Legislative Assembly Hansard 1985
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Queensland Parliamentary Debates [Hansard] Legislative Assembly THURSDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 1985 Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy 2926 28 November 1985 Ministerial Statement THURSDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. H. Wamer, Toowoomba South) read prayers and took the chair at 11 a.m. PETITIONS Traffic Signals at Pedestrian Crossing, Bruce Street/Old Cleveland Road, Camp Hill From Mrs Harvey (994 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will ensure that traffic signals are installed at the pedestrian crossing at the comer of Bmce Street and Old Cleveland Road, Camp Hill. One Vote, One Value Legislation From Mr Campbell (21 signatories) praying that the Pariiament of Queensland will revoke present legislation on electoral boundaries and replace it with legislation based on one vote, one value. Griffith University Course in Family Relationships From Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen (81 signatories) praying that the Pariiament of Queensland will establish an inquiry into the Griffith University course in family relationships. [SimUar petitions were received from Mr Harper (14 signatories) and Mr McPhie (13 signatories).] Electoral Districts Bill From Mr Lee (51 signatories) praying that the Pariiament of Queensland wiU reject or amend the Electoral Districts Bill so as not to increase the number of electorates from 82 to 89. Petitions received. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ALP/ACTU Accord Hon. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier and Treasurer) (11.2 a.m.), by leave: Yesterday, in an answer to a question asked in this Chamber, I indicated that I would have something to say today about the ALP/ACTU accord and the productivity claim that is to be taken in the form of extended superannuation benefits. The Hawke/ACTU coalition Government under the prices and income accord, mark II, has imposed on industry and the business community a losing trifecta—new taxes in the form of capital and entertainment taxes, a 3.8 per cent wage increase and now a 3 per cent compulsory superannuation scheme to come into force in July 1986. This is the real trilogy. It is a trilogy that will cause business to fail, unemployment to grow and untold damage to the economy. The trilogy is a direct result of the coalition between the ACTU and the Labor Party in government in Canberra. The 3.8 per cent wage increase has added $4.2 billion a year to the national wages bill and now the 3 per cent productivity claim to be taken in the form of superannuation will add a further $3 billion a year. The proposed superannuation scheme will be set up by contributions from employers of about $ 11 a week for each employee Mr SPEAKER: Order! On several occasions I have asked for less noise at this time of the morning. I ask honourable members to desist from speaking. Ministerial Statement 28 November 1985 2927 Mr Bums interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: That is the trouble, Mr Speaker. Honourable members opposite are not interested in this side Opposition Members interjected. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: That is the tragedy. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Every day, I have had to wam the honourable members for Wolston and Lytton that I will not tolerate interjections while a Minister is making a ministerial statement. Mr Burns interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the honourable member for Lytton under Standing Order No. 123A. Mr Burns interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is the honourable member for Lytton's final waming. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The issue that I am highlighting today is a very serious one. I would expect all honourable members to be deeply concemed at the trend of events. The honourable member for Lytton can joyfully and gleefully talk about Mr Justice Murphy's retrial and so on. I am talking about something that will affect the economy and the people of this nation generally. The proposed superannuation scheme will be set up by contributions from employers of about $ 11 a week for each employee who is a member of the scheme. I cannot think of a better way to send business broke and destroy jobs. I wam honourable members that this proposal has profound ramifications for union authority, investment procedures and Australian corporate control. At present, no guide-lines have been laid down for a national superannuation scheme. However looking into the crystal ball, I can easily see that the unions will get great financial and investment power. About $3 billion a year is involved, which is an enormous amount of money to be thrown into the hands of union-leaders. The question must be asked: What will be the result if union officials have a direct say in and complete control over the investment of the funds? It is possible for a union superannuation fund to have 25 per cent of the capital in an industry. If unions invested the money in various ways in the community and in sections of business, the unions would be given unprecedented power. Evidently, it is not sufficient for Mr Hawke to give his union mates industrial muscle and political clout. This Federal Govemment has done a deal to give the unions even more financial power. But what worker would want to tmst the unions with his money, anyway? History is littered with failed ACTU financial investments. Honourable members will remember how the ACTU Bourkes venture ended up on the rocks. The ACTU Solo venture also ended up on the rocks. An appalling lack of business acumen has been demonstrated by Mr Hawke and the trade union movement. That is why today the nation is in the state that it is in. Now the unions, aided and abetted by the Hawke/ACTU coaUtion Govemment, have bludgeoned employers into this proposed compulsory superannuation scheme 2928 28 November 1985 Personal Explanation through industrial action involving the paint strike. Honourable members are all too weU aware of that. It is simply not good enough for any national superannuation scheme to be administered by a board comprising Govemment, employer and union representatives. The ACTU and the Govemment are one; they will outvote the employer on any cmcial issue. Indeed, no need at all exists for a union superannuation fiand. Industry has an exceUent track record in the area of superannuation. AustraUa should be alerted to the serious ramifications of this whole exercise and its effect on the economy. It is another seU-out to the unions by the ALP, a seU-out that is against the national interest and a sell-out that can only further delay any prospect of economic recovery. PRIVILEGE Transfer of Funds from Rural Reconstruction Fund to ConsoUdated Revenue Fund Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (11.8 a.m.): I rise on a point of privilege. I advise the House that in response to a statement made by the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Gunn) on Tuesday in this House, I have written to the Auditor-General requesting him to investigate— (1) The State Govemment's manipulation of Rural Reconstmction Board funds with regards to contravening section 13 of the Rural Adjustment Agreement Act and section 13 (3) of the Farmers Assistance Act, and that payments to the ConsoUdated Revenue Fund above normal interest and capital repayments constituted a breach under those Acts. (2) In view of the statement made in the 1983 Rural Reconstmction Board report that "the ability of the Board to fund later requirements has been impaired by State Treasury's withdrawal of $ 10m from the board's resources to fund other mral industry requirements"; the State Govemment contravened the spirit of the Rural Adjustment Agreement and the Farmers Assistance Act. (3) That the Rural Reconstmction Board was inconsistent in reporting the financial transactions of the tr?insfer of funds to the Consolidated Revenue Fund in the 1983 and 1984 Rural Reconstmction Board annual reports. (4) The inconsistency of official State Govemment publications in which the Facts About Sugar brochure authorised by the Minister for Primary Industries and endorsed by the Premier and Treasurer provided misleading information conceming financial assistance Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have to mle that this is not a matter of privilege. PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr INNES (Sherwood) (11.10 a.m.), by leave: Yesterday, the characteristic charm and dedication to accuracy which makes the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services (Mr Tenni) stand out in the House and on talk-back radio were again in full flight when he answered my question about desk calendar refills. In admitting that his department purchased Chinese-manufactured desk calendar refills which are more expensive than a competing Australian-made brand, he referred to my question as "cheap and nasty" and to my use of a Japanese-made four-wheel-drive vehicle, saying that comparable vehicles were available in Australia. What he did not say and what would have been more tmthful and less prejudicial was that my battered four-wheel- drive vehicle is a 1978 Toyota long-wheel-base Land Cmiser station wagon and that no Australian-made four-wheel-drive station wagon of its size or type was manufactured in Australia at that time. That diversionary misrepresentation invites further attention to other statements in the Minister's reply and, in particular, to the statement that the Australian-made product Privilege 28 November 1985 2929 was on "inferior" paper of "lower density". The product was good enough for a quarter of a million to be ordered by the Commonwealth and 2 000 by the Brisbane City Council. I table a sample and invite inspection of it so that all honourable members are able to make a comparison. The Australian-made product might be cheap—and even cheaper— but nasty it is not.