir David Longland Correctional Centre—a public institution—is spelt out in detail. Last year, it cost $9,159,000 to run the Sir David Longland Correctional Centre. How are members of the opposition parties to make a decision on which form of correctional institution is the most cost efficient? Does the total for Borallon include lots of setting-up costs? Does it include depreciation of the equipment over a three-year period, which was the tenure of the lease? How can a decision be made? It is very difficult to know what the true position is. Mrs Sheldon: You call “Pass” on that one. Mr DUNWORTH: It has been passed all year. Legislative Assembly 1690 10 October 1991

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Only a minute to go. Someone should stop the clock! Mr DUNWORTH: This is enjoyable. I hope someone does. After the great escape from the Moreton Correctional Centre, when eight of the most dangerous criminals broke out from the former old hospital, the Premier said that the Government’s first responsibility is to retain the prisoners behind bars. If that is the Minister’s first responsibility, he has been a total and abject failure. Mr PALASZCZUK (Archerfield) (9.19 p.m.): On 4 December 1990, the Sun published an editorial, which states— “Just as a new era of enlightenment dawns on Queensland prisons, the Liberal Party’s Corrective Services spokesman Ray Connor seems determined to drag us back into the dark ages.” The pathetic efforts of the member for Sherwood in this Parliament today make it manifestly clear that he does not know to where his electorate extends. The prisons to which he referred today, which include Moreton, Wacol A and the Sir David Longland centre, are not in the Sherwood electorate. They are in the electorate of Wolston. Mr DUNWORTH: I rise to a point of order. I said that they were bordering my electorate. I said they buttressed my electorate, and at no time did I say that they were in my electorate. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. Mr PALASZCZUK: The member for Sherwood is more to be pitied rather than laughed at. If ever any person wanted an example of the reason why boys should not play football, the member for Sherwood fits the bill. Mr VEIVERS: I rise to a point of order. I find the remark made by the member for Archerfield extremely offensive. I ask him to withdraw it. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The member has asked for the remark to be withdrawn. Mr PALASZCZUK: I withdraw the comment. I have just hit the double. Recently, I stumbled across a copy of the document headed “August 7, 1991, draft policy, Queensland Liberals Corrective Services Policy”. It provided me with an insight into just how backward, misinformed and completely ignorant the Liberals in this State are. However, I will give them credit for some parts of their draft policy because they copied bits and pieces from practices already established or from policies that had already been proposed and prepared for implementation. However, the cornerstone of the document is the now infamous truth-in-sentencing policy that was introduced by the Liberals in New South Wales three years ago, which has proved to be as successful at Dr Crippen’s defence lawyer. The Liberals in this State are so devoid of ideas and independent thought that they are hell-bent on duplicating a system that has cost New South Wales taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars for absolutely no return. The sick joke about this document is that it is dated 7 August 1991, and it is still only in draft form. The Liberals have not sat on the Government benches since 1983, and they still have not got their policy in place. At that rate, they should be ready to unveil their policy in a blaze of publicity soon after the turn of the century. It has taken them eight years to come up with a draft that is so full of holes that it resembles a script from the show Tour of Duty. Before I turn to the truth-in-sentencing debacle, it should be pointed out that this draft Liberal policy is a backhanded insult to the 2 000 Queensland Corrective Services Commission employees throughout this State. The policy states— Legislative Assembly 1691 10 October 1991

“Under the Labor Government Queensland’s prison system is a total failure . . . ” What the Liberals are saying is that all the tremendous work put in by the innovative and dedicated employees—— An honourable member interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: If I were the member for Landsborough, I would be very careful about what is tabled in this Parliament. The tremendous work put in by the innovative and dedicated employees and board members of the commission in the past three years is a total failure. This pathetic apology for a political party refuses to acknowledge the outstanding achievements of the commission under this Labor Government. Earlier today, the Minister documented some of these achievements. It was by no means a comprehensive list, but it showed how far the Government has come in a relatively short period. The Liberal Party has chosen to denigrate all of this work, and all of the officers who are responsible for it. The leader of this Liberal charge to self-destruction is none other than the neanderthal, or the “Nerang”-outang, Mr Connor—the man the Sun so accurately claimed was “determined to drag us back into the Dark Ages”. When one talks to prominent members of the Liberal Party, including some of Mr Connor’s parliamentary colleagues, one will understand what an embarrassment the member for Nerang is to his party. They are all hoping it will soon be his turn to use the family brain cell. Twelve months ago in this House, the honourable member launched an outrageous, bitter campaign of lies and deceit that cost Queenslanders hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr Connor: I find the remarks of the honourable member offensive, as well as unparliamentary. Mr PALASZCZUK: I withdraw the remark, although every one of the honourable member’s allegations were proved to be groundless. The honourable member was exposed in the Criminal Justice Commission inquiry—an inquiry he himself precipitated—as a man who would allow himself to be duped by anyone as long as he thought he could make some dubious political mileage through sensational headlines. He now carries the stigma of being a politician who would use anyone in an effort to bolster his failing political career, which is progressing at about the same pace as an asthmatic ant climbing up Mount Coot-tha with the entire Liberal Party parliamentary wing strapped on its back. This is the man who is responsible for one of the grubbiest chapters in the history of corrective services in this State. In fact, he is responsible for one of the most sickening chapters in Queensland’s parliamentary history, and yet the Liberal Party continues to allow this man to champion their cause, even though he has proved himself to be a man with one moustache and no scruples. The honourable member and his fellow Liberals want to inflict upon the people of Queensland a most draconian system of corrections, a system that has been proved to be flawed from start to finish. Dr Watson interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: Let me quote for the benefit of the honourable member for Moggill— “Queensland Liberals will introduce truth in sentencing measures”—— An honourable member interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: The honourable member cannot talk after his performance. I will continue— “Queensland Liberals will introduce truth in sentencing measures, not to ensure longer sentences but sentences that can be clearly and precisely stated and understood.” Legislative Assembly 1692 10 October 1991

That is exactly the same line perpetrated on the good citizens of New South Wales when the Greiner Government rode to power on its highly acclaimed law and order policy. What has happened since? In three years the New South Wales prison population increased by almost 50 per cent. In the same period, the prison population in Queensland decreased significantly. This is what the Canberra Times had to say in an editorial of 13 September this year— “When the New South Wales Government brought in its popular truth in sentencing laws it assured the public that the changes would not worsen the State’s serious problem of prison overcrowding. Yet just last month a prison census from the Institute of Criminology showed that Australia’s prison population had risen by 10 per cent in 1990, and that New South Wales was to blame for almost the whole increase.” When the Queensland Liberals tell the people of Queensland that they have the recipe for Corrective Services, they are trying to disguise the fact that they have not even got a recipe for Anzac biscuits. The Queensland Liberals have a recipe for disaster. They have modelled their corrections policy on the New South Wales Liberal model, which has been about as successful as an ashtray on the back of a motor scooter. I have here a few more statements made recently and reported in various newspapers— “The Australian prison system, particularly in New South Wales, will end up in crisis if the trend towards more prisoners and longer prison terms continues.” “The current get-tough policy in New South Wales would lead to a massive increase in prisoner numbers but was unlikely to have any positive effect on crime rates.” “In New South Wales the additional 2 000 cells required to house the present prison population seem likely to cost taxpayers at least $400m to $500m.” “The New South Wales Government has already embarked upon the biggest prison building program this country has witnessed since the convict days.” “New South Wales gaols are at flashpoint because they are crammed with a record 6 083 prisoners. The Government has reduced the system to a degraded, brutalised one in which rehabilitation has no part.” The honourable member for Nerang obviously idolises Mr Michael Yabsley, that distinguished failure who did for Corrective Services in New South Wales what the plague did for London. Earlier this year, during a visit to a correctional centre, Mr Connor told a group of officers his first job was to get into Parliament, and his second was to get into Cabinet. The only trouble is that Mr Connor still thinks “Cabinet” is where Denver Beanland hides his scotch. If by some strange quirk of fate Mr Connor was able to emulate Mr Yabsley’s feats it will give an indication of what members can expect. The Sun- Herald recently provided a summary of the effect of the Liberals’ policies on the prison system in New South Wales during its first term. It gave Yabsley’s Top 10, which included increases to the prison population by 47 per cent in three years to 6 000 inmates, that is almost three times the number in Victoria and Queensland; deaths in custody in 1989-90, including a record 15 suicides, were 50 per cent higher than the previous maximum; and so on. Mr Yabsley ended his stay in the portfolio with around 500 prisoners simply failing to turn up for weekend detention. On a failure scale of one to 10, Yabsley scored 10, and that is exactly what the Liberals have in store for Queensland. They ignore the successes of the present system and concentrate solely on the blemishes that have occurred. Led by the Yabsley clone from Nerang, the Liberals have deliberately set out to cause chaos in the correctional system, with absolutely no thought for those who may be hurt in the process. Legislative Assembly 1693 10 October 1991

Mr CONNOR: I rise to a point of order. I find that remark quite offensive, and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr PALASZCZUK: I will withdraw, Mr Temporary Chairman. Mr Connor parades around the State poisoning everything he touches and leaving scars on those whom he deliberately hurts. Through lies and deceit, the Liberals have embarked on a fearmongering campaign aimed at destroying public confidence in the work being done by some very dedicated and innovative officers in the correctional system. At a time when strong political and public support is needed, they have systematically attacked the very foundations of the corrections reform process. The Liberals have treated this very sensitive area of public administration with all the finesse of a game of Skirmish, yet they have the gall to stand up in this Chamber and condemn those people who are working towards giving this State a system of corrections which will be the blueprint that every other State will follow. Mr DUNWORTH: I rise to a point of order. At no stage did the Liberal Party criticise the people who work in Corrective Services. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr J. N. Goss): Order! There is no point of order. Mr PALASZCZUK: Today, honourable members witnessed the spectacle of the perfect coalition formed between the Liberal and National Parties. I refer to the sad and sorry saga of the blonde jokes fax. Quite obviously, this was the perfect conspiracy, dreamt up by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to score some brownie points with his backbench members. Mr FitzGerald: Get back to the Estimates. Mr PALASZCZUK: This is to do with these Estimates. It is to do with justice in this place. This man will stop at nothing to achieve his naked ambition of becoming the Leader of the National Party and, as the rumour mill in this place has shown, the reverse is now the case. As a result of the so-called “bingate”, “Coopergate” or even “Nerangate”, the National Party is concerned about his leadership qualities. Members of the National Party are gathering in little groups, complaining and worrying about the leadership qualities of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He bungles everything he puts his hands on. The whispers about his lack of political judgment and ability are growing with every mistake that he makes. It is only a matter of time before a move is made against him. Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Temporary Chairman, I draw your attention to the fact that the member for Archerfield is not speaking to the Estimates. His comments are in no way related to the portfolio of Justice and Corrective Services. I find it an insult to the Committee that honourable members have to listen to this type of debate. Mr PALASZCZUK: If I could say one thing about the member for Surfers Paradise and the member for Landsborough—if they were both on the Titanic—— Mr DUNWORTH: I rise to a point of order. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Budget Estimates of the Minister for Justice and Corrective Services. I ask you to ask the member for Archerfield to return to the Estimates, Mr Temporary Chairman. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Yes, would the honourable member return to the Estimates. Mr PALASZCZUK: If both honourable members were on the Titanic, the dance band would be playing— Nearer my God to thee The icebergs on the starboard bow Won’t you dance with me. Legislative Assembly 1694 10 October 1991

Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (9.34 p.m.): I have pleasure in joining the debate on the Estimates of the Minister for Justice and Corrective Services. With your guidance, Mr Temporary Chairman, I believe that I will not stray from the Estimates as widely as the previous speaker did. The area that concerns me is the vote that is contained in Budget Paper No. 3. Page 106 outlines the Courts Program for the Department of Justice and the Vote for the court system of Queensland. The program goal is to maintain an equitable level of community access to the courts which effectively supports the objectives of an independent judiciary. I am unable to decipher the program figures that are submitted to this Committee in regard to the allocation to magistrates courts in country areas. Perhaps the Minister could advise me as to whether the allocation for that program has been increased or decreased. I know that, according to the annual report of the Department of Justice, the goal of the magistrates court is to maintain an equitable level of community access to courts which effectively supports the objectives of an independent judiciary. That is contained in the goals of the Minister’s department. I suggest, on behalf of the electors whom I represent, that the department has fallen well short of achieving that objective. I refer particularly to the Gatton Court House and the rumours that circulated in the Gatton area that the Government was considering a partial closure of that courthouse. Gatton is an important growth area in the State. The Gatton Magistrates Court district covered the Gatton and Laidley areas. Previously the Government had announced that the Laidley Court House was going to be closed, that the work carfried out for the work that was handled at that courthouse would be transferred to Gatton, and that the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages was going to be transferred to the Ipswich area. That is fair enough. The courthouse was not used full-time and the workload was not there, so the Government made that decision. In the next breath, rumours began to spread that the Gatton Court House was to be closed, so I wrote to the Minister. I hope that the Minister does not mind my referring to correspondence between him and me. In a letter dated 15 August 1991, I stated— “I am alarmed at reports that the Court House at Gatton is to be downgraded to a part-time operation. If this report is correct, I can only presume that you have received inaccurate information on the work load and importance of the Court House in Gatton.” I then advised the Minister that the Laidley Court House hours had been cut down. I also told him that Gatton is 30 minutes from Toowoomba; that it is growing steadily; that Gatton College, which is part of the University of Queensland, is set to double its student numbers over the next few years; and that, therefore, I believed that if he was going to cut down the courthouse hours he would be making a mistake. The Minister responded to me within a few days. He said that he had received my letter and that he would look into the matter. I think that letter was written on 20 August. I heard no more about the matter until 31 August when an advertisement appeared in the Queensland Government Gazette for a part-time deputy registrar at Gatton. I got my answer all right; I read it in the Queensland Government Gazette. In a letter dated 2 September 1991, I said— “I refer to my letter of the 15th August seeking the status of the Gatton Court House, and your response of the 20.8.91. I note your acknowledgment, but I also note that the position of Part Time Deputy Registrar for Gatton has been advertised in this week’s Government Gazette, and applications close for the position on the 16.9.91. I would appreciate an early response to my request: what hours is it proposed to have the Gatton Court House open and on what terms?” The people wanted to know. I informed them of the information contained in the Queensland Government Gazette. The Minister acknowledged that letter with a short Legislative Assembly 1695 10 October 1991 letter, stating that he was going to get back to me. On 10 September, I wrote to the Deputy Premier, Mr Tom Burns, who is now the Minister who is reporting to the Office of Cabinet on rural communities. Obviously, from information that was being supplied, the Government perceived that it had a problem in rural communities. The member for Archerfield was a member of the first task force which investigated the position in rural Queensland. Earlier, he made a speech in this Chamber. I was going to say that it was a brilliant speech; but, because Hansard does not record the satire in his voice, I have to say that it was a dreadful speech. He was a member of a rural task force along with Dr Flynn, the member for Toowoomba North; Dr Lesley Clark, the member for Barron River; and Tony McGrady, the member for Mount Isa. They were to report to the Government on the problems being faced in rural areas. They claimed that they travelled over large distances throughout Queensland. That task force visited Gatton. I was not able to attend the meeting, but I told the Gatton Shire Council that there would be moves to close courthouses down and I asked the council to emphasise to the task force how important the Gatton Court House was to the residents in the district. That was the only real input that I had into that task force. The task force was merely a publicity exercise by the Government to show that it was listening to the people. It certainly listened to the people! When the local member writes to the Minister, he takes no notice of it. The Gatton Shire Council is very upset about the matter. On 10 September, it wrote to me informing me of the discussions that had taken place and offered the council’s support should I attend any meetings with the Minister in an endeavour to discuss the matter. I have not had any success. I received copies of correspondence from the Darling Downs Law Society to the Minister, Mr Milliner, and to Tom Burns in his capacity as the Minister who reported to Cabinet on rural communities. I presume that those letters have been answered. That organisation was very upset, as well. The Gatton Magistrates Court district has been abolished. I am not sensitive to that; I am concerned about providing a service to the people. The Government is concerned about the cost of providing a court service to Gatton. However, that service provided a facility which could act as an agent for the Housing Commission and the Transport Department. People could go there to collect an application form to register a vehicle or to hand in registration plates when the registration was being cancelled. People could go to the police station next door, get their vehicle measured and come back to the courthouse and pay the registration fees. If the Government intends to close the courthouse and allow banks and post offices to conduct its business for a fee, I am bemused at how it thinks it will save money. The Government intends to open the Gatton Court House for 29 hours a week. At present, it has a staff of three—the clerk of the court and two staff members. If one person is to do all the court work, he will be very busy. Gatton is an important area. I understand that more than 100 inquiries a day come through that office either by telephone or over the counter. That is an important community service. If people come from the top of the Laidley Valley or from Lockyer Waters to attend the Gatton Court House and find it shut, they want to know when it will be open. They are asking me to tell them the hours that it will be open. They have said to me, “We have heard rumours, we have sought answers and we have got nothing. Please tell us what the Government has in mind.” The people of Gatton argue that it will be cost effective to keep the Gatton Court House open five days a week. The Government should charge other departments agency fees. It is unfair that some departments bear the costs that other departments thrust upon them because they are providing a service. When I inquired of an officer in the Deputy Premier’s office about the matter, I received the reply that, because the cost of providing Government services in a town such as Gatton should be considered on a broader basis, the Government would look at it. Legislative Assembly 1696 10 October 1991

I ask the Minister and the Office of Cabinet to consider the matter. The Deputy Premier told me that the matter has been handed on to the Office of Cabinet. Obviously, the Office of Cabinet is running the State—not the Ministers. The Minister should say, “I will take your representations and examine them with my colleagues.” However, the matter is dealt with by the Office of Cabinet. The Minister might shake his head, but that is contained in the letter. The Deputy Premier said that he passed the matter on to the Office of Cabinet—and he is the Minister in charge of rural communities. Mr Milliner: We have got a rural task force. Mr FITZGERALD: We know what the rural task force has done so far. It was just a publicity stunt. It was given one job to do and it did nothing. In the early days, the rural task force was being organised by the Department of Primary Industries. The members of the task force did not know what appointments they had or where they had to be. Mrs Bird: Absolute garbage! Mr FITZGERALD: It is true. Mrs Bird: It’s rot! Mr FITZGERALD: I note that the honourable member disagrees with me. Later, I will have a private conversation with her. I do not want to breach confidentialities in this Chamber. I ask the Minister to look after the rural communities. I ask him to consider carefully the closure of the Gatton Court House. He has closed down the courthouses at Boonah and Laidley and put the one at Gatton on 29 hours a week. What hours will the Gatton Court House be open? I contend that there is a need to provide Government services in Gatton and that the courthouse is the place from which to provide them. If the Government takes no action on this matter, I am certain that, in the near future, the people throughout rural Queensland will know all about it. Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (9.45 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Estimates of the Department of Justice and Corrective Services. In particular, I thank the members of the National Party and the members of the Labor Party for their contributions. They showed that there can be mature debate on matters such as corrective services. The contributions from members of both the National Party and the Labor Party have been very constructive and I certainly appreciate them. I give an undertaking that I will go through Hansard, take out the points that have been raised and write to each and every member with a full explanation. In 10 minutes it is virtually impossible to adequately reply to each member’s contribution point by point. However, I do give honourable members that undertaking. I think it is worth while raising a couple of issues, one of which relates to courthouses. As was said before, the previous Government was placed in a situation similar to that in which this Government was placed. The closure of courthouses is not new. The previous Government embarked on a program of closing courthouses. Prior to the last election, it closed quite a number. It closed courthouses at Anakie, Blackbutt, Cracow, Goomeri, Halifax, Howard, Ilfracombe, Lowood, Marian, Mirani, Port Douglas, Stonehenge, Walkerston, Wallumbilla and Yuleba. It is always very difficult to make a decision such as that. However, the previous Government also recognised the need for efficiency in the court service. It took the tough decision to close down those courthouses. It went further than that. It engaged Price Waterhouse to look at courthouses and produce a report on the courts. That report was given to this Government, so it went ahead and implemented many of the regulations contained in it. When the National Party was in Government, it was embarking on the same course as the one which we have adopted and continued. As I said, it is always a tough decision to close courthouses. Legislative Assembly 1697 10 October 1991

Mr SLACK: I rise to a point of order. The Minister is misleading the Committee. When he said that Price Waterhouse was engaged by the National Party, that is correct. But Price Waterhouse brought down a recommendation that the National Party refused to implement, whereas the Minister’s Government has followed that recommendation. There is a distinct difference. The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. Mr MILLINER: I accept that the National Party Government may have refused to implement it. However, I am saying that that Government considered it important enough to engage Price Waterhouse to determine what it thought should happen. I admit that they are tough decisions. I do not like making those sorts of decisions, but if there is to be efficiency in the system, they have to be made. This Government set about putting in place a system under which people had access to the law and were not faced with long court delays. The honourable member for Warrego suggested that there was a substantial delay of five months in cases coming before the court at Roma. I have been advised that there is only one court that has a substantial delay, namely, the court at Southport, where there is a three-month delay. In the rest of the Magistrates Courts throughout Queensland, the court list is under control. For argument’s sake, at the Brisbane Magistrates Court a trial can be brought on within one month. In most of the other Magistrates Courts throughout the State, a trial can be brought on within six to eight weeks. But because it is in a rapidly expanding area, the situation at Southport is unique. We admit that a problem exists there. The court list has blown out and it takes three months before a trial can be brought on. That problem is being addressed. More people are being sent to Southport to overcome it. The Southport Court House has not been open all that long, but already there is virtually no room left in it and we are considering what can be done to expand its facilities. Over the next couple of years, we will be looking very closely at what planning provisions must be put in place so that the problem of shortage of space at the Southport Court House can be adequately addressed. Members have raised the matter of the restructuring of the courts. As the Premier said, this is one of the major reforms that will take place in justice in Queensland. It is a major step forward. I am very delighted to be part of the Cabinet subcommittee that has been handling this matter. As I said, it is a major reform and I am very pleased with the general support that we have received from the community. I note that, last night, the member for Tablelands expressed his support for it. The Bar Association and the Law Society have also expressed their support. There is no doubt that we will, I believe, finish up with a very good system of justice in this State. No-one denies that there have been problems in the courts. Some cases have been paraded through the media, but I am not particularly interested in going into those tonight. Certain things can be done to speed up the court process. I know that, of late, there has been a degree of lawyer-bashing. I do not believe that it is totally the fault of the lawyers or the profession; I believe it is the fault of the system. Sure, everybody has to accept some share of the blame, but the system itself must accept the major portion of the blame. I will cite an example of the problems that the system has faced. We are looking at alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Recently, we engaged a firm to undertake dispute resolution. We became involved with the Workers Compensation Board, which had two cases, one which had been in existence for six years, the other for eight years. Even after that time, those two cases were no closer to settlement. They were handed over to the alternative dispute resolution mechanism and within two hours they were settled. There is obviously a chance to do many things in the court system and the legal system to facilitate early settlement of cases. We recognise that. On our trip to the United States, we saw a system known as Settlement Week. I know that New South Wales has had Settlement Week, which has proved to be very successful. As a result, we have funded Legislative Assembly 1698 10 October 1991 the Bar Association to run Settlement Week. It is only appropriate that the profession itself does it. We had thought that we may get 100 cases before Settlement Week, but at the moment the indications are that there will be at least 200 cases to go before the Settlement Week. So far, it has been outstandingly successful. I congratulate the profession and thank it for the way in which it has embraced this system, taken it on board and done everything in its power to ensure its success. I have no doubt that Settlement Week will be an outstanding success in settling quite a number of cases. There are a couple of other matters that I think need addressing. One obviously is the contribution comprising the rantings and ravings of the member for Sherwood. Unfortunately, he tampers with the truth. In relation to private prisons in the United States, I point out that there are 2 000 prisoners in maximum security prisons in the USA. One company alone has eight private prisons. That is in contrast to what Mr Dunworth said, namely, that there was only one. Quite clearly, the member for Sherwood does not know what he is talking about. Mr Gibbs: He has been in too many rucks. Mr MILLINER: I think he has been in too many rucks. I know that the member for Southport became most upset when the member for Archerfield suggested that the member for Sherwood was a classic example of why one’s kids should not play football. I inform the member for Southport that I think he was referring to Rugby Union and not Rugby League. There is no doubt that Rugby League is a gentlemen’s game. Mr Gibbs: And an intellectual one. Mr MILLINER: And an intellectual one. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr MILLINER: I accept that, but Mr Horan’s son is a back; that is the difference. I notice that Mr Dunworth has come back into the Chamber. I hope that while he was away he had his medication, because there is obviously something terribly wrong with him. All in all, this has been a constructive debate. I appreciated the contributions from all members on both sides of the Chamber. It is a tragedy that we have such a pathetic group of people sitting at the back of the Chamber masquerading as Liberals. I have been a member of this Assembly for 14 years, and I must say that they are the most pathetic group of Liberals that I have ever seen. With all due respect, when one considers people such as Mr White—— Mr Gibbs: Mr Bishop. Mr MILLINER: Mr Bishop, Bill Hewitt, John Greenwood and Mr Innes—— Mr Gibbs: They had some ability. Mr MILLINER: They had ability, and they were decent people. The Liberals at the back of the Chamber are just a rabble. It really is a tragedy to see the once-great Liberal Party sinking to these depths. Mr Schwarten: The Liberal preselection battle down at Nerang, they tell me, is going pretty well. Mr MILLINER: That is hotting right up. I say here and now that we have our full support behind Mr Connor. We will certainly be backing him, because there is no doubt that we want to see him back in this Chamber. With the lack of contribution that he makes in this place, we definitely want to see him back here. It was a pleasure to listen to this debate. As I indicated, I will be responding personally to each and every member who made a contribution. Legislative Assembly 1699 10 October 1991

At 9.55 p.m., The CHAIRMAN: Order! Under the provisions of the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 1 October, I shall now put the questions for the Vote under consideration and the balance remaining unvoted for Department of Justice and Queensland Corrective Services Commission (Consolidated Fund, and Trust and Special Funds). The questions for the following Votes were put, and agreed to— $105,297,000—Law, Order and Public Safety, Department of Justice (Consolidated Fund). $160,231,000—Law, Order and Public Safety, Department of Justice (Trust and Special Funds). $145,518,000—Law, Order and Public Safety, Queensland Corrective Services Commission (Consolidated Fund). Progress reported.

TOTALISATOR ON LICENSED PREMISES BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 2 October (see p. 1284). Mr VEIVERS (Southport) (9.57 p.m.): The Minister introduced this Bill by saying that places such as Bribie Island, Karumba, Wandoan, Birdsville and Anakie would benefit from PubTAB. That is fine. I suppose that the Minister is endeavouring to look after people in the country—and National Party people at that! It is quite frightening, really, that he should be doing that. The Minister is endeavouring to get support for this Bill. The Opposition agrees with the general upgrading and introduction of up-market PubTAB, but one would hope that it is not to the detriment of other TAB agencies in the same area. This is one of the problems that the Minister will find difficult to get around. I must say that the Opposition has no fundamental problem with the introduction of TAB facilities that are properly supervised in Queensland hotels. I should remind the House that the greatest Racing Minister of all—Hinzey, the late Russ Hinze—— Mr Szczerbanik interjected. Mr VEIVERS: If the honourable member is as successful in this Parliament as Hinzey was, he might be able to laugh. Unfortunately, he is only a oncer. It is sad that I have to say this to defend my old mate Hinzey. I would not have been personal, except that the member laughed at my statement. I take offence at that. Mr Szczerbanik interjected. Mr VEIVERS: If the honourable member is not bright enough to shut up now, I will give him some more. The Minister was always keen on PubTAB, introduced on the right terms and conditions. The Opposition would be very unhappy with the scheme if it constituted unfair competition with TAB agencies in close proximity and for which people have paid a lot of money. I believe that we have the Minister’s assurance that that will not happen. The Opposition will be holding the Minister to his word on that. The Opposition has a problem—and I do not like to say this, but it is true—with the incredibly sloppy drafting that is evident in this Bill. I assume that the Minister is not about introducing unfair competition to publicans. I certainly hope so. However, because of the way in which this legislation is drafted, it has more holes that a Swiss cheese. I suggest Legislative Assembly 1700 10 October 1991 that the Minister send it back to whoever drafted it. It looks as though they were a bit slow coming out of the blocks and hitting their straps. Part 2 of the Bill is an open invitation to all sorts of things that I am sure the Minister does not intend. It removes the prohibition on the installation of machines capable of being used for gaming. That is fine. We in this House know that the Minister wants to make it possible for the installation of TAB terminals, calculators and the like which are necessary to conduct legitimate TAB business. But this legislation would permit the installation of all sorts of machines on which people could gamble. I am thinking of pinball machines, lucky number vending machines and the like. Those machines would draw some part of the gambling dollar, not only from the TAB but also—one would have to suggest—from the poker machines that the publican has paid good money to install. That could be next door or right beside them. The Opposition will not oppose the legislation or divide on it. However, we ask the Minister to withdraw some of it for redrafting to give a more precise definition of the machines that are able to be installed on licensed premises by the Totalisator Administration Board. It is no good the Minister saying, “Such and such might be in the legislation and the Government will have to use its discretion in enforcing it.” Legislation should be written tightly enough so that all citizens and law-enforcement agencies know precisely what it means and so that it can be correctly enforced. No other member on the Opposition side of the House will speak to the Bill. As I said, the Opposition supports the legislation. However, I hope that the Minister will tighten up some of its drafting. I am not picking on people personally, but the Minister will have to close some of the loopholes in the Bill. Mr WELFORD (Stafford) (10.02 p.m.): It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Totalisator on Licensed Premises Bill, which is designed to introduce PubTAB into hotels in Queensland. That initiative brings to fruition a long-held commitment by the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing, Mr Gibbs. I congratulate him on again coming up with the goods in his portfolio. Since the Government was elected in 1989, a lot of good work has been done by the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing and his department. I am sure that the shadow Minister would agree with me that the Minister has done an outstanding job. Many times when the Minister has reported to the House on his achievements, I have observed with great interest the supportive nodding of the member for Southport. He acknowledges the outstanding efforts of that Minister of the Labor Government. As the member for Southport indicated, the Bill amends three Acts so as to allow gaming machines to be introduced into hotels. I have it on good authority that the Bill is drafted so as not to limit that permission to gaming machines. I am sure that, when the Minister responds, he will qualify that matter for the shadow Minister. The TAB has issued a fairly comprehensive guide for PubTAB operators. It gives samples of the layout of the arrangements that hotels need to make to install the PubTAB operations. One of the things that pleases me about this initiative finally being put into place is that it enhances the capacity of our local suburban hotels to provide a range of social activities for people in our community. For a long time, hotels have been places of public bars and boring attractions for boring people. Hotels need, once again, to be places to which families can go, have a quiet drink and watch the races on Sky Channel. Mr Pearce: Have a bet. Mr WELFORD: And have a bet. In my electorate, the famous Edinburgh Castle Hotel at Kedron, which was well known to Commissioner Fitzgerald for its very active role in the betting industry, will now be able to replace that infamous role with something a bit more legitimate in the form of PubTAB. The Everton Park Hotel is owned by the Fosters or Carlton group. Some time ago, the Minister and I attended the new facilities at the Legislative Assembly 1701 10 October 1991

Sunnybank Hotel. Anyone who has been to the Sunnybank Hotel since it has been renovated will see that it is a marvellous facility. It has a restaurant and TAB facilities and is an excellent community resource to which families can go. It is good quality. It is not just a dirty, grubby public bar. I look forward to the Everton Park Hotel being provided with similar facilities. That hotel already has a TAB subagency in a very small office, but it is separate from the bar facilities and is not integrated in a way that makes it most useful for the patrons. With those few words, I look forward to the introduction of the PubTAB facilities. They will enhance the availability of TAB facilities in rural areas more so than in the cities. Above all else, they will provide an opportunity for people to use hotels as a place of social relaxation and enjoyment rather than simply a place to buy take-away liquor. Mr COOMBER (Currumbin) (10.07 p.m.): In common with the National Party, the Liberal Party will support the legislation. We have had a good look at the legislation and we cannot find too many problems with it. The Liberal Party believes that the intention of the legislation was to provide additional TAB services to the more isolated areas of the State. However, after listening to the member for Stafford, it would appear that the intention is to install PubTAB into every hotel in Brisbane. To me, that presents some problems. I am concerned that, with the installation of PubTAB in every hotel, existing TAB agencies might have to close. I take the legislation on its face value. In reading the Minister’s second-reading speech, I saw that the introduction of PubTAB is to expand the service into more rural and isolated areas. Having been born in the country, I can relate to that. With the advent of Sky Channel, people in hotels in the smaller towns could watch the races in four States but they could not put on a bet unless they had a car phone and a TAB telephone account. The advent of PubTAB is great and something that will benefit the industry. No doubt it will raise some revenue for the Government. After the introduction of PubTAB in New South Wales, it immediately went into 170-odd outlets but in its first year raised only some $29m, which on average is about $3,000 a week. I have some reservations about the additional revenue that the Government may raise, but certainly it will develop sport, tourism and leisure activities in this State. I frequent a hotel on the Gold Coast which basically had a PubTAB, because the licensee or manager of the hotel had his own TAB telephone account and bets were placed through him with the TAB. One of the great benefits with PubTAB in this sense is that it removes that intermediary and the punter is now dealing directly with the TAB, which is something which must be encouraged. I ask the Minister: why has the Government decided to run with hotels? If it is trying to provide a facility which is available 24 hours a day for betting on any sporting event, whether it be in Australia or overseas, it could be made available through a hotel, a 24-hour service station or a 7-2-7 store. The Minister might be able to illustrate why he believes that a hotel is a far superior facility. I am happy that PubTAB is being introduced because I believe that SP book-making has increased since the Fitzgerald inquiry. During the inquiry there was a reduction in the number of operators in the State. However, SP book-making is alive and well since Fitzgerald, and PubTAB will reduce that. If one goes back as far as the Costigan inquiry, one sees that hotels and SP book-makers are aligned. They may be only small operators, but some of them could be part of a bigger chain of corrupt people. In that sense, PubTAB will reduce the numbers of SP book-makers. One of the other effects that the members of the Liberal Party are concerned about relates to the effect of the combination of alcohol and betting. On a licensed premises the mix of alcohol and the ability to have a bet might become a little volatile. Mr FitzGerald: Costly. Legislative Assembly 1702 10 October 1991

Mr COOMBER: Yes, it can actually be very costly as well, as the member for Lockyer said. If there is to be a TAB outlet in hotels, perhaps there should be direct access to it for people who do not drink. One clause of the Bill that I hope the Minister will explain in his summing-up concerns the selection of licensees in rural towns. There may be two hotels with similar facilities. They might both have Sky Channel and have been in the town for a considerable number of years. How will the Minister and the commission go about allocating the PubTAB licence to one particular hotel over the other? From my evaluation—although no doubt it is not a complete evaluation—the premises would need to have Sky Channel and the condition of the premises, the financial stability of the owner and the character of the licensee would need to be considered. I need to know and be happy about the criteria on which it will be decided one person will miss out. Finally, no doubt this Bill will have a minor effect on racing no matter what number of people attend race clubs. If it is the intention of the Government to install PubTAB into country towns, as I expect it is, the likelihood of a racecourse being within the near vicinity is not great. Every time the TAB improves its services, it has an impact on the number of people who attend races and the size of the race crowds. The racing industry is important and every political party in Queensland and Australia supports the racing industry. Every day of the week services are improved through Sky Channel, FootyTAB, and poker machines—which are to be introduced very shortly—and PubTAB is another facility that will impact on the amount of money that is left to gamble with. The gambling industry is very profitable for the Government and is always promoted. The introduction of PubTAB will impact on the amount of money available. Ms POWER (Mansfield) (10.14 p.m.): It gives me much pleasure to participate in this debate on the Totalisator on Licensed Premises Bill. The TAB is constituted under section 175 of the Racing and Betting Act. It has branches throughout the State and has its headquarters in Brisbane. The role of the TAB is to provide the highest standard of betting services to its customers with substantial revenue being directed to the further development of the State’s racing industry and in support of Government income. In 1990-91, the TAB began to re-equip its business and will emerge in 1992-93 as highly focused on providing a substantial and attractive recreational service with the capacity of a fully equipped retailing operation and a work force and agency network. Growth past the $1 billion landmark will be developed by initiatives aimed at streamlining race day programming, a new initiative-based agents’ remuneration package, the commencement of an extensive customer service staff training program, the replacement of ageing and unmaintainable equipment, the purchase of 4IP and the planning for a PubTAB network. This Bill to introduce totalisators onto licensed premises begins this growth process. On a recent visit to the Gold Coast, I took the opportunity to visit the Helensvale Tavern, which is a forerunner for this legislation. The TAB is attached to the tavern and will easily adapt to the guidelines of the PubTAB legislation. Mr FitzGerald: Did you back a winner? Ms POWER: I am not known to be a great bettor. Mr T. B. Sullivan interjected. Ms POWER: He is not good for me. It is interesting that, because of the committee process, the legislation does not simply arrive in the Parliament where members have to speak to it. Members of the Labor Party have actually participated in a committee process. I was one who had to be convinced that PubTAB was a useful way to go. I was highly critical before I visited the Helensvale Tavern, but I am pleased to report that I was very impressed by what I saw. PubTAB is on premises that are attached but separated from the public bar and an entryway outside the public bar. The room contains numerous television sets linked to Sky Channel to cover a range of race meetings. I was assured by Legislative Assembly 1703 10 October 1991 people using the facilities that it was a benefit to have several sets available. I found it a bit confusing to have races going in every direction, but I am sure it all makes sense to the expert eye. Mr FitzGerald: Some horses run backwards in some States. Ms POWER: It only appears to those on the Opposition side of the House that they run backwards. In addition, up-to-date information on race meetings and betting odds, etc., was displayed around the room. The tote machinery was in a secured area. The Helensvale Tavern has a pleasant atmosphere that has been transferred into the PubTAB area, which has chairs and tables. Mr Veivers: You are not going to run for the seat of Albert, are you? Ms POWER: No. While I was at the tavern, a range of people—young and old, males and females—used the PubTAB facilities. I was actually quite staggered at the number of women who used the facility. Many patrons commented that the premises were user-friendly and more pleasant than the ordinary TAB. Of course, some were attracted to PubTAB for other social reasons, such as good food, cold ale, or the chance to meet a favourite footie hero. I wish to point out to the House a number of very important facts that should be considered when making decisions in relation to PubTAB. Obviously, some members of the Liberal Party need to listen to them again. Firstly, PubTAB will not be used to replace existing agencies. Not all hotels will have, or can have, PubTAB. There is a very extensive list of criteria that must be met by the operator if he or she wishes to become an applicant. Strict specifications will then be imposed on the applicant in relation to any premises that will be operating PubTAB. As a member of the Premier’s rural and northern task force, I often heard from people in rural Queensland about the lack of recreational facilities available to them. The TAB’s marketing department has advised that PubTAB could be extended to certain country areas where a TAB agency would not be viable. I know that the member for Auburn is keen to see one operating at Wandoan. Other sites could be places such as Karumba, Birdsville and Anakie. While PubTAB is not everyone’s cup of tea, it will provide some social and recreational opportunities for its clientele. The guidelines for operation ensure that it will be controlled. I support the Bill. Ms ROBSON (Springwood) (10.19 p.m.): In my view, this is a very simple piece of legislation. I am a little bit amazed to hear some of the comments made by the Liberal spokesman and some of the questions he raised with the Minister. I am quite confident that the Minister will very adequately address them, but it seems to me that this simple piece of legislation does not make it difficult to understand exactly what the proposal is. As the member for Mansfield has just outlined, the proposal for PubTAB legislation is designed to enable the TAB to operate its totalisator in hotels. I would have thought that that is a very simple concept that even members of the Liberal Party could grasp. This will extend current TAB services. Mr Veivers: What do you do when you have got four hotels in one town? Ms ROBSON: In a moment, I will get to that if the honourable member will be patient and courteous. We will talk about it in a moment. Mr Ardill: He is not known for it. Ms ROBSON: Exactly. I know that he is not known for his patience, but I feel confident that he is learning. This legislation will enable PubTAB to operate during hotel trading hours. Members of the Liberal Party alluded to the fact that some form of TAB facilities could be operated at 7-2-7 stores or at service stations. I can visualise the scenario with betters waiting around for hours at a service station or a 7-2-7 store for the results of their betting. That suggestion really conjures up some fantastic images. Quite Legislative Assembly 1704 10 October 1991 clearly, one of the reasons I would have thought that PubTAB is proposed to be operated in hotels relates to licensing. I have no doubt that the Minister will fill in the member for Southport in relation to this issue. The Bill specifically amends three existing pieces of legislation, which are the Liquor Act 1912, the Racing and Betting Act 1980 and the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act 1931, which currently prohibit gambling on licensed premises. I would have thought that that was clearly understandable. When in Opposition, the Minister supported the introduction of PubTAB, and this legislation is simply the culmination of that particular commitment. I also support the comments made by the member for Mansfield in terms of the advantages that this will provide in rural areas. I now come to the question asked by the member for Southport, Mr Veivers, who will, I assume, listen to the explanation. The way in which hotels will be sorted out to determine which hotel will have PubTAB and which hotel will not is in accordance with the selection criteria which are clearly outlined. If the member were to look at the guidelines, he would notice that the criteria are very selective. Not all the pubs referred to by the member for Southport will measure up to the criteria. Mr Veivers: You go and tell them that. Ms ROBSON: I do not have that job. I have another job. If I had time, I would take it on, and I would have great pleasure in travelling around Queensland looking at pubs to determine which one is suitable and which one is not. The criteria are very, very explicit. If the honourable member read them, he would understand what this legislation is all about. I am pleased to note that this legislation will enable people who live in remote rural areas to indulge in an additional form of entertainment in which their family members can be included. Mr Veivers: And the kids? Ms ROBSON: Of course they will be able to take their kids when they go to the pub for a drink, a meal, a bit of entertainment on Sky Channel, and a bet. I would have thought that is a nice package. The member for Southport should be emphasising that people who live in remote areas are disadvantaged in terms of entertainment. I feel quite confident that the honourable member would support that contention. There is not much in the way of entertainment available to people out in Queensland’s far-flung areas. PubTAB, of course, will not replace existing TAB facilities. I mean, that is part of what the legislation says. Personally, in common with the member for Mansfield, I am not a great inhabiter of pubs, and I am not a gambler. I am known to have the occasional bet, but it is not something that I personally support, but I do recognise—— Mr T. B. Sullivan: What vices do you have? Ms ROBSON: I do not think this debate is about my particular vices. I am not prepared to discuss them publicly. I think what this piece of legislation does is clearly recognise that there is a need out there in the community. The Minister knows all about this. He has done the work, he has done the research, he has taken the advice of his expert advisers, and he has come up with a piece of very simple legislation that is going to accommodate the wishes of the people of Queensland. I particularly support the idea of freedom of choice and I am sure my opinion on that has come through in previous statements and debates in this House in which I have participated. As a member of the Minister’s committee, I am quite happy to support this Bill. I have been involved in the formulation of PubTAB legislation, I know the processes that have been gone through have been very thorough, and I know that they are in response to market demand. I see nothing wrong with that. I am delighted to hear that both the National Party and the Liberal Party are supporting the Bill. The Minister wants to cater for the needs of the people of Queensland. He has a reputation for understanding what these needs are, in terms of his Legislative Assembly 1705 10 October 1991 particular portfolio, because he takes a lot of time and puts in a lot of effort to make sure that he is doing it properly. I support this Bill. Mr ELDER (Manly) (10.25 p.m.): I think that it is worth repeating, as all my colleagues have said earlier, that this Bill purely provides an opportunity for the TAB to operate totalisators on licensed premises—in hotels. That is all the Bill does. It is just another positive measure to meet the growing demands of the far more discerning needs of the followers of racing, and has been years coming. I have noted that in the annual report for the Department of Tourism, Sport and Racing the TAB has outlined what it feels will eventuate with PubTAB. The report states that a substantial investment in PubTAB next year has the potential to insulate the TAB from competition which will be encountered from poker machines and it will also catapult the TAB into a new growth cycle. The investment will distinguish the TAB’s future performance from its immediate past when it experienced the frustration of short-term financial penalties which accompanied a re-equipment program undertaken to maintain its capacity to service its existing business. Following that re-equipment, and the board’s ongoing commitment to maintaining the high level of service to its clientele, the TAB itself should be congratulated on those measures. That commitment, I understand, will continue in many and varied services to the patrons supporting the racing industry. It is due in no small way to the positive approach and direction of the new board, the administrative management arm of the TAB and, of course, the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing. He should be applauded for that. Their continuing focus on providing, improving and, in fact, enhancing TAB facilities and services will be of enormous benefit to the sporting public. I will again refer to the annual report. I was interested to read about those key enhancements—and people have seen them in many of the hotels and TABs around the State—some of which are quite significant. There is significant expenditure on electronic data used to broadcast races. There is now the provision of direct television coverage for the major race meetings, and there is the provision of visual displays of a wide range of betting information in TAB offices. It is good to see that those strategies are in place and are responsive to the patrons’ needs. The report goes on a little further to say, in relation to the strategies, that it is intended that the customers of the TAB will be considered as part of the plan and that the board is responding to the changing expectations of its customers. Improved in-store service has, no doubt, led to the increased demand by customers for improved comfort in TAB outlets. The board’s new retailing image has been launched. If one is around a number of the centres, including the Alexandra Hills Hotel in my electorate, one will see that facilities have larger lounges, attractive decor, and better furniture and facilities. I believe that those changes that have been made, particularly in the newer agencies and those that are attached to hotels, are having a significant impact on the growth and income of the TAB. Obviously the member for Stafford, the member for Springwood, and the member for Mansfield have seen those improvements over the last couple of months. As I say, I think those changes have had a significant impact upon the growth and income of the TAB. If one looks at the financial summary of the board for this year, its turnover was some $1 billion. Of course, that contrasts significantly to the negative growth of similar bodies in the southern States. This morning, I read with interest in the Courier-Mail—I just saw it in passing, but it is quite relevant to comment on it in this debate this evening—that the TAB turn-over on the Epsom/Metropolitan weekend jumped more than 11 per cent—which is astonishing—to $14.3m. The turn-over by Saturday was $9.6m, and that was a record amount for a non-Caulfield Cup Saturday in Queensland. I should at this stage commend the TAB and the Minister on those initiatives that are Legislative Assembly 1706 10 October 1991 obviously paying dividends for Queensland, particularly when those types of figures are the responses of the racing public in this State. As the member for Springwood said, allowing totalisators to operate directly in licensed premises will give PubTAB the flexibility to enable it to operate during hotel trading hours. That will enable the provision of a much better service to the people in those areas. As the Minister said in his second- reading speech, PubTAB will be of particular benefit to country areas. Some areas in the country in this State have been unfortunate in that they have not had TAB facilities. Obviously, the viability of TAB facilities would have been questioned in most centres. Of course, PubTAB will enable them to enjoy the types of activities that are enjoyed in suburban and provincial areas. It is interesting to note that PubTAB is available in every other State in Australia. It was introduced in Tasmania in 1981; in New South Wales in 1983; in Victoria in 1985; in South Australia in 1986; in Western Australia in 1989; and, of course, in the ACT in 1980. The runs are on the board in regard to PubTAB. It has proven to be a very cost-effective distribution system for TAB products in those other States. As the member for Stafford said earlier, the Minister has been a long-time supporter of PubTAB. He pursued the cause very vigorously whilst he was in Opposition. I am pleased to see that finally that long-term commitment that he has had to its introduction has come to fruition. I will deal with some of the basics. The TAB will be required to consult with the Licensing Commission before authorising the introduction of PubTAB into individual hotels. That is designed to ensure that the necessary standards are met under the Liquor Act. Again, as the Minister said in his second-reading speech, we want to avoid at all costs the Tasmanian experience, so the Tasmanian method of introducing PubTAB will not be adopted. It led to an unacceptable decline in the standards of licensed premises throughout that State. When I was in Tasmania a couple of months ago, one could see the evidence of that. Some of the PubTAB facilities in that State are appalling. I am pleased to see that the introduction of PubTAB in Queensland will contrast significantly with what is available to the racing public in Tasmania. The Minister went on to say— “Strict criteria will be enforced to determine the suitability of an applicant to operate PubTAB. These criteria include such things as the proven financial responsibility of the proposed operator, the racing interests of the operator, proximity to the nearest TAB, ease of access for non-drinking patrons and quality of the premises.” Consideration can also be given to other facilities that may be required. A number of them were mentioned in the debate. One such facility is the availability of Sky Channel. There will be a need for a dedicated area some 35 square metres long within those hotels. As I have said, the quality of the hotel will be very important in deciding whether it will get the PubTAB facility. The member for Currumbin mentioned the potential for using PubTAB to reduce the incidence of SP book-making. At times such as these, it is very useful to recall just what has been said about SP book-making. If the House will bear with me—— Mr Welford: We’ll bear with you. Mr ELDER: I know that. Honourable members know that SP book-making was intrinsically related to corruption in this State—— Mr Veivers interjected. Mr ELDER: Sure. In his report, Mr Fitzgerald says— “Obviously enough, those who were able to pay graft in huge amounts must have been making very considerable profits, which necessarily means that the services which they were providing must have widespread support. S.p. bookmaking provides a convenient example. Legislative Assembly 1707 10 October 1991

There were undoubtedly a large number of s.p. bookmakers paying protection through Herbert. He named thirty-two. Many had earlier been in the first joke in the 1960’s and 1970’s. One had operated in a provincial centre for 13 years and had settled with his clients at the same hotel at the same time on the same day each week for 11 years. . . Where action had been taken against any who had commenced to take protection, it was a result of a mistake or a dispute.” Mr Fitzgerald went on further to say— “There is widespread knowledge of s.p. operations in that industry”— and, of course, in hotels— “and a number of those who engage in s.p. bookmaking are also registered bookmakers or are otherwise involved in the industry. Registered bookmakers lay off bets with s.p. bookmakers, and allow s.p. bookmakers to lay off bets with them.” As everyone is aware, large sums of money change hands. It is significant to note that even at that time, the TAB said that the impact in 1980 was some $20m, and it estimated that by 1989 the impact in lost revenue would be some $200m, which is an enormous amount of money. As I say, at times such as these, it is wise to consider again the comments that were made by Fitzgerald in relation to SP book-making and then look at what this Government has done since it came to office. Considerable measures have been taken to deal with SP book-making. This is just another one that has the potential to deal with the problem of SP book-making. Any measure that can assist in overcoming that problem should be applauded. I will not take up the time of the House any longer other than to say that I totally support the introduction of PubTAB in this State. I should go on for a little longer, but I will not put Mr Veivers through it. I support the Minister on the introduction of this Bill. Mr SZCZERBANIK (Albert) (10.37 p.m.): I will not take up the time of the House for long. However, I take this opportunity to support the Minister in the introduction of PubTAB. A few members of this Parliament come from south of the border. We are classed as Mexicans. PubTAB has been operating in New South Wales since 1983, with great success. Earlier this year, I had to attend a wedding in Sydney. I had an ale and a cold lemonade in a few pubs on the way down. Some of the hotels along the Pacific Highway were very small but they had PubTAB, and they were operating very well. I stopped at the pub at Berowra Waters, just north of Sydney, and had a chat to the publican. He told me that on a Saturday afternoon he operates at a great profit because people come out of the woodwork to lay a bet, and they have a drink and a meal in his pub. It is a family atmosphere. He expounded the virtues of PubTAB. Early last year, I opened the Helensvale Tavern, which is in my electorate and which was constructed for $4m. The owners are Bob Hagan, John Sattler and—— Mr Veivers: Peter Gallagher. Mr SZCZERBANIK: That is right, Peter Gallagher. That tavern is a fine establishment. I have visited it and enjoyed a few beers with Bob Hagan and Murray, who is the manager. Prior to PubTAB being introduced at that tavern, the corner newsagent was collecting $8,000 a week in revenue through the TAB agency. I am informed that the tavern is collecting more than $40,000 a week. Mr Veivers interjected. Mr SZCZERBANIK: Bob has the security well in hand. There are plenty of security guards about. The collection of that amount indicates how willing people are to attend a hotel and have a bet. I take note of the multiplier effect of that activity. Those people are not going there merely for a bet; they go for a beer, a bet, a meal and a day out. Mr Coomber: It is leisure-time. Legislative Assembly 1708 10 October 1991

Mr SZCZERBANIK: Yes, it is leisure-time and people are prepared to spend their money there. However, they do not attend the premises just to have a bet; they enjoy the atmosphere that the Helensvale Tavern provides. The Runaway Bay Hotel has a TAB attached to it, but the patrons must walk across the road and into the old bottle shop to have a bet. If it is raining, it is not a pleasant experience to have a bet at the TAB. Although the TAB is at the hotel, people do not want the inconvenience of walking in the rain and having to stand around in the TAB to have a bet. I urge the Minister to investigate upgrading all TABs in this State. I have visited the Surfers Paradise TAB and the Coolangatta TAB and believe that those establishments should be upgraded into one-stop shops at which people can have a bet and a meal—not necessarily a drink. The vision that I have of the old TAB is a place with lino floors where one puts one’s money in the machine, waits until the race has finished and then goes home. The Government should improve those establishments so that people can have a bet and sit down and watch the race on Sky Channel. We should not merely take their money; we should give them value for money. The member for Currumbin spoke about the problems that are created when people mix alcohol and betting. I point out that, when we attend the racetrack, we do not go there just to watch the races; we also go there for a bet. That blows that argument out of the water. Does the honourable member contend that we should also ban alcohol at the racetrack? The TAB is a $1 billion industry in this State. Even the member for Southport has two horses. My relations have been involved in trotting all their lives. They enjoy the racing industry. Mr Veivers: Terrific! My wife didn’t know about it. Mr SZCZERBANIK: The other night on television, the honourable member gave himself away. Racing is the fourth-biggest industry in this State and it creates a tremendous multiplier effect. It is part of the Australian culture that we like a beer, a punt and a meat pie. Now, if we go to the tavern, all those facilities are there. Recently, I spoke with the licensee of the Upper Coomera Hotel, who has been waiting for a long time for PubTAB to be introduced. He has been peeved off that it has not been introduced earlier. On Melbourne Cup Day, he might have 200 people at his hotel who want to have a bet, but they cannot do it. They must drive to the local TAB to place a bet. That licensee would like to have PubTAB introduced into his hotel prior to this year’s Melbourne Cup. He asked me if I could help him. I said, “If you can meet the criteria, there will be no problems with your getting PubTAB.” He has lodged a building application with council and is prepared to spend $100,000 on providing PubTAB at his establishment. Licensees are willing to spend money to obtain PubTAB. He expects to collect $12,000 or $15,000 a week in his establishment. At present, the people at Coomera have to drive to Oxenford to have a bet. Some of them get dropped off by their wives at 11 o’clock in the morning at Nerang, which is 20 kilometres away, and are picked up at 7 o’clock in the evening. They are happy to do that, but they would prefer that they could place their bets closer to home so that their wives would not have to drive so far. I support the Bill before the House. Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Wolston—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (10.44 p.m.), in reply: I appreciate the support that has been given by all members to the introduction of PubTAB to Queensland. I will reply to some of the comments that were made. Firstly, I thank the Opposition spokesperson, the honourable member for Southport, for his contribution to the debate. He expressed concern that the Bill had not been drafted correctly. That is absolutely incorrect. The current Racing and Betting Act—and more so following this amendment—does not authorise the TAB to operate anything other than totalisators on premises. As the honourable member would be aware, the legislation for the introduction of poker machines, which went through Parliament earlier this year, clarified that position clearly. If people are still confused, I can only put it Legislative Assembly 1709 10 October 1991 down to the fact that they are confused over the illegal rorts that took place for years under the former coalition Government with things such as illegal in-line machines on premises, whether licensed or not, which were adequately exposed in the Fitzgerald inquiry. I guess that, as time goes on and they come to appreciate the fact that they have an honest and an accountable Government, that confusion will gradually dissipate. I thank the honourable member for Stafford for his comments on the Bill, particularly those relative to the standard that should be provided by hotels. Already, we have seen that the industry is getting its act together. In the past couple of years, there has been a major upgrading of hotels throughout the State. I think that people in the industry who really appreciate what hospitality is all about now realise that they simply cannot survive in the industry unless they start to not only make their premises more family oriented but also broaden their economic base to encompass such things as proper licensed restaurant facilities, a TAB and, of course, poker machines. Up to a maximum of 10 poker machines will be introduced into hotels that qualify. The honourable member also made a very correct observation in relation to the hotel industry and it is one which will be affected dramatically by today’s decision by the Federal Government to introduce pay or cable television into this country. On prior occasions in this House, I have referred to the unfortunate mentality that exists among some administrators of the racing industry, which unfortunately I saw referred to in the annual reports of a race club only recently. In that report, the administrators almost referred to the TAB as being the enemy of the racing industry. They look upon it as a competitor. In fact, the terminology used in that particular annual report said that, in this modern-day era of racing, the TAB is preventing crowds from coming onto the course. The simple fact is—and I do not say it as a doomsday prophet, nor do I say it to be critical of race clubs or the industry—that the halcyon days of the racing industry drawing capacity crowds onto their tracks have long since gone. When I have gone south, it has been beyond my comprehension to see a club, supported by the New South Wales Government, spending some $51m on a new grandstand which, quite frankly, in my life-time will never be filled to capacity. The point I am leading to is that as we see this expansion of TAB facilities throughout this State and as we see the introduction of pay and cable television, which is going to make the industry even more competitive, there will be more people still who will prefer to sit in the comfort of their lounge or to share a facility with a neighbour, whether it be in the middle of the week or on a Saturday, bet on their telephone account and not go to the track. Racing administrators have to come to grips with that. They have to be much more adventurous in their thinking. They have to be more market oriented, as a number of the clubs now are. In that comment, I include the Gold Coast Turf Club and, for Mr Horan’s benefit, the club at Toowoomba. I think that, compared to some others throughout the State, both of those clubs have relatively young committees that are prepared to get off their backsides and really have a go at promoting and marketing their clubs. I give full marks to them for their effort. Quite frankly, it will not matter which Government is in office, patronage will continue to be a problem. Long after I am gone, this problem will continue to exist. My answer to it is that ultimately, particularly with the introduction of pay or cable television, the TAB will be looking at its business opportunities in that area. I can only say that I hope that some of the more motivated administrators within the racing industry take that same adventurous attitude and start to think pretty quickly about cutting themselves or their clubs in for a share of the action. I thank the honourable member for Currumbin for his comments. He had a concern, and rightly so, that PubTAB should not be introduced into every hotel throughout the State. I can give him an absolute assurance that that is not the intention of the legislation. As he rightly commented, I pointed that out clearly in my second-reading speech. This matter has been very thoroughly researched. As the honourable member for Manly said, Legislative Assembly 1710 10 October 1991 where PubTAB has been introduced into every hotel in a State, the result has been disastrous. That was done in Tasmania. I can assure honourable members that people who have invested money in their own agencies throughout the State will certainly not be sorted out and their investment will not be affected. Honourable members have my assurance on that. I might say—and I do not say it in any nasty way—that I get the distinct impression that people have not yet really availed themselves of a copy of the excellent guidelines published by the TAB, a copy of which I have here. Honourable members are more than welcome to look at them. However, I suggest that honourable members do obtain a copy because I think they will clear up some of the misconceptions that people have. The common thread through the debate tonight is that, with the introduction of PubTAB, country areas will benefit to a great degree. As honourable members would be aware, there are numerous areas throughout the State in which there are no TAB betting facilities and certainly no Sky Channel facilities for would-be punters. I think that ties in exactly with the initiative taken by the Government and the board of the TAB, namely, the purchase of radio station 4IP, which will be on the air under a new call sign early in the new year. Its first charter is to link up with some of the more deserted areas of Queensland to provide exactly that sort of service. The provision of PubTAB facilities in a lot of those areas will, for the very first time, allow people who want to have a bet to open a phone account and call the TAB direct, either midweek or on Saturdays, to be able to watch the races at their local hotel on Sky, or, perhaps even more importantly, to be able to sit at home on their property and for the first time have a direct coverage of races from Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. The honourable member also correctly made some references to the activities of SP book-makers. Let me make the point that I make continually: I would have loved nothing more than to have already introduced into this Parliament reforms in relation to the Racing and Betting Act to curtail the activities of SP book-makers. Again—and I do not say this in any disparaging way—members would be aware that the CJC has been conducting a very detailed inquiry and preparing a report in relation to SP book- making activities. As the honourable member for Brisbane Central pointed out some weeks ago in this House, unfortunately that report is now held up because a number of people are to come before the courts relative to those sorts of charges. It is felt that if the report were released publicly now, it could have an adverse effect on trial proceedings. However, shortly, that report will come to me and the Premier. Given the legislative backlog which we face at present, most certainly I intend to introduce those reforms into this Parliament prior to the Christmas break, time permitting. The member for Brisbane Central also asked why we do not utilise general stores and places such as newsagencies and service stations. The fact is that, on a large number of occasions in the past, those types of premises have been used as outlets for TAB operations. They were found to be quite unsuccessful, because they do not really address the sort of leisure market to which TAB facilities are being oriented. Members would appreciate that they are not places where people go for leisure- oriented activity. Consequently, they are certainly not suitable for that type of activity. There is another very good reason why the decision has been made to introduce these facilities to hotels. On a number of occasions in this House, I have spoken of the need for a proper rationalisation program of the hotel industry throughout the State. That will happen as new licensing laws are introduced into this Parliament. Part of that rationalisation scheme will ensure a general upgrading of premises throughout the State. To address concerns that some members may have about western areas of the State—nobody is suggesting that there should be a five-star facility in a place such as Wandoan. But certainly in places where three or four hotels may be competing against one Legislative Assembly 1711 10 October 1991 another, most assuredly the guidelines that have been set down by the TAB will sort out the premises that are considered suitable both by the Licensing Commission and the TAB for the installation of that facility. It is certainly not envisaged that they will have any effect on crowds at country race meetings. By and large, country race meetings tend to be fairly sporadic. One could not say that they are exactly regular occurrences. Because they are more socially oriented occasions, it is not envisaged that the introduction of PubTAB would have any difference on those areas. I thank the member for Mansfield for her contribution. She made some very excellent comments and observations about the role of the Helensvale Tavern, as did other members. If any honourable members have any concerns about the introduction of PubTAB, the first places that they should have a look at are the Sunnybank Hotel and the Helensvale Tavern. If they were to see the very excellent facilities provided in both of those premises, I am sure that it would put their minds at ease. As the honourable member for Albert rightly pointed out, when the TAB agency was located in the newsagency at Helensvale, the takings there were in the vicinity of $6,000 per week. Since it has been moved from the newsagency and located in the hotel, as I said, with its leisure-market orientation, takings have now increased to the vicinity of $42,000 a week. I believe that shows very clearly that people are looking for that sort of facility. Again, the honourable member for Springwood, Molly Robson, made an excellent contribution. As usual, she rightly pointed out that the selection criteria outlined in the paper prepared by the TAB adequately outline the requirements of hotels. Right from the start of his contribution, the honourable member for Manly certainly contributed a point that nobody else has thus far mentioned in this debate. He appears to have become the first member of this House who has bothered to pick up the copy of my department’s annual report, which was tabled this morning in the Parliament, and has already made himself au fait not only with the workings of the department but with the very excellent material contained therein as it relates to the TAB itself. The honourable member spoke of the activities of the board of the TAB. Certainly, this would be a timely occasion for me to give an accolade not only to the board but also to its Chief Executive, Dick McIlwain, who is in the precincts of the Chamber. He has been a driving influence behind the success of the TAB. As members would be aware, during the past financial year the board’s turn-over surpassed $1 billion. At this stage, the board is running some 12 per cent ahead of budget predictions for this financial year. When one compares that with other TAB boards in Australia—particularly that of New South Wales, which is now in a state of stagnation, according to the recent statement by its chairman—I believe that indicates clearly that this TAB board is business oriented. I will continually defend and go to pains to point out that this board never has been—and never will be while I have the Racing portfolio—appointed on a political basis. In fact, the board has embarked upon a major program of upgrading other plant and equipment throughout the State. Again, I hark back to the point that I made before about the unfortunate mentality of some people in the industry who seem to find it offensive that moneys that they seem to think belong to them in the racing industry should be spent on the upgrading of premises and plant and equipment. They do not seem to look at the big picture. The simple fact is that, if plant and equipment is not upgraded, a board or an agency will not operate successfully in years to come. I have had excellent feedback from hoteliers in various regions of the State who have very much appreciated the visits of members of my committee to their premises. They said that it was the first time that politicians from a Government had bothered to come out and inspect those hotels personally and confer with the publican and patrons at those premises to get a first-hand view of what was going on. The feedback that the members of my committee received from people around the State was instrumental in my Legislative Assembly 1712 10 October 1991 decision to allow the TAB to commence operations on Sundays. Last year, TABs opened for Sunday trading to cover the Moonie Valley race meeting. I had a little trepidation about that, as would any reasonable politician. I was concerned that there would be a backlash in the community, but, last year, not one complaint was recorded in my ministerial office and not one letter or phone call of complaint was received at the board premises of the TAB itself. Last weekend, as the honourable member for Manly mentioned, the TAB opened on Sunday for the second time in its history to cover the Moonie Valley meeting, and it will open again on a Sunday to cover the Black Opal Stakes in Canberra. That is a very important step forward in the business activities of the TAB. I thank the honourable member for Albert, who made an excellent contribution to the debate. When he spoke about such an outstanding and magnificent place as Berowra Waters, it was obvious that it was a visit by a discerning gentleman to a discerning place. I am familiar with the facilities there, and they are certainly first-class. The member commented on the need to upgrade TAB premises throughout the State. That is well under way. It is part of that upgrading of plant and equipment to which I referred. The days of smoke-filled dens have long disappeared. In fact, smoking is now illegal in TABs. That is one of the reasons why TABs have been so successful in bringing back a high female clientele. I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I commend the Bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. R. J. Gibbs (Wolston—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) in charge of the Bill. Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2— Mr VEIVERS (11.05 p.m.): I would like the Minister to clarify a matter. He said that, under the legislation, no other gambling machines would be allowed inside the hotels with PubTAB. I referred to pinball machines, but I meant to include in that many other gambling devices, such as lucky number vending machines. The Minister said, no, it is not allowed and it will not be allowed. I would like the Minister to clarify that. The Minister said also that crowds are disappearing from racecourses. In Toowoomba this year, crowds are already up 17 per cent. Mr Gibbs: On some occasions. Mr VEIVERS: Yes. At Albion Park at the big night sponsored by Fosters, the crowd was so large—and, once again, it was a record crowd—that extra gates had to be opened. I ask the Minister to clear up my first question. Mr GIBBS: I acknowledge that the honourable member is right on his second point. On nights or days of major events, it is still possible to draw good crowds. Unfortunately, that does not happen every day of the week. If the honourable member had concerns about the different gambling devices, he perhaps could have provided me with a list of them. I reiterate that the only thing that the Racing and Betting Act covers is TAB equipment to be used on those premises. Under the Gaming Machine Act, poker machines can be used. In relation to devices such as lucky envelope machines—I know what the honourable member is driving at. He obviously has a concern for some of the welfare groups in the community, such as school p. and c. associations. There is no intention of banning those groups. They will still be able to run chook raffles on Friday night. Mr W. K. Goss: Subject to GST. Legislative Assembly 1713 10 October 1991

Mr GIBBS: Exactly—subject to GST, as the Premier pointed out. People will be able to have lucky number machines in hotels, as they have now. Those lucky number machines are usually installed under an arrangement between the local organisation and the licensee. The Government will not interfere in that, although there is now a more answerable requirement for the types of tickets that can be used in those machines. In short, we are really talking about hard-line types of gambling devices on the premises. We are not out to penalise groups in the community, such as p. and c. associations and church organisations. Clause 2, as read, agreed to. Clauses 3 to 8, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND BILL Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts ) (11.09 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act relating to the Supreme Court of Queensland and the Litigation Reform Commission.” Motion agreed to. Mr SPEAKER read a message from His Excellency the Governor recommending the necessary appropriation.

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

Second Reading Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts ) (11.10 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” I have much pleasure in introducing the Supreme Court of Queensland Bill into this House as it represents the first step in this Government's commitment to rationalising and improving the judicial system of this State. The Bill is the most important single piece of legislation affecting the Supreme Court for over 70 years. Although the court system of this State has changed over the years, it has not kept abreast of the dramatic changes in the community, in the legal profession and in the nature and volume of litigation itself. It is imperative that the judicial system of this State be reformed so that it can continue to offer the service which the people of Queensland expect of it and which it has historically delivered. The Government is not interested with reforms which merely tinker at the margin and paper over the problems which we all know exist. This Bill will bring about important structural changes to the Supreme Court which in turn will affect the way in which litigation is conducted, appeals are heard and court reform is dealt with. Of significance is the fact that not only is a permanent court of appeal proposed to be established, but a position of Legislative Assembly 1714 10 October 1991 senior judge administrator is created and a litigation reform commission will be put in place to ensure that the reform momentum is maintained and that the judicial system of this State is strengthened and enhanced. As I mentioned, the Bill creates a permanent court of appeal. The need to establish a permanent court of appeal within the Supreme Court of Queensland to replace the Full Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal has been the subject of debate in Queensland for over a decade. In 1982, the Queensland Law Reform Commission recommended the establishment of a court of appeal but nothing was done by the Government of the day. The arguments for establishing a permanent court of appeal have been stated on many occasions but the main ones are as follows— Different skills needed The functions and skills required and involved with hearing appeals from trial judges are different from those which are needed and which are performed by trial court judges. A good trial judge is not necessarily a good appeal judge and vice versa; Improved performance A permanent court of appeal is likely to result in an improved quality of judicial performance, by attracting and permitting the appointment of judges of appeal of the highest ability to perform the special duties of an appellant court; Increased reputation and acceptance The creation of a permanent court of appeal with highly respected and qualified judges is likely to result in the highest acceptance and respect in the legal profession and the community of the appeal court, thus reducing both the number of appeals from decisions of the appeal court and also the success rate of appeals from that body; Judgments of quality The quality of judgments of a permanent court of appeal would arguably be better than that of a court of appeal which is not permanent and is comprised of a rotating membership of judges; Improved working environment The necessary environment to allow the principled development of the law in an appeal court could be better secured by a comparatively small court of judges operating in interaction with each other; and More efficient and effective resolution of appeals Due to the fact that appeal court judges would develop special skills in hearing appeals by their permanent position in such a body there would be likely to be a more efficient dispatch of the appeal court's business. Accordingly, the establishment of a permanent appeal court would contribute to the speedy and efficient handling of the appeal case load and the prompt disposal of appeals. In summary, the creation of a permanent court of appeal will lead to a more efficient and speedy handling of appeals by judges who are well respected and through their constant hearing of appeals develop consistent legal principles resulting in greater certainty in the law and a more effective administration of the system of justice. A court of appeal has operated in New South Wales since 1966 and in England since 1873. In both jurisdictions their respective courts of appeal have operated successfully and with distinction. The arguments which I previously outlined in favour of a court of appeal have not been obtained from reading academic literature on the theoretical advantages of such a judicial body. The advantages outlined have in fact been the experience of those appeal Legislative Assembly 1715 10 October 1991 courts in New South Wales and England. I suggest that those honourable members interested in this matter should peruse the 1986 annual review of the New South Wales court of appeal, which contains all the relevant information on the workings of that court, and the literature which has been produced over the years on courts of appeal in general. The proposed court of appeal will consist of a president and not less than three and not more than five other judges of appeal and will assume responsibility for all those criminal and civil appeals which are currently dealt with by the Court of Criminal Appeal and the Full Court of the Supreme Court. All judges of the court of appeal will be judges of the Supreme Court and, in addition to their appeal function, will also be able to sit as single judges of trial. As honourable members will note, the Bill specifically provides that the Supreme Court of Queensland as the superior court of record in Queensland, is continued in existence. The Bill also preserves the position of Chief Justice and provides that he is senior to all other judges of the Supreme Court. The president of the court of appeal under the Bill will be senior to all other judges of the court, apart from the Chief Justice. All existing judges and masters of the Supreme Court continue to hold office under the Bill. In short, the position and tenure of all senior judicial officers of the Supreme Court are preserved and protected by this Bill. Of significance is the abolition of the position of Senior Puisne Judge and its replacement with the position of senior judge administrator. For some time now it has become obvious to the judiciary, the Government and the legal profession and, I believe, the community that urgent work has to be performed on the administration of the courts. In a work titled Judicial Administration in Canada, the following comments were made on court administration in that country— "The process known in Canada as court administration is a somewhat ramshackle and outmoded conglomerate of diverse systems, the legacy of an unsophisticated social era. It is unschooled in modern management methods, lacking in modern business technology and equipment, and unalerted to the task of administering a highly complex and self-contradicting organisation. Courts now face the burden of effecting large-scale organisational reforms in a relatively short period of time in order to preserve the patterns of justice at the core of their being: the day-to-day operations in the courtroom itself." Similar comments could be made about court administration in Australia. As honourable members will note, under this Bill the senior judge administrator is responsible to the Chief Justice for ensuring the orderly and expeditious exercise of the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court in the trial division. It is envisaged that the senior judge administrator will be performing a critical role in ensuring that modern case flow management techniques and other needed reforms can be put into place and implemented so that the trial division of the Supreme Court can deal with matters coming before it in an expeditious and rational manner, and so that the court system is more responsive to community needs and is not misused by litigants. Honourable members also see from the Bill that another important reform proposed is the establishment of the litigation reform commission. The commission will be empowered to make reports and recommendations on reforming the court system in the wider sense. The Government is concerned that much of the legislation and the rules applying to the Supreme Court are in urgent need of review and reform. Many examples can be given of the antiquated nature of the existing Supreme Court legislation. At the moment, for example, pursuant to section 10 of the Supreme Court Act of 1874, the Supreme Court is, for all purposes, the Court of Error in Queensland. A layman hearing that the Supreme Court was the Court of Error would form the opinion that there was something wrong with the judges of that court, or at least something wrong with the way in which the court was Legislative Assembly 1716 10 October 1991 established. The reality is, of course, far different; but, then again, citizens do not have access to Latin dictionaries or to antiquated legal texts elaborating on how the courts came to be the way they are. At least, that is my experience in conversation with Mr Burns. Likewise, it may surprise some people to know that under the Supreme Court Act, a barrister of England, or Ireland, or an advocate of Scotland, or a barrister of the courts of New South Wales or Victoria is eligible for appointment to the Supreme Court, but not a solicitor or barrister practising in Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia, Northern Territory or the High Court of Australia. The existing legislation dealing with the Supreme Court is replete with anachronisms and inappropriate provisions. Who, for example, knows what a writ of dedimus is? Certainly not Mr Burns. Yet, at the moment, there is a Writs of Dedimus Act which still applies. Mr Burns: You can’t even pronounce it. Mr W. K. GOSS: It is very late. It still applies, even though it is more than a century old and rarely used. The proposed litigation reform commission will be looking at reforming this area of the law, and other areas, with the aim of ensuring that the statute law and administrative practices governing courts at all levels in this State are modern, relevant and just. The creation of a legal reform commission is an Australian first and ensures that there will be sustainable court law reform in this State. I anticipate and expect that Queensland will soon become the leader in practical judicial law reform in Australia and that, in other Australian jurisdictions, our courts will be looked upon as models. I said that the reforms would be practical, and I anticipate that they will be because the commission will be chaired by the president of the court of appeal and other members will be judges of appeal, and such other persons as are co-opted by the chairman, either generally or for a fixed period of time. In other words, the senior judiciary of this State will be holding and directing the steering wheel of change. I anticipate that the commission will be investigating the introduction of urgently needed systems for case management aimed at cutting serious delays and case backlogs and reducing the high cost of litigation. The commission will also be required to report and make recommendations to the Minister concerning the following— the future structure of the court system; general rules of court procedure, including questions of evidence; court administration; simplification and modernisation of the law; recommendations for increasing or decreasing the jurisdiction of the various courts with a view to the better use of existing court resources, thereby enhancing the public's access to justice by reducing the waiting-time necessary for a case to come to court. Although the establishment of the permanent court of appeal and the litigation reform commission will naturally increase the costs of running courts to some extent, the fact that no new positions of judge will be created has meant that the actual additional cost will be relatively low. Accommodation for the permanent court of appeal will be located at the Supreme Court building at Brisbane, but the area selected will need quite extensive refurbishment—all of which must be completed well before the end of the year to enable the court of appeal to be in full operation by January 1992. The judicial system of this State has served the people of Queensland well over the years. However, neither the courts nor the legal profession can escape the winds of change which are blowing through the Australian community. Just as the operations and work practices of industry and the work force are Legislative Assembly 1717 10 October 1991 being rationalised, so there is a need for the courts and the legal profession to likewise change. The high cost of court proceedings, the delays in having matters heard, and the complexities of the legal process operates to the disadvantage of ordinary citizens and the business community. It is essential that the judicial system be reformed and that this reform be spearheaded by the judiciary itself. The independence of Queensland’s judiciary must be strengthened and the high reputation of its judges must be protected. That independence and that reputation can only be guaranteed in the longer term if there is public confidence in the way in which the system of justice is dispensed. I wish to express my appreciation to the Minister for Justice and to the Attorney-General for their invaluable assistance and support in developing this reform. As I have said, this Government is committed to the judicial reform process and the reform process, and this Bill proves positive, not only of this Government’s commitment to this reform, but also to the central role that the judiciary must and now will play in this process. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald, adjourned.

PETROLEUM AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 30 October (see p. 1286). Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (11.24 p.m.): The Opposition supports the legislation that has been brought before the House by the Minister. I have checked with the petroleum industry. The industry wants this legislation to go through the House to make certain the position of those companies that are involved in the development of the gas fields in far-western Queensland and the Cooper and Eromanga Basins. There have been some concerns expressed by the people of Queensland when the proposal was put forward that Queensland should be exporting its gas supply out of far south-western Queensland into South Australia, then back into New South Wales in that we are exporting an important commodity that is needed in Queensland. I do share those concerns. However, I believe that it is only fair that the companies that have spent money developing those fields should get some return on their money. It is going to be impossible for them to build a gas pipeline back to the east coast to link up with the pipeline, to develop their markets, and get a return on their capital in the immediate future. However, I know that the Queensland Government has in the past discouraged the export of Queensland’s gas to South Australia until certain reserves were proven. I believe that those reserves have been proven and there should be adequate supplies for Queensland. This should be an impetus for explorers to develop the fields in Queensland at a faster rate. The Opposition supports that. The Opposition also supports the job- creation side of this legislation. We are told by the Minister that 600 jobs will be created. The Opposition, when it was in Government, supported the building of gas pipelines in Queensland. When I was a Government backbencher I went out to Moomba for a couple of days and inspected the facilities. I was rather impressed by the size of the operation and the tentacles of gas and oil pipelines that were scattered all over the desert and eventually arrived in Moomba. When it arrives, the gas is stripped of carbon dioxide. I think members who are concerned about the environment should be aware that the companies there do not float the carbon dioxide off into the air. As a matter of principle, they strip the carbon dioxide out and put it back into exhausted gas wells. It is possible that in the future—it Legislative Assembly 1718 10 October 1991 might be in 100 years’ time, it might be in 200 years’ time—that gas will be able to be used. It will have been stored in a reservoir that has stood there for some millions of years, so it is obviously not going to leak. Carbon dioxide is, of course, used in the manufacture of dry ice and for other purposes. The fact is that it does not pay to transport that gas to southern States. The other point that I wish to make is that in July the Minister announced in the Queensland Government Mining Journal the release for exploration of a mass of petroleum land in the Surat Basin. I wish the Minister success in attracting overseas companies, as well as Australian companies, to explore that field. It should be pointed out—and I will probably refer to it at another time—that Australian exploration companies spend more money overseas than they do on shore. So, there must be incentives in place for companies to expand their exploration for oil and gas on the Australian mainland, as well as on the continental shelf. This is very important. The hour is late. I will not delay the House by making a long speech on the gas and oil industry, except to say that the Opposition supports this legislation, welcomes it, and welcomes the gradual expansion of the industry in Queensland. I wish the Government every success in its endeavours. I believe that at other times I might add to the debate about what I believe the Government should be doing to increase the impetus of exploration in the gas and oil industries. Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton North) (11.30 p.m.): In rising to support this Bill, I wish to make reference to the comments that the Honourable the Minister made when he introduced the legislation. He said— “The passage of the Petroleum Act Amendment Bill will significantly advance the development of Queensland’s rich reserves of natural gas.” In this wide-ranging debate, I want to talk a little bit about the gas industry in Queensland, with particular reference, of course, to my own electorate of Rockhampton North. Honourable members would be aware that one of the first decisions that was made by this Government soon after its election was to extend the gas pipeline from Gladstone to Rockhampton. This Minister deserves full credit for his tenacity in ensuring that that occurred. It was one of my pet subjects. I am glad to see that that pipeline is there, and I was glad that the Premier opened it a couple of months ago. The fact is that it has created a very important industry in Rockhampton, and that industry is the one to which I want to refer tonight. I refer, of course, to the magnesite plant that is owned by QMAG at the Parkhurst industrial estate. I remember making reference in my maiden speech to the wasteland that had been there for years, which the previous Government had not bothered to do a thing about in promoting business. It is good to see the venture going ahead now under a Labor Government. The QMAG plant is processing the magnesite. It is due to kick into full operation by 1995, but in the interim, of course, it will be in production. It should start to produce some magnesite by the end of November this year. The plant has had a few teething problems. I have visited the plant on a number of occasions. Magnesite is a great product. It is welcomed. Because of its environmental use, it is one of the few initiatives in mining that the environmentalists do welcome. I understand that it has enormous potential in the area of oil spills. It has 1 000-odd different uses. It is a fascinating product. It is used in cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and oil spill clean-ups. You name it, magnesite is used for it. It is pleasing to see that the expansive area at Kunwarara just north of Rockhampton has enough magnesite for 30-odd years. It is certainly a great project. I think it is going to cost $161m. A great deal of that will be injected into the local economy. It will create 170 jobs. It astounds me that today that amount of money can yield only that number of jobs but, of course, that is what automation has done for us. There is no-one in this Chamber who can argue against that, that is for certain. I repeat that that figure always astounds me. It is almost $1m per job. It is certainly hard to come to grips with that at times. The Legislative Assembly 1719 10 October 1991 other great advantage of this product is that currently, Australia imports all of its magnesite products, especially the fire bricks that are used in the steel industry. That will also help our balance of trade. From where I sit, it certainly was a great initiative on the part of this Government to extend the gas pipeline to Rockhampton. It has granted us this wonderful development. The other side effect of it, of course, will be that the magnesite itself will be shipped out of the port of Gladstone. It will be moved to Gladstone on rail, so jobs will be created in that area as well. I, too, am cognisant of the lateness of the hour. I do not intend to go on for any longer other than to thank the Minister for his initiative in getting that pipeline for Rockhampton. I support the Bill. Dr WATSON (Moggill—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (11.35 p.m.): I rise to indicate that the Liberal Party will also be supporting the passage of the Petroleum Amendment Bill. The Liberal Party recognises that the petroleum industry is part of the mining industry in Queensland, which, as everyone is aware, is one of the most important industries in this State. In fact, it was interesting to see in the Budget papers—I think it was in Budget Paper No. 5—a table which compared the various industries in Queensland and the percentage of the output of each industry in Queensland with industry throughout Australia, and compared that with the population of Queensland as a percentage of Australia’s population. Mining was only one of three industries in Queensland in which the percentage contribution of Queensland was greater than the percentage of our population. That indicates that mining is a particularly important part of our industrial and economic structure. An honourable member interjected. Dr WATSON: I am very positive. It is a very important part of our economic and financial structure. The things that we do in this House which contribute to the stability of that industry and encourage exploration and long-term development are positive. This is one of those pieces of legislation that provide some stability for the companies involved in the development of the gas reserves and their export to South Australia. If the Liberal Party was in Government, it might do things slightly differently, but it is in that sense that the Liberal Party supports this Bill. Like other speakers, I am aware of the lateness of the hour and the lateness in the week— Mr Prest: You are knowledgeable tonight. Dr WATSON: As always, but particularly so tonight. I indicate once again that the Liberal Party supports the Bill. Hon. K. H. VAUGHAN (Nudgee—Minister for Resource Industries) (11.37 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. I take on board what they have said in relation to the lateness of the hour. In relation to some of the comments by the member for Lockyer, the speaker on behalf of the Opposition—I, too, have my own particular thoughts about the development of the State’s gas reserves. Gas is a very important industry in this State. It is a great source of energy and it is going to be an even greater source of energy in the future. The pipeline is a great development and will extend from Jackson to Moomba. I would like to see another similar project in Queensland. Once we get this development in the south-west corner up and running, we will construct a similar type of facility in the far west of the State. I would like to see more exploration for gas in Queensland. A problem is that the gas supplies are in the far south-west corner of the State. However, we must develop the markets. We were investigating the construction of a pipeline to Mount Isa, which would assist those further developments, but it has fallen through. In the near future, I hope that that project is reconsidered. As I indicated in my second-reading speech, in the long term we hope to lay a gas pipeline across to the coast from the south-west corner of the State. Legislative Assembly 1720 10 October 1991

I thank the honourable member for Rockhampton North for his contribution on the extension of the gas pipeline to Rockhampton. That is an excellent initiative. In the near future, that pipeline will be extended to another magnesite project in that area. I thank the member for Moggill for his contribution and for the consideration shown to the House. As the hour is late, I will finish on that note. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 17, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. K. H. VAUGHAN (Nudgee—Minister for Resource Industries) (11.40 p.m.): I move— “That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until Tuesday, 22 October 1991.” Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.41 p.m.