Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5435

THURSDAY, 21 MAY 1992

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

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Community Legal Centres From Ms Power (7 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will continue to fund community legal centres. A similar petition was received from Mr Beattie (23 signatories).

Rupertswood, Underground Water Supply From Mr McElligott (442 signatories) praying for arrangements to be made for the supply of water to the Queensland Nickel plant, to allow all residents of Rupertswood access to underground water. Petitions received.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table— Regulations under— Public Service Management and Employment Act 1988 Valuers Registration Act 1992 Surveyors Act 1977 Lands Legislation Amendment Act 1991 Land Act 1962 and the Lands Legislation Amendment Act 1991 Order in Council under the Racing and Betting Act 1980 Report of the Darling Downs-Moreton Rabbit Board for the year ended 30 June 1991 Report on the operations of the Valuers Registration Board Queensland for the year ended 31 December 1991.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Absence of Ministers during Question Time Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Minister for Education) (10.02 a.m.): I have to inform the House that the Honourable the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Resource Industries will be absent from question time today on ministerial business. PRIVILEGE 5436 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Queensland Economic Review Mrs SHELDON (Landsborough—Leader of the Liberal Party) (10.03 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Yesterday, in the precincts of this Parliament, the Treasurer released to the media copies of the Queensland Economic Review for the March quarter 1992. Despite a pledge from the Treasurer that these quarterly economic reviews—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! In what way is it a matter of privilege? The Leader of the Liberal Party cannot conduct an economic debate by way of a matter of privilege. Before I allow her to make the statement, I ask: what privilege was breached? Mrs SHELDON: It is not an economic debate. It is just a statement about the release of the document. Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is not a matter of privilege. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. I refer to the matter of privilege that the member for Landsborough just raised. I draw to your attention, Mr Speaker, that the document—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BORBIDGE: —was denied to members on this side of the House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition under Standing Order 124. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, when I am on my feet, I will not allow any member of this Chamber to talk over me. That is laid down in Standing Orders and I intend to uphold Standing Orders.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS BILL Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (10.04 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That the House will at its present sitting grant leave to bring in a Bill for an Act relating to the publication of parliamentary papers.” Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (10.05 a.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” Free speech in Parliament is fundamental to our Westminster system. Since the Bill of Rights 1688 it has been settled that “Freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”. This privilege was hard won. It was born out of the blood and carnage of the English civil war when the supremacy of Parliament was finally established through the Bill of Rights of King William and Queen Mary. Since that time the three great pillars of parliamentary democracy in a free society have been the Parliament’s privilege of free speech, the Parliament’s power of the purse and the Parliament’s sovereign power to make laws binding on the Crown and citizen alike. The battles of the Westminster Parliament to achieve its privilege of free speech in the seventeenth century have a direct bearing on the Queensland Parliament today. The Constitution Act of Queensland provides that the powers, privileges and immunities of Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5437 this Legislative Assembly are those of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom unless otherwise defined by an Act of this Parliament. The scope of protection provided to documents by the privilege of the Westminster Parliament was limited by an 1839 court decision in the famous case of Stockdale v. Hansard—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Order! The member for Currumbin! I just said that there is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. I warn the honourable member under Standing Order 123A. Mr FOLEY: The scope of protection provided to documents by the privilege of the Westminster Parliament was limited by an 1839 court decision in the famous case of Stockdale v. Hansard to reports published for the use of members, Lord Denman in his judgment making a distinction between material which the House may order to be printed for the use of its members and material published “indiscriminately”. In response to this decision the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 (UK) was passed to ensure that the scope of this protection was broadened to cover the publication of papers printed by order of the House and available to the public. This has been incorporated into the law of Queensland by operation of the Constitution Act. These provisions may have been adequate for the conditions of the nineteenth century but they have not kept pace with the vast changes in printing technology in modern times. The cumbersome printing press has been replaced by the high technology of computers and word processing. At present the Hansard reporters of the Queensland Parliament make available a printed version of debates known as the Hansard Greens within an hour or two of the debates taking place. Members have the opportunity to correct spelling and grammatical errors but not to change the sense of their speeches. A daily proof of Hansard is published with a further opportunity for members to correct errors. Then the blue-covered weekly editions of Hansard are printed by the Government Printer, Goprint. These changes have given rise to considerable uncertainty in recent years over the extent to which parliamentary privilege attaches to certain parliamentary papers, in particular, the unrevised proofs of Hansard. This has caused anxiety amongst Hansard reporters, Government printing staff and parliamentary table officers over their potential liability for publishing defamatory material. The extent of the privilege, and the admissibility in evidence of parliamentary proceedings, have also been considered in the courts in a number of recent Australian decisions. The Bill removes uncertainty by clarifying the extent of parliamentary privilege and the persons to whom the privilege extends. The Bill gives effect to the unanimous recommendations of the Select Committee of Privileges which I have the honour to chair. I should like to record my thanks to all my colleagues on the committee whose work contributed to these reform measures, namely, the Deputy Chairman, Mr Don Neal, the Honourable Bob Katter, Dr David Watson, Mr Darryl Briskey, Mr Jim Pearce and Ms Laurel Power. On 6 December 1990, the Speaker referred to the Select Committee of Privileges the question of the extent to which parliamentary privilege attaches to certain parliamentary papers, in particular, the unrevised proofs of Hansard. Mr Speaker requested that the committee report to the House on what measures, if any, were desirable to reform the law and practice in relation to the privilege attaching to parliamentary papers. The all-party committee engaged in an extensive process of consultation. The committee presented its report to the Legislative Assembly on 5 December 1991. The committee placed public advertisements calling for submissions and received 5438 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly submissions from a wide range of persons, including the members for Callide, Townsville, Landsborough and Auburn. The Parliamentary Press Gallery also made a learned submission through its President, Mr Tony Koch. The Bill now before the House is based on the draft Parliamentary Papers Bill appearing as Appendix C to the committee’s report with some drafting amendments kindly undertaken by Parliamentary Counsel, Mr John Leahy. This is in accord with the policy of Parliamentary Counsel to be available to private members on a confidential basis to assist in drafting matters. It is a policy recommended by the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission and set forth in the Legislative Standards Bill currently before the House. For the Hansard reporters, GoPrint staff and Table Office staff this Bill will remove the spectre of liability for going about their official duties of preparing, handling and publishing parliamentary papers. For members of Parliament the Bill will confer privilege on the Hansard Greens and daily proofs, thereby enabling members to fax this material to their local media outlets with the benefit of parliamentary privilege. It will thus make legitimate the common but somewhat irregular practice to date of members distributing this material to the media. For journalists and ordinary members of the public the Bill will mean faster legitimate access to a privileged record of proceedings in Parliament. Any subsequent publication in the mass media is still required under the normal defamation laws to be a fair report of proceedings in Parliament, but this should be considerably assisted by access to the Hansard Greens and proofs which may be provided to journalists by members. Let us hope that we never again see the sorry spectacle that occurred several years ago when two journalists were referred to the Privileges Committee for quoting from the unrevised proofs of Hansard. The Bill will also enable journalists to take a photocopy of a document tabled in the House, even where that document is not tabled with authority from the Speaker or the House. It should thus put an end to the absurd waste of time involved in having a journalist write out by hand the contents of a tabled document for which photocopying permission has not previously been available. The Bill defines the concept of “proceedings in Parliament” for the purposes of the application of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights to the Queensland Parliament, and for the purposes of this Bill. Privilege is extended to words spoken or acts done in all aspects of the Parliament’s business, including business before the House, Committee or an inquiry. The Bill empowers the House to authorise the publication of a document relating to a proceeding in Parliament. A committee may also authorise publication of certain specified matters. The Bill confers authority on a number of persons connected with the Parliament to authorise publication of proceedings in Parliament without a specific resolution of the House. This authority relates to a number of traditional publications, such as Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. A person is protected under the Bill from civil or criminal liability for the publication of a document tabled with authority from the Speaker or the House. In the case, however, of a document that is tabled, but not ordered or authorised to be printed, the Bill provides that this may be read, and copies or extracts of the document made and notes taken, without incurring civil or criminal liability. Where evidence is published by order or under the authority of a House or a Committee, the Bill protects a person from civil or criminal liability for publishing such evidence. The Bill allows a court to admit the reports of debates in the House as true and correct evidence of what happened in the House. The accuracy of the reports cannot be challenged. Private members’ Bills are something of an oddity in the Queensland Parliament. A Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5439 search by the Parliamentary Library and the Papers and Records Office as far back as 1880 revealed no record of private member’s Bills except for a 1931 amendment to the Courts of Conciliation Act successfully introduced by Mr Edward Swayne, MLA, member for Mackay and the Termination of Pregnancy Bill of 1980 originally introduced as a Government Bill but subsequently taken over as a private member’s Bill by Sir William Knox. Private members’ Bills are a feature of any healthy parliamentary democracy. They have been absent from the Queensland Parliament for too long. We must ensure that parliamentary privilege is kept up to date and appropriate for modern needs. Free speech is needed in Parliament now just as it was after the bloodshed of the English civil war. It is needed not merely because Parliament is the people’s watchdog on the power of the Crown in the governance of our State, but also because it enables the elected representatives of the people to speak fearlessly on any matter affecting the peace, welfare and good government of the Queensland people. We owe a duty to this Parliament to ensure that its privileges are clarified and fine tuned to keep them relevant to modern times. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Neal, adjourned.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1. Kingair Aircraft Mr HOBBS asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services— “(1) In January did the Government spend approximately $20000 to have the air wing’s King-Air stripped and repainted by a New South Wales company, instead of using competitively priced Queensland workers and did the plane return to Queensland with the word Government spelled incorrectly and with the Australian Flag, not the requested Queensland Flag, featuring in the design? (2) What was the total cost, including the correctional work, of this exercise in exporting work from Queensland?” Mr WARBURTON: (1 and 2) The aircraft referred to was the Emergency Services Air Unit Kingair and the repainting was carried out by a New South Wales company at an all-inclusive contract price of $19,000. The New South Wales bid was selected in competition with three other tenders from Queensland companies. The Queensland bids were not competitive. Although the Emergency Services Air Unit would obviously have preferred the repainting to have been done in our State, the New South Wales company’s all-inclusive quote was the cheapest, and there were firm guarantees and a proven track record on minimum turn-around time. Also, the particular company is known throughout the industry to have a respected, guaranteed high quality of paint work. Likely weather factors in Queensland and at Tocumwal in New South Wales in January were also considered in the decision process. The standard of paint work on the aircraft was entirely satisfactory. The word “Government” was applied to the aircraft by self- adhesive lettering and was incorrectly spelt. Opposition members: Ha, ha! Mr WARBURTON: It must have been a National Party worker down there. The error was rectified by the contractor at no cost. Contrary to the honourable member’s insinuation, the flag on the aircraft is, in fact—and always has been—the Queensland flag. The total cost of the repainting, including the correctional work, was the original all- inclusive quoted price of $19,000. I might add that there was—and maybe the honourable member who asked the question might know this—one disgruntled tenderer. Mr Hobbs: It wasn’t a Queensland one, was it? Mr WARBURTON: Yes, the one to which the honourable member may have spoken. In respect of that tenderer, let me say that a police air wing Kingair was painted 5440 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly by his company in early 1990. It was returned several times for rectification and is already in need of a complete repaint because of poor workmanship.

2. Department of Primary Industries Mr PERRETT asked the Minister for Primary Industries— “With reference to the fact that in real terms, the Department of Primary Industries has spent 7 per cent less on research in 1990-91 than in 1988-89 and 20 per cent less than in 1986-87 and also in real terms the department had available 22 per cent more external research funds in 1990-91 than two years previously and 27 per cent more funds than in 1986-87. As external funds contributed 23 per cent of the department’s total research expenditure in 1990-91 compared with 17 per cent in 1988-89 and 14 per cent in 1986-87 and as the department now believes they may not have sufficient staff to continue to service all externally funded projects unless external bodies are prepared to allocate funds for staff salaries and other infrastructure costs of projects at considerably higher levels than at present— (1) Does the Government agree with this assessment? (2) Will he ensure that sufficient Government funding is provided to maintain staff levels and infrastructure adequate to service all externally funded projects? (3) Does he agree with the department that the ‘user pays’ principle needs to be applied to industry research and to the delivery of services and products? (4) As regionalisation will lead to a duplication of administration, ie each region will have a separate administrative structure, will this lead to greater interference by administrators in the technical aspects of research, ie administrators telling researchers what to do and how to allocate their resources, etc? (5) How will technical and research resources be allocated across regions and how will these services be provided on borders between regions?” Mr CASEY: (1) No. (2) Yes. (3) No. Where there is a clear public benefit, the Government will pay. Where there is a clear private benefit, the individual should pay. (4) No. (5) Research and extension projects will be determined on an industry and natural resources management priority basis after discussion with local clients and communities. Operational details to ensure effective conduct of research and extension projects across the regions will be agreed by State and regional managers to ensure that clients and communities are appropriately serviced.

3. Stock Inspectors Mr PERRETT asked the Minister for Primary Industries— “With reference to the absolute importance of our livestock industries and the consequences already demonstrated in the Warwick district of the severe cutbacks in stock inspection staff— (1) As early retirements and resignations have resulted in stock inspector vacancies, will these vacancies be filled and, if so, at what time? (2) Have substantial cutbacks occurred in technical staff in the animal services area (eg stock inspectors) and, if so, how many more positions are expected to be lost with the winding down of the Brucellosis/Tuberculous Eradication Campaign program? Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5441

(3) As the role of stock inspector changes away from a focus on regulatory functions to extension services, will he ensure that adequate training is provided to staff to enable them to perform all tasks efficiently? (4) Will he ensure that as the focus moves away from regulation (eg away from issuing permits, inspections for ticks) adequate staff resources are available to provide the necessary regulatory functions?” Mr CASEY: (1) The vacancies in the Warwick district are currently being filled by casual stock inspectors while the process of employment of replacement stock inspectors occurs. (2) There has not been a substantial reduction in technical staff servicing animal industry areas. As the Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign winds down, there will be a reduction in resources in this area. Other animal industry issues such as tick control, chemical residue monitoring and technology developments and extension will require a continuing high level of technical resources. (3) The requirement for stock inspectors to be involved in regulatory functions will continue. Training for staff to help them be effective in their activities is a continuing commitment of my department. (4) Departmental projects will continue to be reviewed to ensure effectiveness and efficiency are maximised. Where regulatory functions are required, they will be adequately resourced.

4. Prince Charles Hospital, Open Heart Surgery Dr WATSON asked the Minister for Health— “With reference to the issue of waiting lists at the Prince Charles Hospital, for open heart surgery, which is defined as surgical procedures in which the patient is placed on a heart pump— (1) How many public patients are now on such a waiting list? (2) How many patients included on the waiting list referred to by the Minister for Health in his answer on 24 October are no longer in a condition to undergo or benefit from such surgery? (3) If a ‘list of patients whose conditions have deteriorated’ is still not available, when will such a record be established and begin to be monitored by him?” Mr HAYWARD: All honourable members in this place should know that so-called waiting lists are a very crude measurement of hospital efficiency and effectiveness. Opposition members: Ha, ha! Mr HAYWARD: Honourable members should listen. All hospitals—both public and private—have waiting lists, or, more correctly, booking lists. Simply having patients booked in for their operation is a way of ensuring proper utilisation of hospital services. I would also remind honourable members that some 9 000 in-patients are being treated in Queensland’s public hospitals every week, which puts the issue of waiting lists into a somewhat better perspective. Half a million people will be treated in our public hospitals this year—the largest number ever treated, which is a great tribute to the staff working in the hospital system. We also need to understand that those people on booking lists include all those who will be treated today, tomorrow, the day after that, and the week after that. The cardiac surgical services provided at Prince Charles Hospital cover all of Queensland, northern New South Wales, the Northern Territory and the Pacific Rim countries, so those people on the booking list include a good number of patients from outside Queensland. 5442 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

(1) In answer to the first specific question asked by the member for Moggill, let me say that as at 1 May 1992 the number of people booked for open heart surgery was 420. Since regionalisation of Queensland’s public sector health services, the reallocation of resources has enabled an expanded response capability for open heart cases. The number of such cases for the 1991-92 financial year will average around 32 per week as against 25 cases two years ago. This will allow 1 624 cases for the current financial year as against 1 381 cases in 1989-90, so there has been a considerable increase in open heart procedures in the last two years at the Prince Charles Hospital. In addition, in the last year since regionalisation, there has been a 15.5 per cent expansion in the number of less invasive but more effective procedures, such as angioplasties which are a less risky alternative to open heart surgery. For those people who require transplant surgery, there has been a 130 per cent increase over the last year. (2 and 3) To answer the other two questions posed by the member for Moggill, I point out that I am advised by experts in surgery and medical administration that there is simply no point in collecting such records. If the condition of a patient who is booked in for surgery deteriorates rapidly, that person is given emergency priority for the operation. In conclusion, I want to inform honourable members that this Government is seriously addressing those complex factors which can limit people’s access to specialist medical services in both the private and public sector hospital system—something which the previous Government failed abysmally to do.

5. School Improvement Subsidy Scheme Dr WATSON asked the Minister for Education—

“With reference to the School Improvement Subsidy Scheme—

(1) What was the total subsidy paid and budgeted for schools in 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92?

(2) What are the current guidelines relating to subsidy payments?

(3) What delays are there in receiving the subsidy and what is the reason for such delays?

(4) Which schools are currently claiming the subsidy and what are the amounts involved?”

Mr BRADDY: (1) This year, administrative responsibility for the School Improvement Subsidy Scheme was passed to the Department of Education from the Administrative Services Department. In 1988-89, under the previous National Party Government, appropriated funds for the scheme were not fully spent. I am advised that in 1989-90 and 1990-91, the appropriated funds for the scheme were spent. As the scheme was administered by the Administrative Services Department during those years, I have requested officers of the Department of Education to verify records to that effect. In regard to 1991-92—it will not be possible to identify final expenditure on the scheme until the end of this financial year. I table a document showing appropriations and expenditure for the scheme as requested by the honourable member and seek leave to have the details incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

$M $M Appropriation Expenditure Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5443

1988-89 4.25 3.641 1989-90 4.7 4.7 1990-91 4.981 4.981 1991-92 4.759 Mr BRADDY: (2) A full explanation of the scheme is contained in information statement No. 172 issued by the Department of Education in April this year.

(3) A number of factors impact on applications submitted by p. and c. associations. Those relate to health and safety issues, technical and building requirements, and proper consultation with the school’s p. and c. association. For example, technical assessment of the proposed siting of the project and its specifications, advice to the p. and c. association about preparing plans for the project, assessment by health and physical education officers in the case of playground equipment, the invitation of offers and the selection of preferred contractor by the p. and c. association, and final construction of the project.

(4) I have requested the Department of Education to prepare a list of schools currently claiming subsidy on major projects, that is, those attracting a subsidy of $4,000 or more. I table that list and seek leave to have the details incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The School Improvement Approved Paid Amount Balance Subsidy Program Major Works Subsidy to date to be paid to be paid School Name Amount 2 0 M a y 92 91/92 92/93 Albany Hills S.S. 33041.00 29287.50 3753.50 0.00 Andergrove S.S. 11980.00 10610.07 1369.93 0.00 Ayr S.H.S. 54500.00 50986.50 0.00 3513.50 Babinda Sec. School 137500.00 43646.57 76353.43 17500.00 Bald Hills S.S. 8408.25 7773.01 635.24 0.00 Caboolture S.H.S. 22687.50 18037.50 4650.00 0.00 Carbrook S.S. 30720.11 0.00 30720.11 0.00 Chinchilla H.S. 53750.00 0.00 53750.00 0.00 Chinchilla S.S. 7255.75 6114.17 1141.58 0.00 Cockatoo S.S. 22965.00 0.00 22965.00 0.00 Coombabah S.H.S. 23406.90 22821.72 585.18 0.00 Coombabah S.S. 28750.00 27500.00 1250.00 0.00 Federal S.S. 21512.17 19941.21 1570.96 0.00 Indooroopilly S.H.S. 7946.00 0.00 79.46 0.00 Ipswich East S.S. 8792.50 8509.08 283.42 0.00 Kedron S.S. 6497.00 0.00 0.00 6497.00 Kenmore S.H.S. 5719.64 3159.63 0.00 2560.01 Kenmore S.H.S. 155000.00 77504.62 77495.38 0.00 Kenmore S.S. 8096.00 0.00 8096.00 0.00 Kenmore Sth S.S. 9400.00 0.00 4400.00 5000.00 Kilcummin S.S. 5341.60 4482.50 859.10 0.00 Labrador S.S. 195661.40 180389.99 0.00 15271.41 Manly West S.S. 5850.00 0.00 5850.00 0.00 Maroochydore H.S. 207000.00 76608.00 68242.00 62150.00 Merinda S.S. 13364.50 12114.50 1250.00 0.00 Mundubbera S.S. 33212.00 32984.61 227.39 0.00 Nerang S.H.S. 38307.50 0.00 2000.00 36307.50 Parkhurst S.S. 11650.00 0.00 3000.00 8650.00 Patricks Road S.S. 41988.50 31561.75 10426.75 0.00 Proserpine S.H.S. 7749.13 0.00 0.00 7749.13 Runcorn S.H.S. 32806.49 29691.49 3114.51 0.00 5444 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Runcorn S.H.S. 28751.00 27508.72 1242.28 0.00 Runcorn S.S. 10555.00 0.00 10555.00 0.00 Salisbury S.S. 27347.50 1905.00 25442.50 0.00 Samford S.S. 120500.00 0.00 27000.00 93500.00 Samford S.S. 17931.00 0.00 17931.00 0.00 Serviceton Sth S.S. 8497.00 7585.06 911.94 0.00 Stanthorpe S.H.S. 18436.00 17886.00 550.00 0.00 Townsville H.S. 207000.00 199716.00 7284.00 0.00 Wallumbilla S.S. 25437.00 23805.50 0.00 1631.50 Warraburra S.S. 102350.00 0.00 30000.00 72350.00 Wellington Point S.H.S. 35371.75 33168.70 2203.05 0.00 Woodridge Nth S.S. 10159.00 0.00 10159.00 0.00 Woodstock S.S. 16300.00 14037.46 0.00 2262.54 Totals “Major” Approved 1879493.70 1019336.86 525214.25 334942.59

6. Optional Preferential Voting Mr LIVINGSTONE asked the Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts— “With reference to statements by members of the National Party on the question of optional preferential voting and, in particular, to a statement by that party’s Justice spokesperson, Mr FitzGerald, who has said that ‘members of the National Party are philosophically opposed to optional preferential voting’— How does this square with the National Party’s philosophical position a little over 12 months ago when he introduced the motion into this House giving effect to changes of the State’s electoral and voting systems recommended by the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission?” Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point of order under Standing Order 120. The question contains a direct quote from Mr FitzGerald. That statement was made in this Parliament. I can assure the House that I have not used that form of words outside this Chamber. Mr Speaker, you said that you will uphold the Standing Orders. That Standing Order clearly states— “. . . comment upon expressions used by another Member in a previous Debate of the same Session”—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have to accept the word of the member for Lockyer. I rule that question out of order.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Government Aircraft Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to reports that the previous Government jet, the BAe-125, was onsold at a loss of $2m to Queensland taxpayers, and widespread ministerial discontent with the second-hand Westwind, and I ask: is his Government considering the purchase of a larger executive jet, and will the Premier give a specific undertaking that no such purchase or lease arrangement such as applies to the RAAF VIP fleet will be entered into? Mr W. K. GOSS: The question is in two parts. The answer to the first part is, “No”. The answer to the second part is that it has not even been considered.

Brisbane Casino Selection Process Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to the delay in the announcement of the Brisbane casino decision and reports that senior executives of the Harrah’s group flew into Brisbane this week for last-minute lobbying, and I ask: in view of the Premier’s assurance that such lobbying would not be permitted, what action does the Treasurer intend to take to ensure that the integrity of the selection process is Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5445 maintained? Mr De LACY: There is no delay in the announcement of the successful tenderer for the Brisbane casino. A process is in place and, once that process is completed, an announcement will be made. On many occasions in this House, I have given assurances that the process is proper and that it has been and will be carried out at arm’s length from the political process. We appointed an expert committee, which has been conducting its own inquiry and assessment of the bids. Once that committee has a recommendation, it will be made to Cabinet and Cabinet will make a decision based on that recommendation. The honourable member may have some knowledge about executives of Harrah’s flying into Brisbane. I have no knowledge of that. They certainly have not been lobbying me and, if they propose to lobby me, it would not do them any good and I would not meet with them. I know nothing about it. If they propose to lobby the expert committee, I can give the honourable member an assurance that it will be done properly. They will meet with more than one at a time, and whatever advice is given to them—— Mr Borbidge: You can lobby two at a time, can you? Mr De LACY: No. The honourable member should listen. Whatever advice is given to them—if a meeting were held, and I have no knowledge of that—would be given to all other bidders. Mr Borbidge: The Premier gave an assurance that lobbying would not be permitted. Mr De LACY: The word “lobby” is the honourable member’s word. There is a process that the expert committee has to go through, which involves discussions with the different tenderers. Mr Borbidge: Tenders have closed. Mr De LACY: The honourable member has asked a question. He should let me answer it. The committee goes through a process which involves meeting on a number of occasions with the different tenderers. However, any advice given to one is always given to all of them. Mr Borbidge: After the close of tenders. Mr De LACY: After the close of tenders. I do not know where it is and I do not know whether Harrah’s is meeting with them. The instruction that the Premier gave was in respect of politicians. I know it is difficult for members opposite to understand this, because they never operated in this way. The Premier said that there will be no lobbying of politicians on this issue. There is no lobbying of politicians. The people of Queensland can be absolutely confident that the process that has been followed has been proper, will continue to be proper, and that the decision that is made will be in the best interests of the people of Queensland.

Effect of Fightback Package on Local Authorities Mr PREST: I refer the Treasurer to his statement that the Liberal/National Party Fightback package would cost the Queensland Budget at least $500m, and I ask: what impact would Fightback have on the Commonwealth/State fundings to small local authorities in Queensland? Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. This morning, I gave notice of a motion in respect of Fightback and the One Nation statement. Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the ruling that you made yesterday and the indication by the Premier that certain matters would be before the Parliament on the notice sheet, and your subsequently ruling, in my instance, that any further questions on that matter would be out of order. This morning, I have given notice of a motion in a similar way. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. 5446 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the Leader of the Opposition suggests that a member can give notice of a motion on any topic and then not allow that matter to be debated in the Parliament, that is outrageous. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. With respect, Mr Speaker, that was the ruling that you applied to me yesterday when the Premier indicated that he would be introducing legislation. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I do not intend to debate the matter further with the Leader of the Opposition. I call the member for Port Curtis. Mr PREST: I will repeat the question. I refer the Treasurer to his statement—— Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition made a disparaging comment about my ruling. I ask him to withdraw it. I warn him under Standing Order 124. Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. I withdraw the comment that I made. Mr PREST: I refer the Treasurer to his statement that the Liberal/National Party Fightback package would cost the Queensland Budget at least $500m, and I ask: what impact would Fightback have on Commonwealth/State funding to local authorities in Queensland? Mr De LACY: I thank the honourable member for the question, and I must say that I am amazed—— Mr LITTLEPROUD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, I request that you get the advice of the Clerk on the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his advice. I call the Treasurer. Mr De LACY: I am absolutely amazed at the lengths to which the Opposition is going to stop debate and questions about the Fightback package. It is starting to hurt a bit. Members opposite do not want to talk about the Fightback package any more. They want ruled out of order all questions on the Fightback package. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego will cease interjecting. Mr De LACY: I must say that I can identify with them. If I were sitting there trying to support the Fightback package, I would be cringing, too. At the National Party conference on the weekend, there was substantial debate about the Fightback package. At 12 noon, Tim Fischer was to speak about “Fightback and a Fair Go”. This was to be followed by Mr Ray Braithwaite talking about “Fightback or a Fair Go”. I understand that Mr Braithwaite was speaking on behalf of the sugar industry and that Mr Fischer was speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party. It is no wonder that members opposite will stand up and take spurious points of order, trying to stop these questions being asked, but we will continue to ask questions and answer questions. Let me refer to the specific question asked by the member for Port Curtis. Yesterday, I did make the point that there would be a cut in financial assistance grants from the Commonwealth to the State of $140m. What I neglected to mention was that grants from the Commonwealth to local authorities are linked to the financial assistance grants, so there would be a further loss to Queensland via local authorities of $6m to $7m. The Local Government Association has commissioned a report on the Fightback package. That report states that, if the Fightback package is ever introduced, $1.06 billion will be lost to local authorities throughout Australia. The report continues—and I am quoting from this morning’s Courier-Mail—that— “Hardest hit by the”— GST— “tax would be Australia’s rural and isolated shires which would have to pay an extra $400 million to the Federal Government.” Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5447

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Gympie under Standing Order 123A. Mr De LACY: In conclusion, let me say that the Fightback package is bad for Australia, but it is particularly bad for Queensland. It is about time that Opposition members realised they are Queenslanders and that they are not operating on behalf of the Federal Liberal Party.

Impact of Consumption Tax on Primary Industries Mr PREST: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries: in view of the New Zealand experience with the introduction of the consumption tax, could he explain what the likely impact would be on Queensland’s primary industries of the introduction of such a tax in Australia? Mr CASEY: This is a very important question and follows on from some comments that I made yesterday in this House. In recent days, we have seen confirmation by none other than a former Labor Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr David Lange, who said that, when he was in Government in New Zealand, the worst thing he ever did was introduce a consumption tax or, as it is known by the Hewsons, the Fischers, the Borbidges and the Sheldons of this world, the Fightback package and GST. What will really happen—and the people of Queensland are beginning to realise this—— Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have warned the member for Gympie under Standing Order 123A. That will be his last warning. Mr CASEY: This tax package will be a major burden on all rural Queenslanders and rural primary producers, more than anyone else in the State. The impact of the tax package will be felt in three major ways. Suddenly, Queensland’s primary producers will become the tax collectors for any Liberal/National Party Government that might be elected in Queensland. The primary producers will in fact be collecting the taxes for and on behalf of Professor Hewson and his friends opposite in this House, who totally support this package. As I pointed out yesterday, the primary producers will not benefit from the proposed income tax changes. There is a third important point that should be recognised. As there will be a 15 per cent tax on all foodstuffs in the community—the items that people purchase from supermarkets—the price of foodstuffs produced in Queensland will soar and they will become uncompetitive with imported goods. The imported product will be much cheaper than the locally produced product. Opposition members: Lie! Mr CASEY: Just listen to the members opposite. They realise that the personal reduction in income tax is only for the benefit of the white-shoe brigade of the Gold Coast and the George Street farmers. I will cite an example of that fact. Those farmers who earn $25,000 or less will only receive a 6 per cent after-tax gain. Those farmers who earn $75,000 will receive a 15 per cent gain. The cost of goods and services will be proportionately more with the introduction of the 15 per cent tax and all other factors. Company tax actually increases under this Hewson/Fischer/Borbidge/Sheldon tax policy. I could cite many other examples. In conclusion, I say that this tax policy has the potential to seriously jeopardise the tentative recovery this State is beginning to notice in its primary industries—— Mr LITTLEPROUD: I rise to a point of order. I ask Mr Speaker how long he will allow this question time to be prostituted when the Government will not debate the One Nation—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr CASEY: My final point is simply that the members opposite scream and yell when Government members stick it to them about this tax policy, because they realise 5448 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly that rural Queensland now understands that the Opposition has no meaningful relationship with them whatsoever. Unemployment Mrs SHELDON: I refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to the prediction in the Government’s Queensland Economic Review publication that unemployment rates can be expected to reach higher levels. I ask: as the same review also predicts an investment drought in Queensland, with total fixed capital expenditure falling a further 10 per cent in the next financial year after a 6 per cent fall this year, and in the light of these disastrous economic predictions by the Government’s report, how much higher does the Minister expect unemployment to go in Queensland? Mr VAUGHAN: I heard the Leader of the Liberal Party this morning on the ABC’s Henshaw program, when she virtually debated the economic statement with the Treasurer. I do not believe I have to answer the question asked by the Leader of the Liberal Party, because the Treasurer handled the situation very well. However, I am concerned about the extent to which both the Liberal Party and the National Party are continually knocking this State. What this Government must do is look at the situation in a positive light. However, since the Leader of the Liberal Party has raised the question of unemployment in this State, I take the opportunity to quote a few facts. I believe that the Leader of the Liberal Party was referring to figures relative to March this year. However, the latest figures that are available are those for April. In April this year, when the figures for unemployment came out, the unemployment rate for Queensland had fallen from a figure of 10.5 per cent in April 1991 to 9.7 per cent in April 1992. In comparison, the Australian unemployment rate was 10.4 per cent. That figure shows that Queensland and Western Australia were the only States to record falls in unemployment rates over the April 1991 to 1992 year. This figure placed Queensland on a level pegging with New South Wales. Queensland now has the same unemployment rate as that in New South Wales. If one compares the employment position in Queensland as at April 1992 with that which existed in April 1991, one will see that Queensland now has 1 336 600 people in work. That figure means that in April 1992 there are 42 800 more people in this State who have jobs than there were in May 1991. That figure represents 30 900 more jobs than there were in April 1991. On the Henshaw program, the Leader of the Liberal Party also referred to youth unemployment. She made some comments in relation to that subject, and the Treasurer pointed out the correct position. As the Leader of the Liberal Party has raised the matter in this House, I place on record that in April 1992, when the unemployment statistics were released in Queensland, the youth unemployment rate was 25.1 per cent, in comparison with 27.7 per cent for April 1991. The latest statistic represents a figure of 18 500 young people out of work. That figure should be compared with the Australian rate of 31.6 per cent. I stress to the House the extent to which the Queensland Government is dealing with unemployment. The figures speak for themselves. When honourable members examine the way in which the figures have decreased from April 1991 to April 1992, they see evidence of that fact. I conclude my remarks by reminding the Leader of the Liberal Party of the funding and initiatives taken by the Government to deal with unemployment. In the 1991-92 Budget, a figure of $4.8m was allocated to be spent on unemployment issues. The Government is addressing the issue of training for young people. If the Leader of the Liberal Party requires further details on the extent to which this Government is addressing that issue, she is quite welcome to approach me or my departmental officers.

Skilled Job Vacancies Mrs SHELDON: Obviously, the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations believes that the figures that have been quoted in the Queensland Economic Review are incorrect. It also shows that skilled job vacancies in Queensland in the March quarter lagged well behind the national average, that is, a 3.2 increase in Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5449

Queensland compared with a 3.9 per cent nationally. I ask the Minister: why is Queensland lagging well behind the national average in this most important area? Mr VAUGHAN: I welcome the opportunity to direct my answer to the Leader of the Liberal Party. When the Labor Party took over the Government in December 1989, TAFE funding in this State was seriously deficient. In comparison with the rest of Australia, Queensland was approximately 30 per cent behind the national average. For the 1991-92 financial year, an additional $69m will be allocated for TAFE funding. The total figure that this Government has allocated for TAFE in this financial year is $395m. The Leader of the Liberal Party referred to the training of young people. I point out that recently, the Government commissioned a survey to assess the employment success rate of skilled people who were trained through Queensland’s TAFE system. That survey revealed that 70 per cent of the students who entered the TAFE system as full-time or part-time students gained employment. Students who were previously unemployed before entering the TAFE system have a 49 per cent success rate of gaining employment. I believe that those figures speak for themselves. This Government has upgraded TAFE funding. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, during the Labor Party’s first term in office in 1990-91, it increased TAFE funding by 12 per cent. This financial year, the Government has increased it by 27 per cent. That increased funding has brought Queensland up to the same level as that of other States of Australia. In comparison, when the Labor Party came to office, TAFE funding in this State was approximately 30 per cent less than it was in other States.

Effect of Fightback Package on Transport Mr PITT: I refer the Minister for Transport to the Federal coalition’s Fightback package and the proposed introduction of a 15 per cent goods and services tax, and I ask: what impact will those measures have on road use and freight costs in Queensland? Mr SLACK: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, surely there is a standard of reasonableness that must apply, and in respect of which you have a discretion, in regard to repeated questions about the same subject? Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAMILL: I welcome the question from the honourable member for Mulgrave. I understand the sensitivity of the Opposition. Quite clearly, the Fightback package that has been served up to the public of Queensland is nothing more and nothing less than a re-run of Malcolm Fraser’s deceptive campaign in 1977. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lockyer will cease interjecting. I warn him under Standing Order 123A. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order 70, which states— “. . . a Minister or Member shall not debate the subject to which it refers.” My point of order is that the Opposition is happy to have a full-ranging debate, but it would like to participate in it. During question time today, the Minister and other Ministers have clearly been in breach of Standing Order 70. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAMILL: The Fightback package is similar to that fistful of dollars campaign of 1977. On the face of it, it is claimed that Fightback will apply a 15 per cent goods and services tax, but at the same time it will abolish fuel excise. Mr Johnson: Do you understand it? No, you don’t understand it. 5450 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Mr HAMILL: I think the honourable member is disputing the basic tenets of the Fightback package. Mr Littleproud interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. I warn him under Standing Order 123A. Mr HAMILL: That package looks deceptively attractive, but the impact falls very heavily on a State such as Queensland in which huge distances have to be covered. Queensland’s transport industry depends very heavily upon road transport. An interesting article by David Kelly has been published in a very worthy journal titled Queensland Country Life. It is dated 26 March 1992, and it states— “The abolition of fuel excise, one of the key offsets against Coalition’s proposed GST for country people, threatens to blow a huge hole in its Fightback package.” Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Gregory under Standing Order 123A. Mr HAMILL: The article continues— “It’s a hole worth $5 billion and big enough, at the risk of stretching the metaphor, to drive a truck through.” Mr Kelly is quite correct. The abolition of fuel excise will knock a $5 billion hole in Commonwealth revenue. The impact is very serious because it will strike hard at the funds that are available for roads. Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. That proposition is utterly outrageous. That money goes into Consolidated Revenue. It is not allocated to road funding at all. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will resume his seat when I am on my feet. There is no point of order. I warn the member for Flinders under Standing Order 123A. Mr HAMILL: Even someone who seeks to go to Canberra, such as the member for Flinders, should take note of the fact that last year approximately $5.8 billion was raised by the Commonwealth through fuel excise, of which $1.5 billion was returned to the States through road revenue. Mr Elliott interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Cunningham under Standing Order 123A. Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet, and the member for Flinders will resume his seat. I will hear the point of order from the member for Auburn. Mr HARPER: This morning, I have been listening to the debate, as have you, Mr Speaker, and the answers from the Ministers of the Crown. Mr Speaker, in view of the seriousness of at least two notices of motion on the notice paper, I believe it is imperative that you give a clear and unequivocal ruling as to whether answers such as the one that the Minister for Transport is now giving constitute a debate or not. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have given my ruling. Question time—— Mrs McCauley interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Callide will withdraw that comment. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no provision in Erskine May that prohibits the asking of questions that refer to matters before the House. In fact, Standing Order 67A states that questions may be put to a Minister relating to proceedings pending in the Legislative Assembly. Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5451

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, in taking note of what you have said, I draw your attention to a different interpretation that was applied yesterday when I sought to ask a question of the Premier. You indicated that because the Premier had intended to introduce particular matters into the House, any subsequent questions from me were out of order. I ask for your clarification on those two different rulings in two days. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Both of my rulings were correct. Question time will continue. I have made my rulings. I do not intend to debate matters with the Leader of the Opposition. I call the Minister for Transport. Mr HAMILL: I thank you for your ruling, Mr Speaker, because I am determined to get the facts before the Parliament. Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, I ask for your ruling on page 337 of Erskine May, which states that in questions members may not ask for information, and that information may not be given in an answer. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Transport. Mr HAMILL: At least it is good that this Parliament has changed. National Party members never gave us information when we were in Opposition. But I will tell you what—we are going to give them some information this morning! The abolition of fuel excise would have a dramatic impact upon the moneys available for roads—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members are walking around the Chamber. I find that to be obstructing the Parliament. Members will either resume their seats or leave the Chamber. I refer to the member for Flinders and the member for Mirani. Members will either resume their seats or leave the Chamber. Mr HAMILL: I believe that $1.5 billion of Commonwealth fuel excise goes directly back to road construction in this country. With a slash of a pen, that $1.5 billion would be abolished by the Fightback package. But it gets worse. The Federal coalition has not told the road transport industry or rural industry about the magnitude of the new mass/distance charges that are proposed by Professor Hewson in his Fightback package. Mr Elliott interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Cunningham under Standing Order 123A. Mr BEANLAND: I rise to a point of order. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have already warned the member for Warrego under Standing Order 123A. I was on my feet. He will now leave the Chamber. Whereupon the honourable member for Warrego withdrew from the Chamber. Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is the point of order of the member for Toowong? Mr BEANLAND: Mr Speaker, I refer you to Standing Order 70, which sets out clearly that a Minister or member shall not debate a subject to which the answer refers, and also that an answer shall be relevant to the question. I contend that on both counts the Minister is outside that Standing Order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will finish his answer. Mr HAMILL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, what has not been told to the road transport industry by the Federal Opposition is the magnitude of those new mass/distance charges to which Dr Hewson has referred. He will not tell us about that. Furthermore—and this is very pertinent to the issue—the GST itself, on the calculations of the road transport industry—— Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gregory will cease interjecting. I have already warned him under Standing Order 123A. He will now leave the Chamber. 5452 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Whereupon the honourable member for Gregory withdrew from the Chamber. Mr BEANLAND: Mr Speaker—— Mr HAMILL: Upon the determination of the road transport industry, in its publication—— Mr BEANLAND: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, once again I refer you to Standing Order 70. The Minister is still continuing in contradiction of that Standing Order. He is still debating the question. The answer is irrelevant to the question. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Toowong that the Speaker is aware of the Standing Orders. I have already asked the Minister to conclude his answer. I call the Minister for Transport. Mr HAMILL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In an article in Truck and Bus Transportation—— Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, earlier, when you warned a member under Standing Order 124 for speaking while you were on your feet, Hansard will record that you said, “I will uphold the Standing Orders of this Parliament.” Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr HAMILL: Before I was so rudely interrupted—that Truck and Bus Transportation article details the impact of GST on the costs to the road transport industry. The author of that article has shown clearly a 3.3 per cent increase in costs to the road transport operator. For the benefit of members opposite, I table that article. In other words—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I believe that the Minister has adequately answered the question.

Opposition Education Policies Mr PITT: In directing a question to the Minister for Education, I refer to the Federal Opposition’s Fightback package, and I ask: what effect would the Opposition’s education policies have on young Queenslanders seeking places at university? Mr BRADDY: The rabble, which pretends to be an Opposition, has been interjecting continuously—— Mr LITTLEPROUD: I rise to a point of order. I find that comment offensive, and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will withdraw the comment. Mr BRADDY: I withdraw the comment about “rabble”. I have heard the opposition parties posturing in this place about how they want to debate the Fightback package. Yesterday, those members had that chance. A matter of special public importance was debated in this place, and its topic was chosen by members of the National Party. But they did not request a debate on the Fightback package. Their posturing is a joke. In relation to the Opposition’s education policy—I refer to the policy arising out of the Fightback package that has been adopted by the Liberal and National Parties. That policy will require Queensland students to enter universities by paying fees under a voucher system. The effect of that will be to reduce significantly the number of people who want to attend our great regional universities in Townsville, Rockhampton and Toowoomba, where they will be forced to peddle vouchers. This Opposition and this Liberal Party support that scheme. Forget about Hewson and Fightback. What do the opposition parties say about that? They want only the rich and privileged to enter our universities. That scheme was abandoned several decades ago. They should forget their posturing about wanting that debate. They do not want to debate this issue. They could have debated it yesterday. They are a sham. Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, earlier I asked for a ruling on a Standing Order and honourable members thought the matter was funny. At page 337, Erskine May states— Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5453

“The purpose of a question is to . . . press for action; it should not be limited to giving information, or framed so as to suggest its own answer or convey a particular point of view, and it should not be in effect a short speech.” Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Taxes and Charges Mr LITTLEPROUD: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to his Government’s undertaking that taxes and charges would not increase on average above the CPI and to figures in the March economic statement which show receipts from licences and permits running 32.9 per cent ahead of receipts for the same period last year; receipts for regulatory fees running 18.4 per cent ahead of last year; and all taxes, fees and fines running 10.4 per cent ahead of last year. I refer also to the Treasurer’s Budget prediction that receipts from all taxes, fees and fines will finish the year 8.9 per cent ahead of last year. I ask: how does he reconcile those increases with a CPI running at 1.7 per cent? Mr Hamill: Growth. Mr De LACY: Cannot the Deputy Leader of the Opposition understand that? It is called growth. It is called an improvement in the economy. As the economy picks up, so does the amount of taxes, fees and fines that are paid by the various components. I will give the Deputy Leader of the Opposition an example. If companies employ more people, they pay more payroll tax. It is as simple as that. That is one of the Government’s aims and a matter about which it is very pleased.

Queensland Economy Mr LITTLEPROUD: I am delighted to hear that answer, because I now direct a question to the Treasurer about growth. I refer to his shonky record of faulty forecasts on the growth of the Queensland economy, to the estimate of 2.4 per cent in his first Budget—which resulted in negative growth—and to his forecast of 2.3 per cent growth this financial year, which he has recently more than halved and forecast to be just 1.1 per cent. I refer also to the economic review of the March quarter which indicates gross State product grew over the current financial year to the end of December by just 0.2 per cent. I ask: in view of those contradictory figures and his declaration that the recession is over, what is his new forecast for growth in the Queensland economy? Mr De LACY: I am not sure what figures the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is using, but the Queensland Economic Review—— Mr Littleproud: You said it was only 2.3. What do you forecast now? Mr De LACY: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should wait and I will tell him. There was positive growth in the first two quarters of this financial year—to the end of December. Mr Littleproud: You said it was only 2.3. Mr De LACY: I heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s question. He should calm down. While the rest of Australia was still in recession, we had two quarters of positive economic growth. The Budget forecast was for 2.3 per cent. When the seriousness of the drought became obvious, we revised that figure down to 1.1 per cent. On current figures, I expect that the figure will reach and exceed 1.1 per cent growth at the end of this financial year. However, international and national circumstances cannot be predicted. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and all other members of the Opposition, when they read those figures, to compare the way that Queensland is performing with the way that every other State in Australia is performing. That is the context in which Queensland is performing. There is no way that Queensland can come out of the recession while the rest of Australia is deeply in recession. Half of our markets are in New South Wales and Victoria. Every time we create a job in Queensland, people from New South Wales and Victoria come to 5454 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Queensland looking for work. Honourable members opposite need to understand that. It is funny how, when they were in Government, they used to understand it. Now that they are in Opposition, they have forgotten about it. I do not know how the Deputy Leader of the Opposition can read that document and come to the kind of negative conclusions to which he and the Liberal Party are coming. He is wearing purely negative and anti- Queensland glasses.

Bread Industry Mr DAVIES: I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industries. He will be aware of my ongoing interest in the Bread Industry Authority. I ask: can he inform the House of the possible impact of the Government’s recent decision to deregulate the Queensland bread industry? Mr CASEY: The House will well recall that during 1990 I introduced legislation on behalf of the Government to set up the Bread Industry Authority in Queensland to administer what had previously been poor and hastily drafted legislation which had been introduced by the previous Government. In the last two decades in Queensland, big changes have occurred in the manufacture, processing and selling of bread. No longer does the old country baker rise early, stoke wood in the small brick oven and light it in order to stay in the bread industry. Changes have occurred in marketing, but they have not been recognised by the Opposition. That failure was reflected in the legislation introduced by the previous Government. However, this Government recognised those changes. During that period, the bigger operators took over the large volume areas such as the sliced 680 gram loaf of bread and a trend developed whereby the smaller operators specialised in other varieties of bread. When the legislation was introduced, this Government said that the Bread Industry Authority would report on its effect on the bread industry in 12 months. The Bread Industry Authority compiled that report and presented it to me. I presented details of the report to Cabinet with a recommendation that we examine some problems relating to possible prosecutions. When that was being examined, it became obvious that Queensland was the last State in Australia to retain a bread pricing system of the type that is in place. In the past 12 months, the legislation has also partly deregulated the bread industry. Because every other State had done away completely with pricing arrangements, there were major benefits to consumers in the rest of Australia that were not available in Queensland on the pricing of bread, a very basic commodity. We do not control the price of tomato sauce, jam, meat or sausages. We considered it in that light. Cabinet took action on the recommendation from me that we deregulate. I will very quickly sum up two areas that are a cause of problems here. One relates to the smaller bakers and the other relates to vendors. I point out that when deregulation occurred there was no major change. Mr Lingard: Seven people out of work. Mr CASEY: The member for Fassifern is very vociferous and he is trying to tell you, Mr Speaker, how to do your job. I sat in this Chamber the entire time while he was Speaker and at that time he did not know anything at all about Erskine May, much less page 337. Mr Gibbs interjected. Mr CASEY: That is correct. It is exactly as the honourable member has said. I sat on the Opposition side of this House for a long period while the previous Government gave us heaps about the Whitlam Government and the Hawke Government. Members opposite stuck it up our ribs about those Governments. While I am on the Government side of the House, I will stick it up more than their ribs about their mob in Canberra, too.

Hamilton Island Resort Mr DAVIES: In directing a question to the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing, I refer to the Hamilton Island resort recently being placed in receivership. I ask: Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5455 is the Minister aware of comments by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the strength of the Queensland tourism industry? Can he inform the House of the real state of Queensland tourism? Mr GIBBS: I am delighted to be able to inform the House of the real state of Queensland tourism. At the outset, I will say how very disappointed I am that the Leader of the Opposition is not in the Chamber while I am responding to this question. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I rise to a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition has been called out on business. Mr GIBBS: The morning after a glorious State of Origin win by Queensland, where the players stayed on the field and showed the talent and the guts that they have, every Queenslander would be ashamed that in this Parliament this morning the Opposition, led by a flower, vacated the Chamber. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment. Mr Hamill interjected. Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point of order. I draw to your attention, Mr Speaker, that when you asked the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing to withdraw a statement, the Honourable the Minister for Transport—and I use the term “honourable” loosely—made a wisecrack completely in defiance of your ruling. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I cannot control interjections. Mr GIBBS: The Leader of the Opposition did himself very little good when he said that the announcement that Hamilton Island would be put into the hands of a receiver—and I quote—“made a mockery of State Government claims that the tourist industry in Queensland is booming”. Let me describe the true state of the Queensland tourist industry. The fact is that in the past year alone approximately 14 000 jobs have been created in the tourist industry—an increase of some 13 per cent on the previous year. The number of international flights to Queensland each week increased from 135 in 1990 to 171 last year. That means something like half a million extra seats a week as a result of expansions of new services from Japan, Taiwan and Indonesia. Major international airlines such as KLM and North West are now expressing a keen desire to fly into this State. There has been an increase of almost $300m in one year in the amount of money spent in accommodation houses in this State; an increase of almost $3m in extra visitor nights in one year in Queensland accommodation houses; and a staggering 40 per cent increase in Sunlover holidays sales in the six months to 31 January 1992 over the previous year. In addition, sales from our travel agency reservations centres have increased by 44.4 per cent. In the year to September, tourism has accounted for 75 per cent of Queensland’s economic growth. Spending by overseas visitors—I think this is important—has risen by 33 per cent. If the Leader of the Opposition, who supposedly travels around this State, spent even a little of his time aboard either of our national carriers, he would learn even more staggering facts. The other day I was flying with Australian Airlines and I opened up its inflight magazine. An article headed “Logbook”, which is written by the Australian manager of Australian Airlines, Mr John Schaap, describes what Australian Airlines is saying about Queensland. It states— “Despite the recession, tourism growth to and within Queensland has been substantial in the past year, and shows no signs of abating. Of the busiest five air routes in Australia, three are to Queensland, while eight Queensland routes feature regularly in the weekly Top 20 list. . . . Recognising this, the Australian Airlines group is increasing activities in this prime and ever-promising market, whose diverse offerings range from the theme parks and major events of the Gold Coast, to the world-renowned natural attractions of the Far North Queensland region, the Great Barrier Reef and the rainforests.” The article further states— 5456 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

“Total domestic passenger traffic through Cairns was up 56.8 per cent for 1991, and 68.6 per cent for the December quarter; Gold Coast passenger numbers were up 40 per cent for the year and 47.3 per cent for the quarter; and Brisbane traffic increased by 32.8 per cent for the year, and 43.8 per cent for the quarter. Solid gains were also reported in other destinations.” I think that that belies the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. I will finish on this point because the Opposition is so sensitive about the issue of the GST. There is very good reason for the Opposition to be sensitive about the GST. The GST will have a devastating effect on this State’s economy and on its tourist industry. The simple fact is that, in effect, GST stands for one thing—Goss’ second term.

Enterprise Zones Dr CLARK: In directing a question to the Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development, I note that the Leader of the Opposition has been promising enterprise zones wherever he goes in his travels in Queensland, and I ask: can he tell the House the recent history of enterprise zones? Can he indicate the Government’s view of the worth of such projects? Mr SMITH: The fact of the matter is that I welcome the question, because it gives me the opportunity to demonstrate the rubbish that in recent times has been spoken about enterprise zones. The fact of life is that it was established by the previous Government in spite of a review, which it had commissioned, suggesting that an enterprise zone ought not to be put in place. The former Government went ahead purely on a political basis. One of the first actions taken by this Government when it won office was to have the enterprise zone reviewed by independent officers. The answer that came back was, quite clearly, that the enterprise zone was not only ineffective, but also very costly to taxpayers. It was also unfair because it provided some concessions to a particular part of the State, but not to the others. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired.

DISABILITY SERVICES BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 20 May (see p. 5425). Mrs WOODGATE (Pine Rivers) (11.17 a.m.): The Queensland Disability Services Bill marks a watershed in recognising the right of people with disabilities to be properly included in our society. This Bill will provide a new framework and a new direction for the provision of disability services in this State. For many years, Queenslanders with disabilities, their families, carers and other interested members of the community have wanted and have fought hard for this new direction. This Bill will have a far-reaching and positive impact on the lives of a significant section of our community. People with disabilities represent a significant section of our society. The Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of 1988 showed that 14.6 per cent of people in Queensland, which is over 391 000 people, were classified as having a disability. Statistics in fact show that every Australian who lives to the age of 70 will be disabled in one way or another, so if a person thinks disability does not affect him or her, he or she should think again. For too long, the mention of disability has been associated with responses based on pity and charity. From as far back as 1980, people with disabilities—or “the handicapped” as they were called then—were quoted as saying, “We don’t want your pity or your charity. We want our rights. We want the right to social equality, to recognition of our sexuality, to dignity and respect. We’re tired of institutions, of the sort of paternalism that treats us as children or, even worse, as pets. We want access to jobs, to closed buildings and closed minds.” Quite possibly, people with disabilities have held these sentiments for a lot longer, but our society and previous Government administrations have been too busy patting themselves on the back for their good Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5457 deeds of charity to hear the stultified voices of the very people they purported to be helping. Indeed, it is easier to reach into one’s pocket than into one’s mind. Now is the time to broaden those narrow minds and discard the condescending and patronising charity model of the past in favour of a process which not only recognises and affirms the basic human rights that for too long have been denied to disabled people, but also honours the dignity and self-esteem that they deserve. This Government is committed to making sure that that happens. This Government and this Minister are listening to what people with disabilities are saying and we are responding to what they want through this Bill. During the past decade, a number of significant initiatives have challenged negative community attitudes and the misguided practices which have prevented the effective inclusion of people with disabilities in the community. These initiatives have included the “deinstitutionalisation process”, which is a term describing a vitally important process currently occurring within the intellectual disability field. The philosophy behind this move encompasses only the right that each of us expects for ourselves, our children and our friends, that is, all persons have the right to live in the community in the same types of dwellings, in the same locations and with the same access to facilities as do other members of society. This is not to say that after many years of living in sheltered, protective institutions, people with intellectual disabilities should be thrust out into the community without support or assistance to help them achieve the same quality of life that all people take for granted. Indeed, a person can be as isolated in the community as in an institution if there is no access to or interaction with the surrounding environment and local people. That is why legislation, such the Bill before the House, is vital in the framework for community living, community support and the community interaction it will provide. Deinstitutionalisation has three major thrusts. Firstly, it assists people to move from large institutions to homes in the community. Secondly, it develops practices to increase the quality of life of people with intellectual disability, both within institutions and in familiar residences. Thirdly, it provides services and support to prevent people from being placed in institutions. This Bill will enable the development and delivery of services, support and programs—both Government and non-Government—which will allow this process to continue and to be soundly based. The International Year of Disabled Persons 1981 enhanced community awareness and challenged the barriers which excluded people with disabilities from mainstream community life. In the last decade since the International Year of Disabled Persons 1981, there has been an increasing concern about the provision of support services which would enable people with disabilities to live in and be a part of the community. The outdated and incorrect belief that children and adults with disabilities are different, retarded or sick or should be segregated and protected was, and unfortunately still is to some extent, a predominant belief in some cultures of our society. In Australia, large institutions and hospitals were established to accommodate those children and adults whose families either were not able to care for them or chose not to do so for various reasons. Through concern about the quality of life experienced by people living in these institutions or living in the family home and often hidden away, parents, concerned citizens and some professionals worked towards the provision of therapy and education for children with disabilities. This concern has facilitated the significant development of consumer, parent and advocacy groups, with participation in service planning, development and management of a growing range of community- based services and supports. Many of the larger organisations which are now multi- service providers for people with specific forms of disability—intellectual and physical disabilities, hearing impairments, visual impairments, spinal injury, etc.—began with small groups of parents and adults with disabilities who lobbied hard the Government for funding for the provision for education, therapy and accommodation. One outcome of that process was the growth of specialised services for people with disabilities, in the absence of generic services which incorporated service provision for all forms of disability into their structures and programs. The Commonwealth Government’s review of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974 and the wide consultation which produced the new directions report and the Commonwealth 5458 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Disability Services Act 1986 moved the focus of disability service provision away from the medieval thinking of the past and propelled it towards more modern and enlightened philosophies. In the later part of the last decade, the normalisation principle was a significant factor influencing service development. The three key concepts of the least restrictive alternative, positive consumer outcomes and promoting access to generic services by people with disabilities are particularly important and are highlighted in this Bill. The recent emphasis has been on the development of the concept of socially valued roles. That involves changing expectations about what people with disabilities can do. It highlights, in fact, the abilities of these people instead of addressing only their disability—their handicap—as was the focus of our distant past. The emphasis of the Bill is, in fact, on the abilities of the individual, the development of the individual and the contribution to our society that the individual with disability can make. Community-based services are vital and allow people with disabilities to live in the community and to access the range of facilities and services normally accessed by people of similar age, interest and culture. That is referred to as the process of promoting the inclusion of people with disabilities into the community, for example, into mainstream school settings and open employment and out of institutions into supported accommodation in the community. Statewide information forums, phone-ins and written submissions regarding then proposed Commonwealth/State disability services were first held in December 1990. The process of consulting with the community, of asking and, more importantly—most importantly—of listening to consumers continued with formal consultations held over a three-month period from October through to December 1991. The formal consultations began with the distribution of a discussion paper on the proposed legislation, which acted as the focus for consultation meetings throughout Queensland. Phone-ins and written submissions from around the State were also received. That consultation was seen as the basis for the future approach of the Queensland Goss Government, an approach which would see the effective rationalisation, coordinated planning and provision of specialised, generic and mainstream services in a way which maximised the benefits of community integration. The consultations focused on three particular areas: the legislation for Queenslanders with disabilities, the State Government’s directions statement and the collection of information for the regional profiles associated with planning services in each region—in rural and remote areas, as well the south-east corner where services have been traditionally concentrated. The contribution of the community to that process of consultation was most significant—very significant—not only in terms of the widespread nature of participation by people with a diversity of disabilities, by their families, by carers and by services providers, but also by virtue of the quality of the discussion and importance of issues raised. Recent developments in Queensland which also impact on the disability area are the significant legislative provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, the Equal Opportunity in Public Employment Act 1991, the Freedom of Information Bill, the Health Rights Commission Act 1992, the Child Care Act 1991, the Judicial Review Act 1991 and the review of guardianship laws. A substantial user-rights framework has thus been established. The Bill and the principles and objectives of the Bill are the result of extensive consultations with people with disabilities, their families, carers, friends and others concerned. As such, the Government has joined with the community in this major step in the process of ensuring that people with disabilities have the same human rights as all other members of our society. Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (11.27 a.m.): In principle, the National Party agrees with the Bill, which contains some very positive provisions. Given that one in eight Queenslanders suffer from some sort of disability, the need for legislation that will protect the rights and interests of those people is essential. The National Party welcomes the principles and objectives contained in the Bill, which pave the way for positive advances for people with disability; however, we also see some serious deficiencies, which must be addressed by the Government if it is to honour its very vocal commitment to social justice. During much of her speech, the Minister was at great pains to denigrate the attention given by the previous National Party Government to this Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5459 area. It is very easy to overlook those things when it is to one’s advantage. As with many of the essential services that Governments must provide and maintain, funding is always difficult. Despite that, in its last two years in office, the National Party Government introduced the specially designed maxi-cabs and subsidised travel for the severely disabled. The then Minister for Family Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs, Mrs Yvonne Chapman, highlighted that thousands of Queenslanders were not making use of the services available through the disabled persons service and embarked on a public awareness campaign. In 1989, a task force headed by the then member for Aspley, Mrs Beryce Nelson, submitted a report addressing the problems of the intellectually disabled. Mrs Nelson was well equipped to work on such a task force, because one of her children is severely intellectually disabled. Mrs Nelson knows the problems at first- hand. The report, titled A Place for Everyone, aimed to bring services for the intellectually disabled up to date. The National Party Government was the first State Government in Australia to adopt the principle of normalisation as its philosophy and knowledge base in services to people with intellectual disability. That came out in a parliamentary White Paper in 1982. I would also like to draw the attention of the House to the inadequacies of the present Government in addressing the issue of disabled services. Hundreds of disabled people have had access to vital medical equipment jeopardised because of Queensland Health Department funding cuts. Late last year, the Honourable Minister’s own department reduced its funding commitment to a special tape-recording service for blind and disabled people. In fact, for nearly two years previous to that, the Labor Government had not given one cent to this service. The Government has been urged to hire specialist interpreters to help hearing-impaired children in schools, and no action has been forthcoming on this. I know that this is a problem throughout the State. I can cite a particular case in the Monto area in which the parents of a severely hearing- impaired child are trying to have him integrated into the normal school process but they cannot do it without a lot of help. Because of a lack of resource funding, the State school system has been buckling under the pressure of integrating the disabled into our education system. In the Biloela area, children from the Special Ed unit are going to the high school, but that is not working properly because they do not have the number of aids that are needed for them. When I spoke to the principal, he told me that they need a special room and that they may well need extra resource funding. I know that this is not the Minister’s fault, but it is something that has to be provided. It is no good saying, “Yes, we will integrate”, when the Education Department holds back on help. That brings me to the major shortcoming of this legislation. As a framework, the Bill is reasonably sound, but the total lack of detail is disconcerting. The Bill is so broad brushed as to be bordering on the ludicrous. There is no evident appreciation of the huge difference in degree of disabilities. The Minister has acknowledged that there is a broad diversity of disabilities and an even greater diversity of needs, but nowhere is this actually reflected in the Bill. The Minister referred to the fact that people with disabilities have the same basic rights as others in our society and that they should be empowered to exercise those rights. I am not sure what that means. Does that mean that a severely intellectually disabled person has the right to drown himself in the bath because he has the right to decide when and how he should take a bath? There is a gulf of difference between a person disabled by chronic asthma and a person with the mental age of a two-year-old. Statements such as those made by the Minister do not reflect that diversity. This becomes a very confused area. Under the Commonwealth Act, each person with a disability is to receive any needed services such as accommodation, training, aids, equipment and so on in a manner which enhances his or her independence and dignity. The proposed State legislation complements this notion. Independence includes the right to choose the form of service they receive, the right to have input into training of carers and the right to take risks. That sounds great, but if one thinks about it one realises that this is the typical social justice, but basically simplistic, approach that we get from Labor Governments. Surely the welfare to which these people have a right will sometimes involve a degree of restriction. Furthermore, a person with no ability to communicate, that is, either send or 5460 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly receive clear messages, is not likely to be aware of what “rights” even means. The issue is: who will determine the balance between an acceptable degree of restriction and an acceptable level of risk that the disabled may individually take? How do we assess individual disabilities and accommodate them accordingly? Surely we must have a number of assessment teams as we do with the aged. The Minister mentioned that a funding mechanism will be established. How delightfully vague! Funding is the key to all of these proposals. Without adequate funding, this entire Bill is a pipedream. How much is being allocated to the provisions in this Bill, and where is the money coming from? Another major issue in this Bill which needs addressing is that of the integration principle. I heard the member for Pine Rivers mention it in glowing terms. I have great concerns about it. While this concept is fundamentally sound, in practice it will work only up to a point. We have to ask: where are the boundaries? Where are the provisions to protect these people when they are unable to protect themselves? The idea of integrating the disabled into the community has significant merit, but it is not as simple as, “Let’s take them out of these nasty institutions and let them join the real world.” For example, for those with an intellectual disability who are able to make themselves a cup of coffee and make basic lifestyle decisions, the idea of a residential home is great, although there have already been some problems with these. One of the major problems has been lack of privacy and/or respect for the individual. In some cases, individual bedrooms are not available and residents have no choice as to who they live with. Instances are cited in which groups of visitors have been shown through community homes with the permission of workers at the homes but not with the permission of the residents. Several women with disabilities have experienced sexual harassment or rape. Men without a disability see these women as easy targets. One particular case of which I know personally is that of a mentally handicapped woman who had been looked after at home by her parents for 40 years, which was a tremendous feat, and who then went to a residential home in Rockhampton. She was very happy there until one of the other residents, a very aggressive intellectually disabled fellow, started molesting her. This became a very traumatic situation for both the woman and her elderly parents. The woman was distressed but she was not able to tell her parents what was happening. This same residential home was staffed by carers who locked the residents in every night so that they could not get out. What would happen in the case of a fire or another emergency? What happened to the rights of these people? What about those less desirable members of our society who will take advantage of handicapped people? Even one of our illustrious banks has been known to charge a disabled person for having to write out her withdrawal form. The point is that this is not a feasible “let’s play happy families” quick fix to the social issue of doing the very best for our disabled. There are those people who are so severely disabled that the most important thing is to ensure that they have a secure environment that offers them continuity of care and the best of medical attention. The issue of an institution versus a residential home becomes one of dangerous semantics. There are problems and disadvantages with both, but each is suited to different disabilities. Neither will work successfully without adequate funding. I suspect that the major problem with institutions is the connotation that has developed over the years due largely to the problems caused by lack of funding. Instead of presenting a new show, perhaps the Government should first dedicate some time to looking at the existing show. I do not know whether the Minister has read a book titled Nowhere to Go, written by a doctor in the United States, about the deinstitutionalisation process that took place in America in the sixties and seventies from the mental institutions. What occurred in America is terrifying. Disabled people were disseminated into the community and the institutions were closed. Those people are still out in the community. Some of them are sleeping on the streets under boxes. They were cut off from treatment. The scheme had the absolute reverse effect of what it was designed to achieve. This country must be very careful that it does not follow the same track. I am concerned that the Commonwealth Government is setting its feet on that track. That worries me greatly. Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5461

This country should be careful it does not follow the American example. The Bill fails to address another question, that is: what responsibility will the existing institutions—such as schools—be required to bear? I believe in the integration of those people with disabilities who will benefit from such integration. However, I also believe that a program such as the one under consideration must not be considered unless the funding is available to provide the necessary carers to make it work to everybody’s advantage. There must be a commitment to change which is matched by resources. It is interesting that the Minister proclaimed that a thorough consultative process took place while this legislation was being formulated. I noted that some of the previous Labor speakers mentioned this thorough process. However, the opinion of major community groups representing the disabled and their families is to the contrary. Once again, this Government has shown that it has a very strange view of consultation. That has been evidenced in the health area, the environment area and other areas. Perhaps if the Government was really to work with the groups affected by this legislation, the final draft would not be so deficient. Ms Warner: Can you name the groups who are critical of the consultation process? Mrs McCAULEY: I have a list of them. I understand there is a reason for the haste in bringing this legislation before the House. If the Government passes this legislation through the House before June, it will receive an extra $1.9m from the Commonwealth Government. Only Victoria and the ACT have also decided to speed up the process and take the money. As far as Victoria is concerned—the urgency is understandable. Although any extra funding should not be scoffed at, exactly where will this money be spent? Will the money be received only to find that the fast-tracking of the legislation means that the Government has failed to get it right? In that case, the cost will be enormous, both to the Government and to the disabled people of Queensland and their families. It concerns me greatly when the Commonwealth seeks to compel the States to take over some of its responsibilities and bribes the States with a lump sum of money. I have seen examples of that in the local government area, with respect to the Commonwealth’s responsibilities for airports, rifle ranges and other issues. The process never works out properly. In the end, when State Governments take over the funding responsibilities, they are the losers. There are several other key areas of concern regarding this legislation. Most of those areas boil down to the lack of detail in the Bill. Time being of the essence, detail seems to have been deemed superfluous. For instance, the terms “service” and “program” have not been defined. How confusing! People with a disability need to know if all Government activities which do or could potentially affect their lives are considered a service or program, and are therefore subject to this Bill. What about the many programs which have a significant impact on the lives of people with a disability but which are administered by other departments? I refer to areas such as housing, employment and education. Those departments are governed by policies which may not be consistent with the philosophy of this Bill. What happens in those cases? Ms Warner: It has a cross-Government effect. Mrs McCAULEY: I hope it does. There is no transition process proposed, which means that existing services have no obligation to revise their operation to fit in with the principles and objectives of the legislation. Service providers must surely undergo a negotiated process of change within a certain time frame to bring their services in line with the new legislation if they wish to continue to receive funding. Ironically, at the Special Premiers Conference held in July last year, funds were earmarked specifically for this transition process for the next five years. How does the Government propose to spend this money when there is no legislative framework? The proposed legislation does not provide a process for checking up on service quality. While the Bill provides for reviews of funded services, it lacks detailed guidelines regarding the process of review. Of particular concern for the credibility of 5462 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly such reviews is a lack of guarantee that users of services under review will be consulted and represented in the review process. Provision for such reviews must carry with it a guarantee of sufficient resources to conduct reviews, along with the muscle to ensure effective action can be taken against services that are shown to be performing inadequately. There is no mechanism in the legislation through which appeals can be lodged against decisions made under the Act. There is no procedure to allow users of services to raise complaints. There has been no adequate provision in the Bill for the handling of complaints and appeals. It is patently clear that this legislation has been pulled together far too hastily—or perhaps the logistical tasks are simply beyond this Government’s capabilities. Either way, it seems a shame that a sound philosophy is threatened with failure due to lack of thought, preparation and detail in its application. I draw the Minister’s attention to two very valuable Queensland services which are in quite desperate need of funding. The Life Support Task Force is a community group which assists people with acquired brain damage and their families. It is estimated that every year in Queensland approximately 11 000 people are admitted to hospitals with acquired brain damage of some nature. At least 4 000 of these people do not die and will be left with moderate to severe permanent disability. There is currently one—only one—appropriate support service in the whole of Queensland that is available to these people. This service is fast reaching its capacity. The other service I mention is the Spinal Education Awareness Program. The program is unique in that it is about prevention rather than coping. Its Investment in the Youth of Queensland subprogram aims to educate young people about caring for their spinal cords. That program has been widely accepted by both the education and medical authorities as being creative, professional and effective; yet it remains the only Statewide program without some level of Government support. Surely this is an economically sensible program for the Government to be investing in, given that the financial drain of spinal cord injury on our community is around $150m per year and is likely to increase to as much as $400m in the next 20 years. I urge the Minister to look very carefully at that program. I am very grateful to the Safeguards Coalition—the Queensland representative group for the disabled and their families—for its background information and the extensive research it has obviously undertaken in considering this legislation. Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (11.45 a.m.): It is a little sad that when dealing with such an important piece of legislation, Opposition members such as the member for Callide cannot rise above their normal classic Opposition mentality and debate the principles in the legislation. We could all stand up and tell Dickensian anecdotes about horrible things that happened in the past, but most of us try to rise above that and talk about the principles in the legislation. Obviously, in this debate, the member for Callide is appealing to the lowest common denominator. It concerns me that member after member, from both the Liberal Party and the National Party, talk about the Labor Party’s consultation processes and refer to phantom lists of organisations that were dissatisfied with the consultation process and which they are neither prepared to mention nor table in this House. I have said in a number of debates that I recognise that consultation is a difficult process. I recognise that some groups believe that consultation means that the Government keeps going back and talking to them until it eventually agrees with what they want. There comes a point at which the consultation process must come to an end and the Government must make a decision. Although there will still be people who will not be entirely pleased, I think that should be recognised. The member for Callide, with her parliamentary experience, should also understand that the allocation of funding for specific programs is not a function of legislation and should not be incorporated in the Bill. Of course, the reality is that even if the Government allocated the total budget for the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs to disability services, it could probably still find areas in which funding is required. However, there are certain priorities in the allocation of Government funds. The hallmark of the first two and a half years of this Labor Government has been its ability to continue the disciplines of high standards of economic responsibility with more than a fair measure of social justice reforms. In some respects, this has been made easier Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5463 by years of neglect by previous Governments of many social services. The fact that this Government has had to contend with the current international and national economic malaise has made the task anything but easy. It is a credit to this Government, and in particular to this Minister, that the House is today debating this Disability Services Bill. It deals with issues of equity. Equity is not something that has historically been enjoyed by people with disabilities who, through both our culture and our systems, have tended to be regarded as less valued, less worthy of consideration, or less capable when the planning and development of services would have been better served through their input. The Disability Services Bill is based on a single principle: people with disabilities have the same human rights as others and should be empowered to exercise these rights. Other principles and objectives emanate from this fundamental concept. The tenets of this legislation promote the right of people with disabilities to expect to be treated as valued members of our society. They have the right to expect the same opportunities to achieve their developmental capacities, whether they be intellectual, social, physical or emotional. In attaining such goals lies a quality of life which most Queenslanders enjoy. Why should people with disabilities not have the same quality of life and why should not support services be structured to help them attain it? The legislation also includes the principle that people with disabilities have the right to be involved in the development of policies, programs and services which affect their lives. They are entitled to the special support services which will allow them to participate effectively in this process, that is, through the provision of information, support in using that information, and access to assistance and mechanisms for addressing grievances in relation to the services they receive. The types of disabilities covered by this legislation are expansive and are based on the important contribution and input from those who themselves have disabilities and who understand the issues of exclusion. It includes people whose disabilities are attributable to an intellectual, psychiatric, cognitive, neurological, sensory or physical impairment, or a combination of these. Unlike the member for Callide, the Government does not seek to make judgments about people who have levels of disability. It recognises that there are people with a range of disabilities, or a combination of those disabilities, and it seeks to provide services that are appropriate to their needs. The legislation acknowledges the impact that those disabilities may have on a person’s capacity for communication, social interaction, learning or mobility, as well as the need for support. Some disabilities are not always obvious and a person may have chronic disability which, as with some psychiatric disorders, is evident only during certain episodic phases. The Government has long recognised that certain groups in society are in positions of disadvantage. It has made substantial efforts to put in place positive legislation and programs that constructively seek to redress the discrimination—and I use the word in its broadest context—that people experience on the basis of their sex, ethnic origin or location, or because they are Aborigines or Torres Strait Islanders. I ask honourable members to consider the predicament of people with disabilities who have long been marginalised in society by those disabilities, and who suffer the double disadvantage because they are Aboriginal or Islander, or are members of another ethnic minority; those who are women, or those who live in rural and remote areas. This legislation recognises and acknowledges that special consideration is required to redress the nature of the double disadvantage in those circumstances. They are critical issues which emerged from the extensive community consultation that was an integral part of the development of this legislation. I again refer to the comments made by the member for Callide. The consultation on this legislation with the community and relevant groups was broad and extensive. It is all right for the member for Callide to swan in here for 20 minutes, say her piece, and then swan out again—as she is want to do when honourable members are debating legislation. If she participated a little more in the debates, she would know a little more about the processes.

As to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders—the current service provisions for people with disabilities are often irrelevant. Approximately 40 per cent of the indigenous population of Queensland lives in north Queensland, and a high proportion of those live 5464 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly in the Cook electorate. The legislation recognises the need for cultural differences to be incorporated in policy, planning and service development for Aborigines and Islanders that will open the way for innovative and sensitive service responses to allow locally based supports to participate in managing their own services. Fifteen per cent of Queenslanders were born overseas, and a significant number of those people come from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Disability services must accommodate and recognise the impact that language and cultural differences, and the significance of disability, have on particular ethnic groups. The legislation opens the way for the special needs of women with disabilities to be recognised and to influence policy, planning and services. For example, if one is disabled, it is easier to be regarded as a credible employment prospect if one is male. People with disabilities who live in rural and remote areas experience special problems, particularly with the pattern of locating services and supports in major centres. This legislation sets the basis for supporting the participation of local consumers in assessing their own needs, and in developing flexible and innovative services pertinent to the location. The people who live in rural and remote areas are in the best position to know and understand those issues. The Bill allows for the additional costs associated with remote locations to be recognised, and it allows for the particular resourcefulness of people in rural and remote areas to be respected. Another of the common misconceptions about people with disabilities—and one which is manifest in many disability services—is the belief that they are perpetually childlike and therefore must continually be parented. There has almost been a denial that children with disabilities need to grow through the normal life stages of teenage and adolescence and to have the opportunity for experiences that are appropriate for their chronological age. The objective of this Bill that relates specifically to this issue states—

“Programs and services should be designed and implemented to ensure that the conditions of everyday life of people with disabilities are—

. . . the same as, or as close as possible to, the conditions of everyday life valued by the general community; and

. . .

appropriate to their chronological age.” Clauses 20 and 21 of the Bill refer to the need for services to be designed to ensure that people with disabilities have access to independent advocacy support, and that there be appropriate ways for people with disabilities and their advocates to raise grievances and to have those grievances resolved. This requirement, which will be built into the service agreements associated with funding provisions of this Government, together with the framework of rights legislation now in place, will safeguard the service user. The range of services that will be funded in this State will further provide the opportunity for safeguarding the rights and welfare of the individual. This Bill will be associated with various disability services for which the present administrative responsibility for funding rests with the Commonwealth Government. This responsibility transfers under the Commonwealth/State disability agreement to the State Government. In particular, responsibility for funding advocacy services will become a joint responsibility of both levels of Government. This will provide an opportunity to influence the development of a State strategy that focuses on the need of the individual to develop the skills and confidence to effectively participate in decision making, both in relation to service issues and personal issues for that person. I believe that this is a very important piece of legislation that the Government has embraced—particularly this Minister—together with other reforms that have been evident within the responsibility of this Minister. I refer to adoption law reforms, child-care legislation, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land rights and community services legislation. In a relatively short period, a substantial program of reform has been undertaken by this Government in one Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5465

Minister’s area of responsibility. This Government has also made substantial progress on the reform of domestic violence legislation and juvenile justice legislation. I look forward to that legislation coming before the House in the near future. From that combination of factors, together with the administrative and managerial changes that have been necessary within the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs through the process of the PSMC and policy changes necessitated by the change of Government, it is obvious that under this Labor Government the Minister’s portfolio has undergone great reform. I commend the Minister and her staff, who have always been very helpful. I refer particularly to Norma, Janice and others who have been particularly helpful with my inquiries. I also commend Ruth Matchett, the director-general, and her departmental staff who have been available to answer my inquiries and provide information and advice to me. I take great pride in being part of the Labor Government which, in such a short time, has been able to introduce a significant range of reforms, including this Disability Services Bill. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (11.56 a.m.): Over the years since I became a member of this place, it has become increasingly obvious that all Governments recognise the importance of the provision of disability services. As the years go by, it also becomes obvious that more services are required as more people become disabled. Any one of us could suffer from some form of disability. If members believe that it will not happen to them, perhaps they should pause to think about the car accidents, sporting accidents and workplace accidents that occur very frequently and which, in a very short space of time, can transform a healthy body into a disabled one. In her second-reading speech, the Minister spoke about community assistance for disabled people. There is increasing community awareness of people with disabilities and a growing number of people who genuinely want to provide assistance, encouragement and support to disabled people. I do not believe that any member of this House would wish to hinder that process. Members talk about integration and the need for disabled people to look after themselves, but I am concerned that in some cases this transition occurs too quickly. Some disabled people in my electorate have been encouraged to leave their family environment, their friends, or whoever looks after them and to care for themselves. That is very encouraging and worth while as long as those people can look after themselves. In some cases, when disabled persons are placed into homes of their own, their families or previous care providers have lost interest in continuing their support. We cannot isolate those disabled people from their past and the protection that they were afforded and expect them to be looked after by Governments or by themselves. I believe that, in those circumstances, some disabled people become discouraged, upset and frustrated. It is important to give them encouragement and support to ensure that they are adequately provided for. In those circumstances, the Government is not always the best organisation to provide that support. It is a sensitive area. As well, therapy for disabled persons should be encouraged. In her second-reading speech, the Minister said that the Bill will establish a funding mechanism so that services are developed and delivered in a way which assists people with disabilities achieve their maximum potential. I am waiting to discover what she has in mind in that area. I believe she is referring to workshop and activity centres such as those operated by the Endeavour Foundation and the Red Cross. Those organisations are playing a very real and active role in the community. The disabled people who attend those centres consider their activities as work. Some people with disabilities carry out those tasks satisfactorily and move on to the open workplace, although in some instances they do not have the capability to do so. I turn to the farm environment that is experienced at Spring Valley. That type of environment is important to people with disabilities. The Minister should establish more therapy centres and farms for disabled workers. There is no better therapy than being involved in the care of animals. At those centres, the people are responsible for the care of animals and they are doing it well. At Spring Valley, people do more than merely look after animals; they maintain machinery and do community work in fields such as packing. They live on the farms and receive guidance and support. If the Minister has funding available, it should be put into such endeavours. 5466 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

The Minister stated that many people with disabilities are discouraged when they repeatedly find that society focuses on their disability and fails to value the abilities and competencies that they have. She said also— “We want to foster an environment in which people with disabilities, service providers and others in the community can join with us to establish innovative solutions to the challenges we face together.” Sensitivity centres have been established in Brisbane and in Gympie. They are of great value to people who assist disabled people. Ms Warner: A sensitivity centre, did you say? Mr STEPHAN: Yes. The sensitivity centre at Craigslea is designed to help people in schools, workplaces and the general community to better understand disabled people and to develop a positive and accepting attitude towards them. Visitors to the unit experience using wheelchairs and hearing aids and are involved in activities which simulate partial vision, lack of good muscle control and learning difficulties. The unit has a sensory trail which comprises the simulation of the sensation of walking with poor muscle control in the legs; a tunnel which allows people to experience the anxiety of disorientation and demonstrates how different senses are used by those who cannot see; and a wheelchair section which demonstrates how forethought in the planning stage of a building can eliminate potential difficulties for people who use wheelchairs. I hope that the Minister is listening to what I am saying. Through such units, we can educate the community to understand the needs of people with disabilities. The Minister spoke about funding and ways of making a positive contribution to assist disabled people. The funding of units such as the one at Craigslea would be an effective way of assisting disabled people and also the people who assist them. School students who have visited that centre have experienced the difficulties faced by people with disabilities and have been impressed by the facility. Not much money is required. The schools may even be able to provide some equipment and support for those centres. The Minister should provide funding for those facilities and develop activity centres in other parts of the State. I do not believe there are any others in the southern hemisphere at present apart from the ones I have mentioned. If the Government develops more of these centres around Australia, particularly in Queensland, then it would be going a long way towards providing assistance in a very real way. Other honourable members have mentioned special schools and the integration of children from these schools into the normal school program. I, too, would like to comment on this program. I point out that the idea for establishing this program was to ensure that sufficient teacher aide time was made available so that those students who were entering a normal school environment had support, if not from a teacher—who is not always available—then certainly from a teacher aide. I have found that such support is not always available to students and, in fact, is not often provided. I know it is not in the Minister’s area—it is the education area—but I take the opportunity to point out that, unless there is more aide time available to assist those students in this integration program, it will not be as successful as it should or could be. There is nothing more frustrating than young people who are trying to keep up with others in the classroom who are not able to do so. It is a frustration that causes them to get very upset and disheartened and almost want to give up when they cannot succeed as well as they think they might. I wish the Minister well with this legislation. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN (Nundah) (12.10 p.m): It is with pleasure that I rise to support this Bill. This week, I was speaking with people who have been involved in disability services for a number of years. One of them commented to me that this Bill has been 30 years in the coming. Another friend of mine who has an adult offspring with a mental disability described what happened in the past in the following way. It is not a direct quote, but it reflects my friend’s thinking and the tone of our lengthy discussions. My friend said— “Funding was very tight and we were unsure from year to year just where we were standing and the uncertainty was very hard to take. The institutions had Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5467

almost total control over our son and we were outsiders. We were too scared to complain in case our son was victimised or was denied access to the service. We were powerless. We felt the Government really didn’t support us.” That is the type of comment that I have heard on more than one occasion over the last eight or nine months of dealing with this proposed legislation. These comments highlight some of the many differences between this Goss Labor Government and the National/Liberal Party opposition. There are many good and caring people who sit on the benches opposite but, collectively, when they were in Government they did not have the political will or the foresight to implement these much-needed reforms in this area of State responsibility. An example is that, when this Goss Government came to power, Queensland was spending about $17 per head on non-Government organisations in this area—the lowest per capita spending in Australia. At the same time, South Australia was spending $85 per head on disability services. The Labor Government, under this dedicated and hardworking Minister, has tapped into the wealth of knowledge and experience of people who work in the area of disability services. That has resulted in this Bill, which will benefit a great many people in Queensland. I wish to concentrate on two aspects of the Bill. I will deal first with the coordination of services by the State, and then with the effect on the family of a person with a disability. The Minister has already spoken about the rationalisation between the Commonwealth and the State in their roles and responsibilities for the provision of services. This rationalisation is important and will complement the introduction of this legislation. However, it is not enough for the two levels of Government to coordinate their funding activities because the State Government itself is a significant provider of services. While the State Government provides direct services to people, it also provides transport services, housing, education, recreational services, etc. In addition to those services, it provides specific services which impact strongly on the lives of people with disabilities. Another example is the work of the Queensland Public Trust Office, which has a great deal of contact with people with disabilities as they go about their lives, as are officers of the Police Service and the Department of Corrective Services. The State Government provides services that impact strongly on the lives of all people—including those with disabilities—and it is no less important that these services offer a coordinated approach under the common principles that are contained in this legislation. In developing this legislation and the policy framework which will be associated with it, I understand that the Department of Family Services has been able to link effectively with a range of Government departments. This coordination of the work of Government departments is a great step forward. This whole of Government approach will be reflected in the Directions statement which will be released by the Government in the near future. Mr Bredhauer: It’s also contrary to the views of the member for Callide. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: It is contrary to the views of the member for Callide, as my colleague has explained. It is important that this Directions statement be read in conjunction with this legislation. Coordination of Government services can be operated in very simple ways, but can be very effective. For example, a group of parents may want to plan a local respite care service in their region. The proposal may elicit funds from the Department of Family Services which, like other departments, will have a regional focus. The group should be able to obtain funding for that centre, and it may be able to buy a vehicle to transport people to the local shopping centre or provide recreational activities for some of the people using the centre. However, if that department can liaise sensibly with other relevant Government departments, a lot more could be done, and it could be done in a much more efficient and effective way. For example, if that department liaised with the Department of Housing and Local Government, it would be possible to determine the housing stock in the area and the pattern of community development. Another Government department could assist in planning community centres so that they would be placed in growth areas rather than in areas that are declining. This is important for long-term planning and the effective use of 5468 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly available funds. I commend the Minister and her department for the steps they have taken so far in this area. Coordination can also mean that as a result of proper location, an extra vehicle might not be needed. Savings made in one area can make funds available for use in more appropriate and useful ways. They are very simple measures that can be taken, but they are important. This Government is prepared to look at them. There are also some more complex forms of coordination. For example, in the handling of psychiatric disability, it is important that people have the choice, where appropriate, to move out of institutions and into the community. When they find accommodation in the community, it is just as important that they have access to sensible and timely forms of therapy, support and medication. It is important that community support through accommodation services be integrated with the support available from the Queensland Health Department. As well, these integrated service models will have to make sure that when people with a psychiatric disability move out into the community, they can continue to expect that treatment and therapy will be provided to them in ways which are coordinated with the services they use. Sporting and recreational services are another important example of coordination. Organisations are funded within the community to support the specific endeavours of people with disabilities to enable them to participate in sport and recreation. At the moment, our athletes with disabilities are competing in international competitions. Their endeavours are no less demanding than those faced by their able-bodied colleagues. It is also important at the local level for people with disabilities to have access to sport and recreation activities that are enjoyed by other people in the community. This means the provision of access, appropriate programs, information and coaching, but they must be in a form which people with disabilities can access readily. I compliment the Department of Tourism, Sport and Racing, which is making a very useful contribution to those endeavours. I turn now to consider the effects on families. It is very, very important that the impact of these services on the family of a person with a disability be recognised. The development of the family is a vital part of the social fabric of Queensland society. If we neglect the family, our society will go downhill. I encourage this Government to increase funding to this area in its long-term planning because over many years that has been sadly neglected. It is vital that the families of people with disabilities are able to participate in the development of services. This had led to another important aspect of the Bill because this legislation seeks to ensure that when services are provided to people with disabilities, they will impact on families as well. An example of this impact is the provision of respite care. In many centres throughout Queensland, it is necessary for individuals to travel many hundreds of kilometres to be able to take advantage of respite care. When these individuals are children, it often means that a parent—usually mum—has to travel several hundreds of kilometres with the child for that respite care to take place. This can have a significant effect on the other members of the family, especially on their brothers and sisters whose education may be disrupted, or on the other parent whose employment might suffer because of the provision of this service. In the case of adults with disability, the impact might be on their children or on their spouse. The State Government has a responsibility to all people in the family and so must provide services that can be delivered with the least possible detriment to other family members. All that I have mentioned will require coordination across Government services and coordination between Government and non-Government services. The Honourable Minister for Family Services has spoken of a partnership between the community and Government. This partnership will have to become a working reality if the greatest benefit is to be gained from this Bill. This legislation breaks new ground for Queensland and goes much further than the Commonwealth legislation. While focus remains on the individual with disability and seeks to ensure that specific services are provided to that individual, specific disability services are provided in a responsive way that protects their interest and promotes their development. It also takes account of the individual person in the broader community. The Bill looks at all the services that an individual might like to take advantage of, and Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5469 expects that the Government agencies providing those services will take into account the needs of people with disabilities who might use them. This legislation ensures that Government departments must look to each other and must provide the best service. The Bill takes account of the impact on families of those individuals, and one of the significant principles of the legislation enshrines the right of an individual to establish his or her life as a part of the family unit within the community. The new focus of this legislation is twofold. It is a focus on the individual with disability and, as well, a focus on people with a disability in the community. In conclusion, I applaud the work of many groups in my electorate who contribute to this magnificent work by providing services to people who have disabilities. Some of the many groups involved are the Mercy Centre, the Community Living Program, the respite care centres, Access Arts, Mamre family link, the Richmond Fellowship and many residential support programs. I pay tribute to the Minister and her personal staff for the advice and help that they have given in the preparation of this legislation. Among the departmental staff, I thank Julian Foley especially, and the staff of the Office of Disability, for their advice. It is with much pleasure that I support the Bill. Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (12.22 p.m.): I have pleasure in speaking to the Disability Services Bill because disabled people contribute a great deal to our community, and particularly to the electorate of Merthyr and the new electorate of Clayfield. As the Minister pointed out, people with disabilities have a right to have a life just as other Queenslanders do and to be regarded as valued members of the community. As such, we have to pay regard to the individual development of disabled people and look at the whole range of social, emotional, physical and intellectual development. Of course, as has been noted, disabled people are not easily categorised. There are many different types of disabilities, and it is very difficult to come up with a simple answer to solve all of their problems. The needs of an epileptic are completely different from the needs of someone with cerebral palsy, or someone with multiple sclerosis. Without help from community organisations, no Government or department can even hope to be able to come to grips with all of those people. In fact, there are close to 2 000 help and caring groups in this State. Those people play an invaluable role in caring for the disabled and in helping them to work—where possible—as productive members of our society. Shortly, I will speak about a couple of groups of particular concern to me. Before I do that, I will consider some of the provisions of the Bill in detail. This piece of legislation provides a general framework for the delivery of services to the disabled to help them integrate with the community and to provide a quality lifestyle. Indeed, the purpose of the Bill is stated clearly within it. It affirms the principle that people with disabilities have the same rights as other members of society and seeks to encourage programs and services for people with disabilities. The Bill also seeks to establish a funding mechanism for the provision of those services and to set out the objectives to be promoted by the programs and services that are offered. The Bill is broad enough in its scope to cover all those who are considered disabled. It includes those suffering from intellectual, psychiatric, cognitive, neurological, sensory or physical impairments, or any combination of those. It also makes clear the principle that people with disabilities have exactly the same human rights as those without disabilities. It is very true to say that people with disabilities have the right to respect for their human worth and dignity and the right to realise their capacities for development. They have the right to services that support their quality of life and the quality of life of their families, and the right to participate actively in the decision-making process. The Bill provides that programs and services should be designed in such a way that no single service provider can take over the life of a person with a disability. It is vital that people still retain control of their lives and feel that they are in control of what is going on. I applaud the objectives of the Bill and congratulate the Minister on her actions and her undoubtedly sincere motives. However, a couple of specific matters need to be mentioned. I note that the Minister undertook a process of consultation with some 3 000 5470 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly people in more than 350 meetings. That is good to see and it is to be commended. Unfortunately, a belief is still held that more consultation was necessary, and that needs to be addressed. It is true that a discussion paper was circulated last September to enable response from the community and interested parties, but the final outcome—the Bill itself—was introduced only a short while ago. It was sitting on the table for a little while, and some groups believe that it should have done so longer, to enable others to look at the Bill and make responses and submissions to the Minister and their local members. The Schizophrenia Fellowship, the Association of Relatives and Friends of the Mentally Ill, and the Richmond Fellowship are particularly concerned about that. I make that point not to score a shot; I am simply representing the views put formally to me by those people. Equally important as the contents of the Bill is the way in which the groups vitally affected by it feel that they have had an input. It would appear that those groups that I have named feel that there has not been enough consultation and input. They regard that as a pity. In relation to specific provisions of the Bill—I submit that improvements could be made in some areas, and I ask the Minister to have a look at them. Firstly, although the principles laid down in Part 3 are very detailed, mechanisms such as those that have been put to me to allow the implementation of those provisions tend to be missing. It is certainly true that people with disabilities have the right to participate actively in the decision-making process, but no process is laid down through which that will occur. It can be argued that any Government grants that are provided to service groups are made on the basis of those groups adhering to that principle, but that becomes somewhat subjective. Perhaps a further advisory council could be established to give service providers and the disabled a voice in the planning and implementation of programs and policies. Similarly, the Bill provides for the principle that people with disabilities should have the right to pursue any grievances that they may have about the services provided without fear of recrimination from service providers and that they should have adequate support to enable them to pursue those grievances. However, the Bill provides no mechanism for that, and the fact remains that people with disabilities will be very reluctant to pursue grievances that they may have with service providers because they fear the consequences of complaining. Perhaps a form of ombudsman could be provided by the department to allow complaints to be made and to be investigated in such a way that the people making the complaints do not fear that they will be persecuted in the future. Another possible improvement that has been suggested is the inclusion of a definition of “service”. “Service providers” is defined, as is “service developer”, but nowhere is the meaning of “service” made clear. Many providers are concerned about that omission and are asking that it be rectified. I hope that the Minister will take those points into consideration. As I mentioned earlier, I wish to raise several matters in connection with the services provided generally to people with disabilities. The first is that there is a perception in the community that, with the best will in the world, Governments do not really understand how difficult it can be for some disabled people to integrate with the wider community. I have spoken to mothers of some intellectually disabled people who are horrified that their children will be forced to leave what we used to term “sheltered workshops” and instead take their place in the general labour force. They believe that that can be both ridiculous and cruel. Although some people with mild intellectual disabilities are able to function in normal workplaces—with a bit of extra support—many others need assistance 24 hours a day and cannot reasonably be expected to be placed in everyday jobs. Even if the younger generation of the disabled could cope—after pretty intensive training—what about people in their forties and fifties, who have not had the opportunity for such training in the past and have become dependent on the workshop concept? Of course, many in that situation find that their chronological age does not equate with the intellectual age, and they require more supervision and support. In many ways, the intellectually disabled are much worse off than the physically Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5471 disabled, and a range of options is necessary for them. Many groups feel that the Federal Act, in particular, is having very detrimental effects on the disabled, by closing down the sheltered workshops. Parents and carers are desperately concerned that the workshops will be closed down and that the many thousands of people who have benefited from their programs and supervision will be left without any hope of obtaining a mainstream job, and, indeed, are not capable of doing so. Of course, there are many other disabilities—and people with them—which also need to be considered. Those who suffer from cleft palates are often a forgotten group, which is a great pity. The Cleft Palate and Lip Society—Cleftpals—does a great job in providing a service to people with that disability. I want to pay tribute to all of those involved, particularly the president, Mrs Avis Houlihan. I know that Mr Speaker himself has personally been of great help to the Cleftpals group in trying to urge the establishment of units at the Royal Children’s Hospital and the Mater Children’s Hospital for the treatment of children with cleft lip and palate problems. Cleftpals rightly wants two of these units established and placed within the hospitals to allow proper orthodontic care from specialists. Unfortunately, the Health Department has not been very helpful. As a provider of services to disabled people, as set out in this Bill, the Health Department could do a lot more to help those suffering from cleft lip and palate conditions. The department wants to provide only one unit and place it at the Dental Teaching Hospital, which is not where the specialists who treat these children operate. It appears that the wrong people are making the decisions about future treatment, because the decision makers in this matter are not those who are involved in the treatment of a very specialised condition and they therefore do not fully appreciate all the needs and ramifications. Indeed, in other States and nations the treatment of cleft palates is carried out within the normal hospital environment, where proper and integrated cranio-facial services can be provided. I hope that the Minister may be able to take up this issue with the Minister for Health in order that those people receive a more sympathetic response from the department. One group which provides very valuable services to people with disabilities is the Endeavour Foundation. The foundation is concerned about Government moves which will affect hostels for the disabled. In particular, it is worried about moves to reduce the sizes of hostels from 10 or 12 people each down to 5 people. The reason put up for this plan is to allow greater community integration. But the problem is that the parents and carers do not agree with the downsizing because they feel the larger hostels are better for the kids and, on an economic level, a 10-bed hostel can be funded more efficiently than a 5-bed unit. They are also concerned at a community backlash, however unfair it may be, from residents who do not want a hostel next door to them. This sort of attitude—the “not in my backyard” syndrome—is one which needs to be addressed if the objectives of the Bill are to be fulfilled. The Endeavour Foundation constantly works to turn around the community perception of the intellectually disabled and to provide opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities that will give them a feeling of self-worth and contribution. The foundation runs the sorts of sheltered workshops that I discussed earlier and is concerned that the abolition of these facilities will leave the intellectually disabled with no viable employment options. The Endeavour Foundation feels that many employers will not be willing to take on someone with an intellectual disability, and especially in difficult economic times. Firms are simply not hiring anyone, let alone someone who will need extra time and training. The Endeavour people are not against the idea of integration—I want to stress that—but they are against the indiscriminate integration of all people with disabilities into the general work force. They make the point that intellectual disabilities are a whole different ball game from physical disabilities and they believe that different rules should apply. The Endeavour Foundation has done a great deal to provide services and support to people with disabilities, and its views should be given great weight. The people of Queensland certainly want the best of care and support for people of all ages with disabilities. The Liberal Party is happy to acknowledge that this Bill goes 5472 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly a long way down the track towards that goal, but I hope that the Minister will give consideration to the matters that I have raised, with a view to future improvements. Dr FLYNN (Toowoomba North) (12.33 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to rise in support of this Bill. I wish to speak relatively briefly about the principles of service provision that this Bill contains. As has been said, this Bill formally acknowledges and recognises the rights of people with disabilities, both by the Government and non- Government sectors. As both a member of Parliament and a part of the Government, I acknowledge the importance of the non-Government sector in providing services to the disabled. Over past decades, their role has been vitally important, and that is obviously going to continue into the future. The provision of services in the future will involve, as the objectives of this Bill state, a close working relationship with organisations so that positive outcomes for consumers are guaranteed. Integral to this close working relationship is the role of the most important participant, the person with the disability. This Bill stresses the need for people with disabilities to be a part of the policy development, the planning and the service development of community-based organisations. The process for planning and allocation of funds by this Government will strengthen the effectiveness of these roles. Unfortunately, in the past, under National Party administrations, a handout approach to funding of community organisations was adopted. Often, the best lobbyist, the person with the most influential contacts, or the group with the loudest voice, had a significant chance of being more successful in funding requests. This meant that access to funds did not necessarily relate to real needs. The concept of needs-based planning was not a part of this submission-based and lobbying process. Many organisations, particularly the smaller organisations in isolated areas, missed out. Even those organisations which were successful in this process often resented the process. The implications for planning, for determining any innovative direction, for predictability and for clarity of responsibility were not consistent characteristics of Government funding for disability groups. The submission-based approach to funding meant that resources went to organisations which were best able to present their case. Those agencies which were small, inexperienced or unsophisticated failed to gain Government response. This Bill marks a turning point in the process by which funds will be allocated to community-based services. This turning point is significant in Queensland regardless of which level of government is providing the funding. The process to be used is needs- based planning. Over time, the needs-based planning process of the disability program will mean that consumers will be able to impact on the assessment of needs and on the provision of services. Funding decisions will be clearly and logically linked to the needs of a region rather than the capacity of an agency to develop a successful submission. Also, the changing needs of consumers—for example, as they move from school to working age—can be anticipated and planned for. Such needs-based planning will achieve a number of goals such as greater clarity in Government decision making on funding; an accountable and predictable planning system which can be better linked with the service providers’ own planning; and a capacity for Government to be more responsive to change. For example, changes in population might warrant change in the geographical location of services. This needs- based planning structure is based on the regionalisation of State Government departments. It will involve the development of flexible systems for the allocation of resources through the analysis of demographic data, from the utilisation of information derived from regional officers, and from the strong process of ongoing consultation with the community which is part of the policy of this Government. This framework allows for effective and appropriate community participation in decision-making processes and ensures that the Government is responsive to the needs of the community. The allocation of funds to meet identified needs and priorities of people with disabilities, their families and carers will be made on the basis of this sound process, which will at the same time provide an impact on future planning with the documentation of unmet needs. The significance of this process is apparent when one considers the vastness of Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5473 this State and the special needs and additional challenges faced by people who live in rural or remote communities. The significance of this process is also apparent when one considers the residents of these remote and rural areas, many of whom are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who are also affected by a disability. The regional planning process will redress over time—and it is important that honourable members realise that it is going to take some time to achieve the process—a concentration of services in particular geographic locations or those within the auspices of largely concentrated organisations. These problems of concentration will be overcome with the introduction of the regional planning process. Needs-based planning will ensure equity of funding allocations and will be, of itself, a manifestation of the Government’s acknowledgment of the rights of people who have disabilities. In allocating funds to service providers whose proposals reflect priority needs identified in the regional planning process, service agreements will be developed which reflect the principles and objectives of the Disability Services Bill and which provide safeguards for ensuring positive outcomes for consumers. The identification of these positive consumer outcomes will link the key players in the process—the people with disabilities, the service providers and the funding body. The objectives of this legislation cover diverse aspects of service provision and should be read as a whole rather than individually. The Government is keen to avoid situations like those which have arisen in the past, where individual objectives of the Commonwealth’s Disability Services Act were read in isolation and interpreted to literally be of value in the real environment of service provision. The Government will link with service providers to move towards the full scope of these objectives, and to do so it will need to seek out flexible and innovative solutions. Honourable members should consider as an example clause 18 of the Bill, which states— “Programs and services should be designed and implemented to ensure that no single organisation that is a service provider exercises control over all or most aspects of the life of a person with a disability.” Quite clearly, this clause relates to a number of matters. It relates to the principles and objectives which stretch out the individual’s rights to information and resolving grievances. It also picks up the objective that services focus on the development of the individual, for the development of the capacity to take responsibility for decisions is an important element of social development. In this sense, the Government will want to avoid generalisation in its approach. It is this objective that is interpreted by the Commonwealth as mitigating against the co-location of services—for example, having accommodation, therapy and education services on one site. This Government endorses that notion, and it is an objective of this Bill that people with disabilities move into the community to enjoy their lives and receive their services. Obviously, wherever it is practicable, the Government will work towards that objective. However, the Government acknowledges that in many cases the best immediate prospects to enhance the development of a child or an adult with a profound disability may be by providing an environment which is broadly supportive, where persons can seek their development in diverse ways within an atmosphere of support across the range of their needs. While there is a strong commitment to all of these objectives, they must be looked as a whole and in the whole context of providing services to the disabled. It is this broad and innovative approach which will form the basis of the Government’s discussions with service providers and the users of their services, as those groups move together to meet not only the letter, but also the bold spirit, of this legislation. The Bill also requires proper accountability and empowers the Government with the capacity to withdraw funding should the rights of people receiving the services not be honoured. There will be an annual process of redefining and setting the terms of agreement for these funding allocations. This Government is confident that the requirements for accountability placed on organisations are reasonable, and that these requirements will continue to foster a positive, cooperative relationship. The important principles that this Bill sets out relating to service provision will have 5474 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly to be worked at in a cooperative way between the Government, the service providers and the users of the service. The Government will move steadily forward to increase the range of services available to people with disabilities, and to ensure that no matter where people live in the State, if they have a disability, they will receive the services that they need. I support the Bill. Mr SLACK (Burnett) (12.43 p.m.): I realise that many of the points I will make have already been made. However, as a former shadow Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, I feel it is appropriate that I comment on the legislation. I commend the principles and objectives of the Disability Services Bill. I congratulate the Minister, particularly on the inclusion of the three subclauses of clause 24, which recognise the implications and demands on families, carers and advocates of people with disabilities. If the Federal legislation contained a similar clause, many of the concerns of constituents of members of this House over the past five years might have been alleviated. However, let all honourable members accept that, despite the rhetoric of this Government, this State is receiving—courtesy of the Federal colleagues of this Government—a gross underfunding. The extent of the unmet need is unknown, and this will be complicated by the impact of an ageing population. The lack of resources, the unmet need and the lack of planned costings are all a matter of established fact. I refer to the Senate committee reports on accommodation of May 1990, on employment of April 1992—which includes the education issue—and the national housing strategy of January 1992, more commonly known as the Schacht report. The Minister has also made much of the consultation the Government has had with stakeholders throughout Queensland. I acknowledge that some time has elapsed since the introduction of this Bill. When it was first introduced, it seemed as though it would be debated fairly quickly. However, it has lain on the table for some time. I have received complaints, as I am sure other honourable members have, about the late and very hurried distribution of this legislation to those same stakeholders. As late as 6 p.m. on Friday, 1 May, copies of this Bill were being frantically hand delivered, together with the request for comments about the Bill to be made to local members of Parliament by 5 and 6 May. Three public holidays intervened during that time. Stakeholders were not given any opportunity to comment on the results of the consultation extolled by the Minister. The Government is perpetuating the same mistakes that occur at the Federal level. If the Government is going to consult with stakeholders on this issue, it must be genuine and not the present facade that we have witnessed at the Federal level. Would the Minister care to admit that this hurried time frame is nothing more than the result of her Federal colleagues threatening financial sanctions if the State Government does not take over the mess it has created with its ideological inflexibility? Ms Warner: They got them three weeks ago. Mr SLACK: I recognised that. There was a hurried consultation period. Some unhappiness was expressed to me that the legislation would be debated within the seven-day period. Ms Warner: But they got them in time. Mr SLACK: I acknowledge that point. An analysis of the Bill should record the Opposition’s reservations to clause 18 and the word “control” that is contained in it. The Opposition does not want to see good services punished in this State because they delivered two different types of services from one site. It also does not want to see family care classified as “control”. Services receiving funding under the Disability Services Act should be judged on their outcomes to consumers, not on whether they deliver that service from one site, or two sites within close proximity to each other. The use of the term “independent advocacy support” in clause 20 should ensure that this phrase is not used to deprive consumers of the advocate of their choice on the premise that some departmental officer considers someone else to be more independent. Clauses 34 and 35 appear superfluous. The Minister would surely delegate to the chief Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5475 executive and any further delegation would flow from there. Finally, I note the lack of redress for any provider/carer once sanctions have been applied and the withdrawal of funds has commenced. The Opposition supports the Bill, albeit reluctantly, because it believes that Commonwealth funding is already insufficient to achieve the principles and objectives so warmly espoused and to which all disabled people are entitled. Passing the responsibility from the Federal Government to the State Government, with the carrot of increasing funding if we behave ourselves and have it in place by a set time, will not alter the facts, except that the buck now stops with the State Government, not the Federal Government. Before I conclude, I wish to raise the issue of the Talking Book Library, to which reference has already been made by another member. Some time ago, when I was the shadow Minister for Family Services, I raised this issue in a question I asked the Minister. The Minister deferred that question on the basis that, when funding became available from the Federal Government, she would consider the possibility of funding that service. I held a very strong view then, and I still hold that strong view, that at that time the service should have received the funding that it received from the previous Government. The National Party provided that funding as a natural matter of course. As the Minister is well aware, a trust fund was set up and the Talking Book Library provided a service to approximately 900 people in Queensland who were blind, semi-blind, or visually impaired. It was a very valuable service that satisfied the needs of people in Queensland, including those in remote areas. That funding should have automatically continued under this Government. That did not happen, and unfortunately those people were forced to use the trust funds. I believe that the trust funds have been depleted to the extent that they are almost used up. When money becomes available from the Federal Government, I would like to see the trust fund reimbursed to the amount of money that was in it when the Labor Party took office. I believe that the people who contributed money towards the trust fund for a particular service have been let down because the people who provide that service have been forced to use those trust funds. The previous Government recognised that the trust fund could not completely service the needs of the people concerned and automatically augmented those funds. When the Labor Party came to power, it refused to do the same. The trust fund should be reimbursed as an acknowledgment of the fact that the Minister gave a commitment during question time that the matter would be reviewed when those funds became available. Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (12.50 p.m.): I support the Disability Services Bill. Firstly, I speak in support of it on behalf of two groups in my electorate with which I have much to do. The first group is Narbethong, which is an association for the visually impaired. It is a long standing association in Queensland. Earlier this year, I had the privilege to become the president of that association. I took over that role from the Honourable Val Bird, whom many members would know very well. He had been president of Narbethong for over 12 years and recently retired from that position. Narbethong is a school for visually impaired students. It also owns accommodation units called Lady Grey House, which cares for visually impaired people who may come to Brisbane for some type of treatment, or to receive seeing eye dogs. Narbethong does good work in the community. On behalf of the executive of Narbethong, I congratulate the executive members on the work that they have done over the years. It is a small group, but it works very hard on behalf of the visually impaired. The other group in my electorate is a group known as CODA—Care of Disabled Adults, which was formed last year. CODA, which receives Federal funding, services people who care for disabled adults and need some respite care. Because those disabled adults might not necessarily want to go to respite centres, CODA organises workers to provide two hours’ respite in the home or to take them out of the home for two or more hours, depending on the funding available. CODA, which is a very successful organisation, is receiving great demand for its services from people with disabilities. The organisation hopes to receive more funding from the State Government in the future. 5476 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

A significant feature of this Disability Services Bill is that it will complement other Acts in the Commonwealth and other States and Territories, thus providing a national framework for disability services across Australia. This is part of a process of rationalisation of disability services to which Queensland has made a significant contribution. I believe that, in the future, this will have far-reaching implications for people with disabilities. The rationalisation was first proposed in October 1989 by social welfare Ministers from the States and the Commonwealth. The view was that there was too much overlap between the Commonwealth and the States in the provision of disability services. Each level of Government administered funding for employment services and accommodation services. Each had separate guidelines, separate monitoring arrangements and separate funding processes. Since then, much work has been done to examine ways in which those arrangements could be rationalised. This finally emerged in the development of the Commonwealth/State Disability Agreement, which transfers to the Commonwealth Government the responsibilities for employment services for people with disabilities, and transfers to the State the responsibilities for accommodation and other related services. That agreement was signed by the Premier in July 1991. Since then, extensive discussions have been held on the effect of that transfer and how it can be put in place in Queensland. As I said, the Commonwealth/State Disability Agreement will mean that the Commonwealth will assume responsibility for the approval, administration and evaluation of employment services for people in Queensland with disabilities. On the other hand, the State will take over responsibility for accommodation services. A variety of those services exists in Queensland, ranging from large services for people with intellectual disabilities to small group homes in communities throughout the State. The State will also be responsible for the very important respite care services that allow a person with a disability to find a carer—other than perhaps his or her immediate family—for a short period. That can be an important respite for both people with disabilities and their carers. The State will also be responsible for independent living training. That valuable form of training allows people with disabilities to learn a range of living skills so that they can lead more independent lives within the community. The State will also be responsible for recreation services. Recreation has the potential not only for enriching a person’s life and enhancing his or her physical development but also for further bringing that person into contact with a range of people within the community. Information services are also important for people with disabilities who wish to keep aware of trends, those who need to look at what services are available in their local areas, and those who wish to exchange information with others who have similar interests or concerns. A number of important community-based information services operate within Queensland. The State also operates the Disability Information and Awareness Line—or DIAL—from within the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. It is important for many Queenslanders with disabilities to have adequate support when they need to seek further information from people who provide their services. They might need support to raise grievances about their services, or need to be better informed about Government decisions and perhaps influence those decisions. In those cases advocacy services are important. The State will take a joint responsibility with the Commonwealth for funding advocacy services. It will also have the responsibility of funding research and development. I might add that this particular sector, which is sadly neglected in Queensland, was given very little attention by previous National Party administrations. All of this will greatly enhance the compass of the States concerned for people with disabilities. Officers of the department have been working very hard with the community to begin to understand the key issues facing Queenslanders with disabilities. To a large extent this transfer of responsibilities and the removal of overlapping duplication will rationalise the provision of services to people with disabilities. I am Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5477 aware that many service providers and, indeed, many consumers of disability services are taking a close interest in the progress of the discussions with the Commonwealth, and are keen to see that rationalisation put into place as soon as possible so that they can get on with the business of planning their lives and their services. I confidently expect this Bill to bring a new clarity to disability services, a new capacity for people with disabilities to predictably plan their use of services and therefore plan their lives, and a new era of Government efficiency and effectiveness in allocating resources in this sector. I commend the Minister for introducing this legislation. Sitting suspended from 12.58 to 2.30 p.m. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South) (2.30 p.m.): I join other National Party members in supporting the Bill. During the debate, I will outline the varied and often critical needs of some of the organisations that support the disabled in Toowoomba and how the Bill affects those needs. One of the reasons for the Bill—I start with the ones that are least important—is that it is part of a Commonwealth devolution of responsibility in this area to the State. Because the Commonwealth does not have the money or the facilities to cope any longer with the present and increasing needs in this area, it could be called a whitewash. In recent years, there has been a Senate standing committee investigation into disabled accommodation, a similar investigation into employment of the disabled and a national housing strategy for handicapped people. Those three reports indicated the gross underresourcing and growing waiting lists in the area of the disabled. Perhaps the second reason for the Bill is the need to have it enacted by 30 June to enable transition funding to flow through to the State. The most important reason for the Bill is to establish the principle that people with disabilities have the same human rights as others and to establish a system by which that principle will be adopted. That principle will require some very practical understanding of the variety of disabilities, the families involved and the need for a safe, happy and practical adjustment into the community. It will require a genuine understanding of the contribution and enormous effort by so many community organisations. It will also require a respect for the knowledge and experience of those community organisations and, as a result, fair support of them. The types of disablement covered in the Bill are wide and varied. As parliamentary representatives and as people undertaking normal everyday life, we are not always aware of the enormous amount of support and the number of services that are required by people who are disabled. The Bill covers people with psychiatric disabilities, physical disabilities—which often can cause great pain and discomfort to families because they include cases of paraplegia, where people go from being healthy human beings to people with severe disabilities—brain damage from traffic, sporting and other accidents, and intellectual handicaps of vastly differing degrees. Toowoomba is a regional centre for the provision of many facilities. It is often cited as being a centre for agriculture, education, health and so on. It is also a centre for the care of people with disabilities, and for their families, clients and service providers for the downs and south west. The Baillie Henderson Hospital is a substantial organisation which is run under the auspices of the Health Department. Under its present operation, some patients undergo a gradual transition through to normal living. The Department of Family Services building in Holberton Street is involved in that transition. I will mention some of the community organisations in Toowoomba that care for the disabled. In doing so, I will indicate some of their special needs and how those needs relate to this Bill. The Endeavour Foundation is probably the major contributor to the care of the disabled, particularly intellectually handicapped people, in Toowoomba and on the downs. It has 30 facilities spread throughout Toowoomba, Gatton, Roma, Stanthorpe and Dalby, and 540 people and, indirectly, their families, are helped. There are nine adult residentials. Some of the philosophy of this Bill and of Commonwealth thinking, which is being devolved under this Bill, is that people are being moved out of residentials or centres into individual houses or flats. In Toowoomba, I have inspected a number of those residentials that care for people with a wide and diverse range of intellectual handicaps. For example, the Ivy 5478 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Mann Hostel cares for five or six severely handicapped people who require 24-hour-a- day, one-on-one assistance. I am sure that people in the department involved in servicing that type of centre would be well aware of that. However, other residential centres extend assistance through the gradual levels of disability, from a medium disability to a more severe disability. When inspecting those residentials, I was highly impressed by the care that was provided, the cleanliness of the residentials, the facilities that are available and the happiness that seemed to exist among the people. At the residential provided for people with the least handicap, 16 or 20 people were living in boarding-type accommodation with communal facilities of a lounge and a TV. They joined in doing the kitchen chores. They had a residential family to look after them and were living a free and happy life with a minimum amount of care. That lifestyle gave some security but allowed them their independence and the ability to catch the bus to town and do other normal things. Endeavour Enterprises is a sheltered workshop which employs 190 people and has a turnover of $4m a year. The enterprise is outstanding in what it achieves for people in providing them with training and an occupation and a moderate wage. At that centre, people appeared to be very happy and enjoying the work that they were undertaking. They were engaged in packaging, quite sophisticated construction of furniture, and so on. The foundation also operates a plant nursery and, very importantly, runs the Hamewith Home for Children, which accommodates 45 children who daily go off to their school activities. The Endeavour Foundation conducts 12 activity centres, training centres and workshops which are scattered throughout Toowoomba and the downs. The activity centres particularly impressed me in the way that they care for people with severe disabilities. They give them somewhere to go during the day. They provide them with meaningful activity, friendship, happiness and music. They are able to dance, make things and take part in the care of that centre through activities such as gardening. The Endeavour Foundation has a staff of 160 part-time and full-time employees. With an expenditure of $7.7m and an income of $7.2m, each year it faces a deficit. The Endeavour Foundation particularly appreciates the State transport subsidy which it receives and which assists it in transporting many people from their homes, flats or residential accommodation to the various activities and workshops that it provides. I also want to mention the Gabbinbar Primary School, which has a number of children who have a physical or intellectual handicap. The school has some children with Down’s syndrome, and it is interesting to see the enjoyment and interaction they have with the other children at the school. I have seen that children at the school are very proud of what their school is achieving. The Toowoomba and District Respite Care Association provides a service for people with disabilities. It looks after 148 families and its main area of service is in respite and day care. It caters for people from Toowoomba and the south west and has two houses from which it operates—Menukah, in West Street, and another house in Weller Street. The Respite Care Association provides five programs, namely, respite and day care, in-home care, vacation, and rural respite programs. It does receive some State Government support and it needs, at the very least, a continuation of that support. I witnessed a very dramatic example of how worthy the Government support is for that association. I was speaking to a lady who has a severely handicapped son—both intellectually and physically—who is now well into his thirties. It is a very demanding job and she is getting older. She told me that the one thing she would have liked to do in her life was to have a part-time job. The Respite Care Association is giving her some respite support. The Help Handicap Enter Life Project, which has a building in Hill Street next to Laurel Bank Park, is funded by the Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. This Bill will see a transfer of funds via the State Government to that organisation. It sees this process as being satisfactory as there is a regional office of the Department of Family Services in Toowoomba. HHELP has a staff of one, it engages consultants and meets other running costs. The main task undertaken by that organisation is the integration of people into a normal community life. The specially designed kitchen within the building allows people undergoing retraining to do things Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5479 such as cooking. The Queensland Spastic Welfare League, which is also based in Toowoomba, assists mainly those with cerebral palsy—children and adults—and it works through a network with some 80 organisations throughout the area to give the best quality of life to its clients. It has quite a desperate need in the area of fundraising, which probably applies to all these organisations. Much of its activity is taken up not only looking after the people whom it should be looking after but also running a huge array of fundraising events such as a vehicle muster at the showgrounds and bride of the year functions. With some Commonwealth Government support it runs a school support scheme which provides physios, occupational therapists and speech therapists not only in Toowoomba but also throughout Warwick, Goondiwindi and Dalby. The league’s main administration centre is in the city, and it sees an urgent need to transfer that centre to a more appropriate place, such as a site opposite St Vincents Hospital. It has a waiting list of adults needing support, which it would provide if it could get funds to employ the necessary staff. Currently, the league has a submission before the Family Services Department for additional places and support services for its independent living training program. This independent living training program involves two full-time staff and 12 clients. One of those staff is a supervisor so that the ratio is really one and a third staff to 12 clients. To comply with the Act, four additional staff are needed. The Spastic Welfare League in Toowoomba has a budget estimate of $386,000 to cover moving of its administrative centre, rent, wages subsidy and operating costs to provide its community access service and respite care and to seek the additional staff that it needs. Currently, the independent living training program conducted by the league has a grant of $52,000. The league has a balance of only $36,000 to maintain its present inadequate program. Another body that I want to mention is the Headway Organisation, which has a branch in Toowoomba. It is an organisation that is very dedicated to supporting those people who have suffered head injuries and, in particular, their families. Often, these injuries have occurred in traffic, school and sporting accidents. One of the issues that Headway has addressed is the continued operation of Penrose House at Baillie Henderson Hospital. Last year, I was pleased to hear reassurances from the former Health Minister that Penrose House would be maintained. It is extremely important that it is maintained for the benefit of the families of severely disabled persons who have suffered brain damage. Headway also addresses the substantial needs of the carers and families of these persons, whose lives are often shattered by the accident which led to the person sustaining brain damage. In common with the other organisations that I have spoken to, Headway would be well satisfied with the references in the Bill to families and their involvement. I would like to mention also the Riding for Disabled Association. I believe that it is a very positive, healthy and active group. It comprises a number of instructors who donate substantial amounts of their time, people who donate horses and people who donate their properties for use as venues. In the last two years, the Toowoomba Royal Show was very pleased to introduce riding for the disabled. It was a practical example of the integration of those with disabilities into the very normal and enjoyable activities of our lifestyle. I hope that in speaking about these organisations, I have demonstrated their flexibility, their experience, their fundraising needs, their community workload and, last but not least, their fair claims for funding and support. The points in this Bill that I would like to specifically address are that the organisations to which I have spoken are generally happy with the Bill, but there are some important points. It is extremely important that flexibility is retained within this Bill and never changed at any future stage. The Commonwealth legislation did not have any flexibility. It was very rigid and detailed and referred to eight types of services. There was discussion about open and supportive employment, but this did not cover areas such as sheltered workshops. There was talk about independent living services, but it did not cover the likes of activity centres such as those covered by the Endeavour Foundation. The Commonwealth legislation had a problem with centre-based activities, but in many instances these centres are a good and practical move. Because there is 5480 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly always the centre to return to and not some type of sterile office, this allows people to move about the town to attend courses, to go bowling, and to engage in library or sporting activities. It means that people do not have to walk around town, sit in a shopping centre or sit in a park somewhere until they move on to the next activity. In certain cases, it is essential that a proper centre be established for these people. In Toowoomba, there is a sense of great relief shared among organisations that this flexibility is contained in the Bill. These organisations believe that the State Government is realistic in its approach and hopes that diverse needs can always be met by the retention of this flexibility. It is also important to realise that Queensland is a large, decentralised State, which also means that flexibility must be maintained within the department. Concerns have been expressed to me that the legislation does not provide a means by which organisations, clients and carers can lodge an appeal against decisions, for example, when a body loses some funding. There is a need for a separate body that understands the issues of disabled people and can be approached, while at the same time wielding some clout if it has been established in accordance with the principles that have been espoused in this legislation. I have mentioned that recognition of the family has been appreciated by all groups to whom I have spoken. There is also concern that there is no provision in the Bill for a regular review of services to be carried out and that under administration by a unit of the public sector, there is no accountability to service consumers. For example, if there is a program at a school with which the parents are not happy, what is the mechanism for review? There is a general feeling that in the past people have tended to accept services and be grateful, but now the feeling is that the Commonwealth Government had a very good grievance system which should be included and clearly set out in this legislation. In the concluding stages of this debate, I think it is important to mention that the taxi subsidy scheme, which is administered by the Transport Department and was initiated by the previous National Party Government, is most appreciated by organisations that look after people with disabilities. It is a great scheme. Access to special schools, however, needs attention. At the moment, the Toowoomba Special School has students who attend in wheelchairs. These people face the problem of descending very steep steps during wet weather, and I hope that the Education Department will be able to address that. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that during wet weather the vehicular access area cannot be used because it is a sea of red mud and it is impossible to push wheelchairs through it. Another issue that concerns people involved with these organisations is the matter of guardianship. Although this is not strictly related to the Bill, I believe it is pertinent to mention this matter because it could be important. There is a feeling among families that if guardianship of disabled people older than 18 is required, all the decent people who have given such wonderful care to their children up until the time they turn 18 should be able to maintain guardianship as a matter of course. At the moment, they have to take the matter to the High Court to be able to achieve this. It should be a natural progression, and guardianship should be taken away only if an organisation can prove that those parents are not fit to be guardians. The parents should not have to prove their fitness for that role. In conclusion, I reiterate the Opposition’s general support for the Bill and reinforce the need expressed to me by organisations in Toowoomba that wish to retain the flexibility that is provided in this legislation. It will ensure that community organisations providing genuine and dedicated services for disabled people can always have access to a fair share of Government funds and services. Hon. A. M. WARNER (South Brisbane—Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs) (2.50 p.m.), in reply: I welcome the acknowledgment that has been given to the real significance of this Bill. I welcome the support from my colleagues on the Government side of the House and also that given by the Opposition. I also acknowledge support for the Bill from other State Government departments. Most importantly, I acknowledge the contribution of people who have disabilities, their Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5481 families and advocates to the consultation process for this legislation, and for taking the opportunity to write the many individual submissions received by my department. In doing this, they have ensured that the views and suggestions of people with disabilities, people with a diversity of backgrounds and people from rural and distant locations around the State are truly represented. I acknowledge also the contribution made by the service providers and the staff employed by those organisations who have so positively contributed on the bases of their expertise and experience. I acknowledge the work of the staff of the Office of Disability and the regional staff of the Community Services Development Division of my department for their commitment to this task. Their work in organising the extensive consultations ensured that people with disabilities have had the appropriate support to enable them to attend the meetings and have their say. They have provided a wide variety of media to facilitate input into the process, for example, phone-ins and written submissions, braille and taped material, plain English copies of material, computer bulletin boards, as well as regular updates on developments through a number of radio programs and the newsletter circulated by the Office of Disability. The process leading up to the introduction of this legislation was introduced in November 1990. There has been no undue haste in the extensive consultations that I outlined in my second-reading speech. Not only did we conduct 300 meetings with 3 000 participants and consider 200 submissions, but also we consulted extensively on how to consult. I endorse the comments made by the member for Cook who suggested that there are some people in the community who believe that the process of consultation must also mean that they get their own way, ignoring the opposing views that I and the department necessarily have to accommodate. In relation to the criticism offered by the member for Burnett, I point out that I was asked to delay the passage of this Bill through the House until this week. Three weeks have elapsed since the Bill was laid on the table, but there has been very little further input since the first week it was introduced. The honourable member for South Coast rightly noted the strong community interest in this Bill. We are encouraged by this interest, just as we are encouraged by the strong input into our consultations. We recognised that people would want to contribute on the Bill and the more detailed directions statement. Both the Bill and the policy directions will reflect the input from those consultations. Honourable members are aware that the Bill allows me to allocate funds to services only where that allocation promotes the principles and objectives of the Bill. Further, a written service agreement must be established to ensure that that occurs. Of course, further conditions may also be applied under the revised guidelines of the disability program. The Bill sets the basis for a comprehensive policy and coordination framework. That framework will be announced in detail in mid-June. Under the Bill, the chief executive of my department has powers to monitor and review the way in which services are applying those funds. It is important that this be done rigorously. We must maintain the positive outcomes, the focus on development for individual service users. It is just as important that we also take account of and respect the management autonomy, responsibility and standards of the service provider. We will take a developmental focus to those reviews: we will link with service providers to identify common issues of concern and common and agreed responses. That new approach will be positive, constructive and developmental. Narrow interpretations will have no place in that broader framework. Let me be quite clear on this: we are committed to seeing that funding provides positive outcomes. Our process of ongoing review, as well as our process of ongoing collaboration, will ensure that. The main focus of the Bill is on the person with the disability. It is concerned with all the ways in which Government can offer support to people with a disability to maintain their valued lifestyle. The Bill also acknowledges that the State can have a key role in the development of the individual. This Bill is necessary because a devaluing and negatively stereotyped image of people with disabilities has been prevalent in the community, as evidenced by the comments made by the member for Hinchinbrook, who 5482 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly expressed his disquiet at having private barbecues interrupted by onlooking people with disabilities. He thought high fences might solve the problem. It is those fences that we wish to demolish—— Mr ROWELL: I rise to a point of order. I did not necessarily raise that point of view. I said simply that it was a matter that should be considered. Ms WARNER: Nevertheless, it was an example of the negative images that people with disabilities have had to endure. It is those fences that we wish to demolish with the implementation of the legislation. As the member for Albert correctly observed, the language that the member for Hinchinbrook used when referring to people with disabilities clearly indicated his inability to see them as people first—they are “people with disabilities”, not “the disabled”—thus demonstrating how out of touch he is with current thinking. The response of the previous Government to the needs of people with disabilities to date has been through a medical model or a welfare model, which has seen people with disabilities as sick, or less fortunate than others in the community. Services have tended to be for children or adults. The special needs of individuals or families have often been overlooked. Services are required throughout the life of an individual, not just at childhood or specifically aimed at adults. Let us not forget that the Bill affirms that people with disabilities have the same basic human rights as other members of society and should be empowered to exercise their rights. The honourable member for Nundah explained that point well. As the honourable member for Cook noted, just as the full range of State Government services impacts on the lives of individuals with a disability, so too can those services impact on the families of those individuals. The Bill seeks to deliver quality outcomes for people with disabilities while taking into consideration the very real needs of the family. The honourable member for Callide and other speakers have asked for a definition of “service”. The Bill does not narrowly prescribe a service, thereby restricting the application of the Bill. Any attempt at a definition at this stage would fall short of the range of services which may occur. In other words, any attempt at a definition could hamper further service development and innovation. The Bill does indeed ensure that all services which do, or could, affect the lives of people with disabilities are considered a service or a program and are therefore subject to the Bill. During community consultations, that comprehensive approach has been applauded. It deals with all the challenges that the Opposition has outlined and is indicative of our readiness to respond to the strong voice of the consumers, service providers and families. The honourable member for South Coast is concerned about the issue of transition. Of course, the Bill does not outline administrative procedures, and any attempt to do so would make the Bill cumbersome and unworkable. Clearly, by establishing a set of objectives in legislation, the State makes a strong commitment to ensuring that those principles and objectives are actively promoted. We will expect to see a concerted effort by services to achieve them. There needs to be a transition—a development, a continuous and positive growth. However, we will not move ahead—indeed, we cannot move ahead—without involvement of the people with disabilities, their families and carers, service providers and advocates, and, in some cases, the broad community. Their participation is valued and essential. I want to stress that point, because it has been suggested by some that somehow, if we simply pass an Act of Parliament which creates a sort of utopian intention, the mere passing of the Act of Parliament will achieve that end. It will not. The Bill sets the broad direction in which we are going and encourages everybody in the community to go in that direction. As such, the Bill is in itself an educative statement and it is a direction forward—a much- needed way forward for people with disabilities. However, we desperately need the cooperation of everybody in the community who will, I think, in time see the wisdom of that approach. Within the five regions of my department there are 11 centres with staff who are well trained and experienced in service development in the disability area. My department takes a diverse view across human services, so we are able to deal with disabilities within the context of ethnic and cultural difference and to focus on the Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5483 particular needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Opposition has alluded to a lack of safeguards in this legislation. The Bill sets out the safeguards needed for consumers, that is, the need for services to be designed to ensure that people with disabilities have access to independent advocacy for support and that there be appropriate ways for people with disabilities to raise grievances and to have those grievances resolved. We acknowledge the need to enhance and resource advocacy services in Queensland. Safeguards will be built into the service agreements associated with the funding provisions of this Government. In other words, service providers will be required to enter into service agreements with the department to ensure that the objectives and policy principles of this Bill will be reflected in the quality of their service delivery and, as I said before, in a developmental way. This will be done together with the framework of rights legislation now in place. These are the anti- discrimination legislation, the Health Rights Commission, the Judicial Review Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and we anticipate an administrative appeals process will be developed for the whole of Government. It is clear that we do not need to repeat these appeal mechanisms within this legislation. I thank the member for Pine Rivers for outlining this process in her speech. There are adequate safeguards and grievance procedures in existing legislation that people in this area will have access to. To repeat that would be to simply further complicate—— Mr Rowell: How are they going to do it, though? Ms WARNER: They make an appeal. Mr Rowell: To whom? Ms WARNER: It depends on whom they want to go to. But there are a number of them. There is the Health Rights Commission, which in many cases will cover people with disabilities and service providers. There is the anti-discrimination legislation. If they are arguing that they have been unfairly discriminated against, they can bring a complaint under the anti-discrimination legislation. If they want to find out more about the processes of government in a particular department, there will be the Freedom of Information Act. There is also a Judicial Review Act. As I said, there is also the legislation that we are anticipating, which will provide an administrative appeals mechanism across the Government to provide for people with grievances. All those processes are in place. I do not believe that there is a further need for there to be a separate, cumbersome and expensive process in this area. I think people have to be clear about that. We can bog ourselves down far too easily, I think, by just inventing a new process and reinventing the wheel every time we move. I have spoken of the coordination among Government departments in this focus. An ongoing benefit of this coordination will be the collaborative plans which my colleague the honourable member for Nundah outlined in more detail in his speech. In conclusion—the Queensland Disability Services Bill establishes a new direction for Queensland in the provision of supports and services to people with disabilities. It will enable them to exercise their rights and their responsibilities as citizens of Queensland, and it will support their full participation in society in the least restrictive manner. During the debate, some members said that decisions need to be made about what restrictions need to be placed upon people who have particular disabilities. This Bill is about removing those restrictions. This Bill is not about putting people into separate and distinct service provisions which do not comply with the ordinary standards of citizenship in this State. This Bill is about participation; it is about least restriction and it is about equality. This whole of Government response will be able to respond effectively to this new direction empowered by the strong partnership between this Government and the community. The significant and varied impacts of cultural difference, Aboriginality and Torres Strait Islander identity, gender and geographic location and lifestyle development will be taken into account through specially focused Government responses. This legislation provides a watershed for people with disabilities in Queensland. The Government will be entering a new partnership with the community to provide services which are focused on the rights and aspirations of people with disabilities. This legislation marks the formalisation of this partnership with 5484 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly the community to move forward positively and confidently. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. A. M. Warner (South Brisbane—Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr ROWELL (3.06 p.m.): This clause refers to the people who will be providing a service for the disabled. No doubt, many volunteer organisations will be involved in this process. In fact, the likes of the Legal Friend and people out there in the wider public will no doubt be providing services of some nature to people with disabilities. With the likes of the Workplace Health and Safety Act, there is not a great deal of understanding about just how these service providers will have to conduct their affairs, especially if they are volunteer organisations. The other very important aspect, particularly with volunteer organisations, is the indemnities in the event that something goes wrong. Someone with a volunteer organisation may take a disabled person out or may assist a person in a home and may administer something that is not of a nature which will be beneficial to the disabled person. That could have serious consequences. I do not want to carry this too far; I just want to make the Minister aware of it. How could we go about indemnifying such people in the event of some major accident or a catastrophe of some sort? I also refer to subclause (2), which states— “The service provider may provide the services— . . . (b) generally to people in the community, including people with disabilities.” I find the wording of that clause rather strange. I believe I know what the meaning of the clause is, but it is a little unusual to use the words “generally to people in the community, including people with disabilities”. Could the Minister provide some clarification of the meaning of that clause? Ms WARNER: I believe the honourable member is asking for a clarification of the words “generally to people in the community, including people with disabilities”. I will provide the honourable member with an example. The Transport Department provides general transport trains. This subclause would argue that the Transport Department include, in its service delivery, service to people with disabilities. The Transport Department generally provides a service. The department is asking that where a service provider—any service provider, whether it be Government or non- Government—provides that general service, that service provider include a provision for people with disabilities to enable them to access that service. Mr ROWELL: In regard to the indemnities for volunteer groups—there are some volunteer organisations that are well organised and do carry indemnities. However, there are many people in the wider community who are carrying out a lot of good work with the disabled. The direction the Government is taking endeavours to assimilate people with disabilities into the community, and that process involves organisations such as the Family Friend so that the normalisation process is maximised. Having said that, there are situations where accidents and liabilities could occur to those people who are providing that very worthwhile volunteer service. Ms WARNER: The matters that the honourable member is referring to—insurance and employment, etc.—are in fact covered in other legislation. At the end of the day, service providers will have to provide insurance to cover any indemnity in the event of an accident. That arrangement would be covered elsewhere and would not need to be covered in this legislation, which is concerned with philosophy and objectives rather than that level of detail. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5485

Clause 7— Mr ROWELL (3.10 p.m.): When dealing with the development of services, a wide range of services are included. One group in the north has approached me and said that this service developer section of the Bill is too wide. That group is concerned that the section is not specific enough and could lead to money being spent on the part of service developers in a manner that is not as beneficial as might be expected. Could the Minister give some indication of her feelings on this subject, and indicate how “service developers” can be narrowed down, and to whom the Minister will provide finance. Ms WARNER: I am not entirely sure what the honourable member refers to in terms of the problem with this clause. This is a basic concept. It refers to the meaning of “service developer”. I do not see how the honourable member wants the definition changed—— Mr Rowell: Just defining it, getting it a little bit clearer what the service developers’ role is and how they will expend money. Ms WARNER: As I said in my concluding remarks on the second-reading debate, I do not believe that this legislation aims to restrict opportunities or innovations in service development. In fact, the department would prefer to make those opportunities broader than narrower. I believe that the department has been too narrowly focused in the past in terms of service delivery for people who have disabilities. The honourable member is correct: the department does not wish to narrow down the definition so that it is too definitive. In terms of priorities of service development and the funding that comes from my department—that will be done on the basis of the clear priorities that will be set by the department. However, the principles of this Bill will generally apply. I do not believe the department needs to define the topic any more narrowly than that. I am not entirely sure what the honourable member is referring to in terms of “money wasting”. Mr ROWELL: I suppose the basic concern is that the maximum benefit is derived from any funding that is provided by the Government. The definition should not become too broad so that the funds are syphoned off into other areas, such as medical attention. The disabled should receive the full benefit of the funding that will be provided by the Government. That was the concern expressed by the people to whom I have spoken. Clause 7, as read, agreed to. Clauses 8 to 16, as read, agreed to. Clause 17— Mr ROWELL (3.13 p.m.): Mr Chairman—— Mr De Lacy: You don’t have to discuss every clause. Mr ROWELL: I do not need the comments of the Honourable the Treasurer. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Treasurer is not even sitting in his correct place. Mr ROWELL: I believe that a couple of words should be added to this clause. It states— “Programs and services should be designed and implemented to promote the inclusion of people with disabilities in the life of the local community.” My amendment would include the words “where beneficial or appropriate”. It has come to my attention that some disabled people may not necessarily wish to become involved at the level at which a departmental person might expect. That could present a problem as far as the funding provided to such persons is concerned, if, for whatever reason, the outcome was not at the level that was anticipated by the department. I believe that my amendment offers such disabled people more latitude to do things the way they want to do them. I believe that the words “where beneficial or appropriate” should be added. Ms WARNER: I do not believe it is necessary to further qualify this clause. If one looks carefully at clause 17, it says that “services should be designed and implemented to promote”—and the emphasis is on the word “promote”. The clause is not meant to be dictatorial or mandatory in any way, but to promote the inclusion of people with 5486 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly disabilities into the local community. The clause does not need to further qualify that point. It is a statement of the direction in which Queensland should go rather than a mandatory inclusion. Mr ROWELL: I move the following amendment— “At page 9, line 19, after ‘community’ insert— ‘, if appropriate or beneficial’.” Amendment negatived. Clause 17, as read, agreed to. Clause 18— Mr ROWELL (3.15 p.m.): This clause states that no single organisation should exercise control over the life of a person. Mr De Lacy: If you want a briefing on this issue, you are allowed to go and talk to the officers. Mr ROWELL: I do not really need the Minister’s input. If he wishes to have some input, he is quite entitled to do so. In fact, I believe that if the Treasurer is not sitting in his correct seat—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member will return to the contents of the clause. Mr ROWELL: The clause states— “Programs and services should be designed and implemented to ensure that no single organisation that is a service provider exercises control over all or most aspects of the life of a person with a disability.” It is restricted to a single organisation. Funding difficulties could be created for organisations if the provisions of the clause were to be applied to the letter of the law. If an organisation wished to provide a single facility, that may be the best option for a disabled person. Mr QUINN: I also wish to comment on this clause. Although I understand the spirit of the legislation and totally agree with it, I think that this clause has been included in the legislation to prevent, as it states, one single organisation from having control over the life of a person. That problem has probably arisen in the past, because of a lack of funds. It has been very economical for a single, cost-efficient organisation to provide those services in the past. I make the point that I agree with the clause, but unless adequate funds are provided, then either poorer services will be offered or there will be a lower level of support for people who have disabilities. The key to the proper implementation of this clause is, indeed, the level of funding that is provided. Ms WARNER: On the contrary, I do not believe that it is a question of funding; I believe that it is a question of philosophy. This clause goes to the heart of the philosophical intent of the legislation, and that is, that people who have disabilities should not be treated separately and differently from other people in the community. Very few people in the community have their lives regulated by a single organisation. I am talking about integration, deinstitutionalisation and normalisation. This clause needs to be in the legislation because it simply states the objective that people should not have to live in an institution controlled by a single organisation. Mr ROWELL: There will definitely be no restriction in the event that a single organisation provides a disabled person with the best type of care? I want to establish that point. Will the Minister comment on that? Ms WARNER: No. Clause 18, as read, agreed to. Clauses 19 and 20, as read, agreed to. Clause 21— Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5487

Mr ROWELL (3.20 p.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 10, omit lines 12 to 15 and insert— ‘Raising and resolving grievances 21. Programs and services should be designed and implemented to ensure that appropriate ways exist for people with disabilities and their advocates— (a) to raise a grievance about services with the service provider and have it resolved; and (b) if a grievance is not otherwise resolved—to have it resolved by independent arbitration.’ ” I know that the Minister expressed her feelings about this issue in her reply to the second-reading debate, but there needs to be a mechanism in place so that those people who are not happy with the services that are provided, or the funding, or who are concerned about their loved ones—such as a mother or a brother—can have their grievances resolved totally independent of the Government. I know that the Minister mentioned certain judicial organisations, but very often those people who have grievances are short of funds and resources. I believe that an independent arbitrator, who has the capacity to judge the particular circumstances, would overcome the need to enter into the judicial system. That is why I am requesting that independent arbitration be considered. Ms WARNER: The member for Hinchinbrook is correct. I covered the broad thrust of the grievance procedures in my reply to the second-reading debate. As to the amendment that the honourable member has outlined—clause 21 states— “. . . people with disabilities and their advocates to raise grievances about services and have them resolved.” Programs are designed and implemented to ensure that those mechanisms exist. That applies to service providers who are not employed by the Government. I have indicated to the honourable member the Government procedures for appeals and grievances. Clause 21 states “and have them resolved”. Paragraph (b) of the amendment states— “if a grievance is not otherwise resolved—to have it resolved by independent arbitration.” We are talking about there being in existence already independent arbitrators. They do not need to be referred to specifically in the Bill, because that might very well limit the rights of those people mentioned in the Bill to go only to one place instead of a number of places to obtain a resolution of their difficulties. This amendment ignores the fact that the Bill actually says that people will have a right to raise grievances and have them resolved. We do not need to add “and resolved and resolved”, which is effectively what this amendment does. Mr ROWELL: Very simply, I wanted a mechanism that does not require those people to go to another judicial system before their grievances are considered. There might be instances in which those grievances can be overcome very simply. Some disabled people and their families are suffering a great deal of distress. If we could resolve their problems through a fairly simple system of arbitration, that would not restrict them from seeking further hearing of their grievances if they disagree with a decision or find that the arbitration is insufficient to deal their problems. They could still approach another judicial system of the type which the Minister mentioned. Ms WARNER: The member is asking us to be incredibly repetitive and cumbersome and to provide mechanisms upon mechanisms for doing exactly the same thing. I do not believe that that would be cost effective or administratively sound. A number of avenues of appeal are open to people with grievances. In all cases, those processes of appeal involve an independent arbitrator. If we were to try to set up 5488 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly another independent arbitrator under this legislation, that would be less than independent because it would be set up by my department for that purpose. In any case, I reject the idea that we need a separate and independent arbitrator under this legislation. We have provided for the hearing of grievances, and we will also provide for a grievance procedure to be entered into in all service agreements with non- Government sector service providers. I believe that covers people’s capacity to obtain a resolution of grievances, should they occur. I do not believe that we need to go further. Amendment negatived. Clause 21, as read, agreed to. Clause 22— Mr ROWELL (3.25 p.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 10, line 22, after ‘consultation’ insert— ‘with the people with disabilities and their families, carers and advocates’.” People with disabilities and their families, carers and advocates should have a major input in the participation and planning, etc., of services. Subclause (2) states— “Programs and services provided to people with disabilities should provide opportunities for consultation in relation to the development of major policy and program changes.” I believe that by including those people who are directly involved, that is, people with disabilities and their families, carers and advocates, that would show the true intention on the part of the Government towards the planning of services for disabled people. Would the Minister care to comment on that? Ms WARNER: This Bill provides for consultation. Again, I believe that it would be redundant to add another long list of people with disabilities and their families, carers and advocates, etc. I believe that those people are included in the broad idea of consultation, which clearly will take place. If we actually start listing people with whom disabled people are bound to consult in the legislation, that may very well be limiting, because there may be other people with whom those people wish to consult. The member is raising a small point which, in my opinion, is a bit nitpicking. Mr ROWELL: To the contrary—I believe that those people who are directly affected should have a major say in what is being provided for them. The families, carers and advocates are really working at the coalface with the disabled. Mr De Lacy interjected. Mr ROWELL: Is the Treasurer in his correct seat? The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Hinchinbrook will return to the Bill. Mr ROWELL: I am sorry, Mr Chairman. Basically, those people should have some input into the services provided for people with disabilities. Ms WARNER: I could not agree more with the member. That is why we have provided for consultation in the Bill. Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5489

Question—That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 31 NOES, 48 Beanland Stephan Ardill Livingstone Booth Turner Barber Mackenroth Borbidge Veivers Beattie McElligott Connor Watson Bird McLean Coomber Braddy Milliner Dunworth Bredhauer Nunn Elliott Briskey Pearce FitzGerald Campbell Power Gilmore Clark Robson Goss J. N. Comben Schwarten Gunn D’Arcy Smith Harper Davies Smyth Horan De Lacy Spence Katter Dollin Sullivan J. H. Lester Eaton Sullivan T. B. Lingard Edmond Szczerbanik Littleproud Elder Vaughan McCauley Fenlon Warner Perrett Flynn Welford Randell Foley Wells Rowell Gibbs Woodgate Santoro Goss W. K. Sheldon Tellers: Hamill Tellers: Slack Neal Hayward Prest Springborg Quinn Hollis Pitt Resolved in the negative. The CHAIRMAN: I remind honourable members that all future divisions will be of two minutes’ duration. Clause 22, as read, agreed to. Clauses 23 and 24, as read, agreed to. Clause 25— Mr ROWELL (3.37 p.m.): This clause relates to grants of financial assistance, particularly to service providers. Clause 6 (3) provides that service providers may provide their services with the intention of making a profit. I feel a little uncomfortable with that provision. Many doctors and other people in that field who provide a service to people who are disabled must be funded. How will the Minister discriminate between professional people providing a service and voluntary organisations that might be eligible for funding? Ms WARNER: A service provider is simply a person who provides a service. In some cases that provider may very well be providing the service for a profit. A group that runs a commercial operation in one aspect of its activities may wish to run a service without profit in another part of its activities. The Government is simply allowing for service providers to apply for grants. Honourable members can be assured that any grants that are given will have to be fully accounted for; they must be used for the purposes for which they were intended. These grants will not be for the purpose of assisting people to simply make profits. People will receive grants only if they are providing a community service that would not be provided in any other way—or would not be provided sufficiently in any other way. We cannot actually prevent people from making a profit on some occasions. In many instances, those service providers immediately plough those profits back into the service delivery anyway, or into another aspect of the service delivery. Mr ROWELL: I believe that there would need to be a very high level of accountability for such people. It is quite easy to show a loss on one side of the ledger regarding what that person is doing for the disabled and it is very easy to make it appear to profit on the other side of the ledger when one is providing another service. That is 5490 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly my concern with this provision. Ms WARNER: This Bill attempts to ensure that those people who are providing a service, whether or not they are providing that service for profit, meet the objectives and policies of this Bill. For instance, a cinema may provide specific services for people with disabilities such as special chairs or special access, but it makes a profit on people entering that cinema. The services that that cinema provides should meet the objectives and policies of this Bill. That is all that this means. The honourable member should not be too concerned about the possibility that this Government will give people money for the purpose of providing a service and that they will do something else with it in order to make a profit, because I can assure him that that is not the case. My department has considerable experience in the granting of funds and the ways in which those funds can be properly accounted for. Clause 25, as read, agreed to. Clauses 26 to 35, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Ms Warner, by leave, read a third time.

SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (3.44 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts relating to superannuation.” Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr De Lacy, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (3.45 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” The purpose of this Bill is to introduce amendments of an administrative nature to the legislation governing the superannuation schemes of Queensland Crown employees and members of Parliament. The amendments are required for the following reasons— firstly, to ensure that the schemes comply with Commonwealth superannuation standards; secondly, to clarify the current legislative prescriptions for the calculation of benefit entitlements under the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act; thirdly, to extend superannuation coverage to persons employed on a permanent part-time basis in the Police Service, thus facilitating part-time employment; and fourthly, to provide the mechanism to allow the closure of the Police Superannuation Scheme, in favour of future appointees to the Police Service joining the new State public sector superannuation scheme. The Bill introduces a provision into the State service parliamentary and police superannuation legislation to provide that the relevant standards of the Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Standards Act are applicable to the schemes. It is necessary that this provision be in place by 1 July 1992 to ensure that the schemes continue to qualify for taxation concessions as complying superannuation schemes under the Commonwealth occupational superannuation standards legislation. Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5491

Amendments are also contained in the Bill to clarify current provisions of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act relating to members who leave Parliament and are subsequently re-elected. The provisions contained in the Bill will— (1) ensure that where members become entitled to separate benefits relating to more than one period of service, an earlier benefit is to be escalated and deducted from the current benefit; (2) provide that where the current benefit is a multiple of contributions only, no aggregation of service occur and any previous benefits be ignored. Without this variation, it is possible for a negative benefit entitlement to emerge in certain circumstances; (3) confirm that members who were in the 1983 and 1986 Parliaments and who had an entitlement to a spouse’s pension, retain that entitlement if they have a break in service. Currently, the Act does not cater for a former continuing member again becoming a member. The Bill therefore clarifies that these people will continue the same coverage upon re-election. The Bill also allows for superannuation coverage to be extended to persons employed in the Police Service on a part-time basis. Negotiations are currently proceeding for the introduction of part-time officers of the Police Service from July, and if employment on such a basis is introduced, it will be necessary to provide superannuation coverage for the officers concerned. The Queensland Government has negotiated with the police unions for the closure of the existing police superannuation scheme and for future appointees to the Police Service to join the Queensland Government’s major defined benefit scheme, Q Super. In addition, it is envisaged that current police scheme members will be provided with an opportunity to transfer to Q Super on a basis similar to the offer provided recently to public servants and other Crown employees. A provision is contained in the Bill to facilitate the transfer of police officers from the police superannuation scheme to Q Super. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Slack, adjourned.

GAMING MACHINE AMENDMENT BILL Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (3.48 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Gaming Machine Act 1991.” Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (3.49 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” At its last sitting, this House passed significant amendments to the archaic Liquor Act of 1912 vintage, bringing Queensland out of the cellar and into the daylight. The new Liquor Act also necessitates amendments to the Gaming Machine Act. The most significant amendment contained in this Bill relates to adoption of all provisions of the Liquor Act that cover minors. This amendment ensures not only that this Government’s fight against under-age drinking and gambling continues, but also that clubs and hotels operate under the same statutory obligations. 5492 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

The Bill before the House represents no change whatsoever to the policies and the thrust of the current gaming machine legislation which has proved an outstanding success in fulfilling this Government’s promise to provide a squeaky-clean gaming machine industry. Those amendments that are not related to the Liquor Act are included only to update the Gaming Machine Act by incorporating the drafting principles implemented during the past 12 months and also to take advantage of technological advances during that time. In terms of industry control and integrity, the original Act remains unchanged, as does the Government’s electronic monitoring system which has fulfilled all expectations, except probably those of the now meekly silent Leader of the Opposition. Mr Borbidge: Let’s see how the CJC inquiries go. Mr De LACY: Which inquiries? Honourable members will recall that in the months leading up to the introduction of poker machines in Queensland, the Leader of the Opposition launched a campaign to discredit the gaming machine industry and almost anyone associated with it. Not one of the allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition was based on fact. They were all the figment of his imagination, which has obviously been fertilised by many readings of cops and robbers comics. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition and other members opposite who made these wild allegations to get out among the licensed clubs of Queensland and repeat them. I also challenge the Leader of the Opposition to restate his claim that the Machine Gaming Division could not handle the Statewide introduction of poker machines. For the benefit of the honourable members opposite—— Honourable members interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Clark): Order! Mr De LACY: I am pleased to inform the House that, by the end of this week, every club that lodged an approved poker machine licence application by 31 December last will have its first allocation of gaming machines. That amounts to 2 551 machines in 217 clubs. I point out that this level has been reached five weeks earlier than scheduled. As well, there will be 88 hotels with over 750 poker machines by the end of next week. This is a tribute to the efficiency and professionalism of the staff of the Machine Gaming Division—the same people labelled by Mr Borbidge as incompetent. It is also worth noting that backfilling of those original orders started this week. This process is expected to be concluded by 30 June. Again, this has been achieved because of the competence, professionalism and cooperative attitude of the staff of the Machine Gaming Division—a factor universally remarked upon by officials of licensed clubs around Queensland. I suppose it would be expecting too much for Mr Borbidge to apologise publicly to those officers, just as it would be expecting too much for him to acknowledge—— Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. My point of order simply is that there is a long tradition in this place that second-reading speeches explain the legislation before the Parliament and do not defend the Minister and the Government on a course of action—— Mr De Lacy: You can’t tell me how to make my second-reading speeches. Mr BORBIDGE: The Treasurer should tell us what the legislation is about. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I ask the Treasurer to continue. Mr De LACY: It would be expecting too much for the member for Surfers Paradise to acknowledge that he was wrong with every other accusation he made in connection with poker machines in Queensland. So let me help him out. Mr Borbidge was wrong when he said that the security monitoring system would not work. There are now 2 862 poker machines operating around the State and there has not been one security breach by a crazed computer hacker or a desperado wielding a knitting needle. Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5493

Mr Borbidge was wrong when he claimed that there was an investigation into certain poker machine manufacturers. The Queensland Police Service, the Federal Police and even international agencies all denied that there was any such investigation. Then there was the claim by Mr Borbidge that some of the poker machine manufacturers were engaged in price collusion. Honourable members will recall that it took the Trade Practices Commission experts only a few days to decide that—yes, you guessed it—Mr Borbidge was wrong again. Through all that, other members of the Opposition have not exactly been rallying to support their leader. Despite voting in this House to keep Queensland poker machine free, some members of the Opposition were criticising the Government for a delay in the introduction of the machines. Imagine that—members of the party that opposed the introduction of poker machines for 32 years—— Mr SLACK: I rise to a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition raised a point of order relevant to the explanation of the Bill. Mr De Lacy: You’re getting a comprehensive explanation—one that you need. Mr SLACK: It has nothing to do with the Bill. On several occasions in the past, the Speaker has ruled that material—— Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will consult the Clerk. The Treasurer is making a second-reading speech. In the ensuing debate, members will have an opportunity to respond to his remarks. I ask the Treasurer to continue. Mr De LACY: As I was saying, members of the party that opposed the introduction of poker machines for 32 years had the audacity to criticise the Goss Government for a delay of a couple of months. The member for Toowoomba South, for instance, told the Toowoomba Chronicle that any further delay would cost jobs. What breathless hypocrisy. What about the jobs that were lost during the 32 years when the Nationals prevented poker machines from operating in Queensland? Honourable members may care to know that Mr Horan and his predecessor, Mr Berghofer, are now keen poker machine players—or at least that is the impression one could gain from the number of newspaper photographs of the smiling duo playing the machines. Other members opposite have also shown that they are no longer pokies shy—especially if a news camera is around. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker, in view of rulings given by Mr Speaker in respect of myself last week, I request a ruling from you that members of the Opposition may during the second-reading debate of the legislation have the same flexibility that the Chair is now extending to the Treasurer. Clearly, the Treasurer has been on his feet for some time. He has hardly made mention of the legislation. We on the Opposition side of the House do not mind a debate, but we want to play the game by the same rules. I seek a ruling from you now, Madam Deputy Speaker, in respect of that matter. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have already ruled that members of the Opposition will have an opportunity to respond in the debate. There is no point of order. I call the Treasurer. Mr De LACY: I wait for that response with bated breath. The reason why I mention Mr Borbidge’s accusations and subsequent events is that it is clear that the Gaming Machine Act does not require substantial amendment. The Act has set standards for poker machine operations that are acknowledged as the best possible. It is time for Mr Borbidge to admit that he was wrong, and it is time that he gave a clear undertaking that the Nationals would not turn back the clock and pull the plug on poker machines in this State if—by some quirk of fate—they were ever re-elected. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Slack, adjourned.

LEGISLATIVE STANDARDS BILL 5494 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Second Reading Debate resumed from 6 May (see p. 5009). Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (3.59 p.m.): In speaking to the Legislative Standards Bill, it is the view of members on this side of the House that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, as small as it has been up until now, has served this State faithfully and well. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel became an established office in Queensland in 1927. It is interesting to note that, in the 1880s and the 1890s, much of the legislative drafting work was contracted out to private contractors. At the time of the change of Government in 1957, the office employed three staff. Now, under this Labor Government, there is a total staff complement of 34, comprising 19 drafters and 15 clerical and secretarial staff. The Bill derives from a comment in the commission of inquiry report that hinted that the independence of the Parliamentary Counsel could somehow or other be undermined, and recommended that it should be reviewed. No evidence was forthcoming in that report or, indeed, in the public submissions to EARC’s review of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to throw light on whatever was the perceived problem. The concern was that Parliamentary Counsel— “. . . obviously should not tailor advice to political expediency or fail to point out fundamental errors in principle or obligation in any proposed course”. EARC commenced the review of Parliamentary Counsel in September 1990 with its issues paper, and the report was published in May 1991. The report contained a draft Bill. The legislation before the Parliament today is different in that significant omissions have been made from that draft Bill. In July 1991, the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review reported and endorsed the recommendations of EARC, and now, some 10 months later, the Bill is before the House. What then is the purpose of the Legislative Standards Bill? Part 2 of the Bill says that it is to establish the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel which is to ensure that Queensland legislation is of the highest standard, provide an effective and efficient legislative drafting service and produce legislation and information relating to Queensland in both printed and electronic form. That is what this so-called Legislative Standards Bill is about—no more, no less, than the establishment of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. It is not a “legislative standards” Bill. The title of the Bill bears no relation to its contents. In contrast to the original EARC Bill, the legislation before us is nothing but a toothless tiger. The EARC Bill had a twofold purpose—to establish the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and to stop new laws breaching existing rights and liberties. It is interesting to note that one of the purposes in the EARC draft was that there should be adequate parliamentary scrutiny of legislation in this place. This is noticeably absent from the Government’s Bill. This Bill merely establishes the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. The EARC legislative standards Bill had as its centrepiece a powerful all-party parliamentary scrutiny of legislation committee. The function of this committee was to review all Bills and to report to the Parliament if a particular piece of legislation appeared to transgress any basic principles, particularly basic principles of criminal law. The EARC Bill proposed that the Committee of Subordinate Legislation be discontinued and its functions included with the parliamentary scrutiny of legislation committee. EARC proposed that the committee would also have two other significant functions in addition to reviewing individual Bills and subordinate legislation. The first was that the committee should, on behalf of the Parliament, monitor overall progress in meeting objectives of the proposed Legislative Standards Act and to report to the Parliament on any reviews conducted. The second was that the committee would undertake a comprehensive review into notification, publication, tabling and the need for this review. The Bill before us, in the words of Civil Liberties Council spokesman, Terry O’Gorman, is a “gutted version”. It is simply a Bill that is a skeleton version of the one Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5495 proposed by EARC. Mr O’Gorman continued by saying— “ . . . it was so badly gutted that it would not protect us from anything.” The Law Society also criticised the legislation and said— “It was a misnomer and it would not prevent serious breaches of fundamental legislative principles.” The Law Society, it seems, actually campaigned for a legislative standards Act based on the EARC draft. The Premier’s commitment to Fitzgerald reform grows somewhat thin the longer he is in office. Reform now wearies him. Since we resumed for our relatively short 1992 sittings, I think that this is the third occasion on which the Premier, the responsible Minister, has not been in the House. He is not even displaying to this Parliament the common decency of the Minister responsible being here to front and debate his legislation. We are becoming very used to the contempt with which this Premier and this Government treat this Parliament. Today will go down as a day of infamy in terms of the conduct of this place. Look at the record. With only six months left in the life of this Parliament—of this Government—there is no freedom of information legislation, despite the undertaking given by Mr Goss in his policy speech when he was the Leader of the Opposition. In that policy speech, he said— “I intend for open Government to be more than just a slogan. Freedom of information legislation will be introduced so that for the first time, Queenslanders will be able to break down the walls of secrecy surrounding the process of Government decision making.” What the Premier promised and what the Premier delivers are two different things. Each day that the Parliament drifts on in this pathetically short session, we see the freedom of information legislation dropping to the bottom of the notice paper. That legislation, like so much else that has been recommended by EARC, has had to continue to languish in this House simply because this Government does not want open Government. The Goss Labor Government does not want any scrutiny of its activities or its decision- making process. The parliamentary scrutiny of legislation committee would watch the Executive, the bureaucrats and the Cabinet Ministers, but it is missing from this legislation. The fact is that this Government is a secret Government. It is afraid to open its processes to scrutiny. The Bill before us provides no measure whatsoever to check on the excesses of the Executive. The cold, hard fact is that this legislation is fatally flawed. To give the Bill some semblance of respectability, included in it is a Labor Government innovation—“Meaning of ‘fundamental legislative principles’ ”. This cosy piece of rhetoric is designed, it can be assumed, to take the place of the parliamentary scrutiny of legislation committee. According to the Explanatory Notes, and, indeed, the Premier’s own speech, word for word— “Providing a statutory basis for fundamental legislative principles is a significant step in the preservation and enhancement of individual rights and liberties.” That is warm, inner-glow rhetoric, or, in the words of Mr O’Gorman— “It simply contains a series of motherhood statements which are neither enforceable by Parliament nor by the courts.” In other words, it is a joke and a mere shadow of the EARC draft Bill. How is the Government to enforce these motherhood statements if they are not enforceable by either the Parliament or by the courts? There is no commitment to the reform of Parliament. There is no commitment to open government. The Premier, in his speech to the House—before he once again wimped out of the debate—gave an excuse for not including the establishment of a parliamentary scrutiny of legislation committee in this Bill. He said, “This has not been overlooked.” How 5496 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly quaint! The Premier went on to say that EARC’s report on the review of parliamentary committees is to be released in August or September. The Premier said that the Government would be sensible to consider the question of the parliamentary scrutiny of legislation committee after this report and the report of the parliamentary committee are released. Once again, this is an absolute cop-out. For the benefit of the House, I will quote from the EARC report on its review of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. It stated— “When the commission released issues paper No 7 in September 1990 it noted that it would not, in the course of the OPC review, be examining the operation of the Queensland parliamentary committee system to determine the adequacy of legislative scrutiny procedures. A key factor in this decision was an informal agreement between the chairman of the commission and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly that the commission would refrain from examination of the operations of the Parliament during 1990 and early 1991 to enable Parliament to consider its own practices. Nevertheless, in the course of the review into the OPC, it became apparent that any system of checks and balances in the making of legislation within Government could not be satisfactorily considered unless they were also related to the system of checks and balances operating in the parliamentary arena. Accordingly, while the commission plans to commence a general review in the parliamentary committee system later this year, the commission did widen its enquiries in the course of the OPC review to examine aspects of parliamentary committee procedures in relation to legislative scrutiny. A factor which prompted the commission to do this was a suggestion in two submissions that the commission should examine whether a scrutiny of Bill committee should be established by the Legislative Assembly. One of the submissions was from the OPC which commented: ‘The commission may wish to consider whether or not the effectiveness of the role of the office (OPC) would be enhanced if the Queensland Legislative Assembly were to have a committee, like the Senate Standing Committee for the scrutiny of Bills, charged with the task of examining Bills in a non-partisan manner for impact on fundamental legislative principles.’ ” The report states quite clearly that it widened its inquiries to examine aspects of parliamentary committee procedures and it was encouraged in that regard by a submission from the Government’s own Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. The Goss Labor Government’s excuse for not including the parliamentary scrutiny of legislation committee is shallow and hollow and reeks of the empty rhetoric for which this Premier and his Government are becoming famous. The Premier said that it was not overlooked. That probably is true. It is probably also true that a deliberate decision was made to avoid the establishment of such a committee, as the Government did not want another committee prying into its affairs. It is interesting to note that this is a Government that is quite happy to have committees prying into everyone else’s affairs, reviewing everything else in the State of Queensland, except the affairs of the Executive. It is apparent to every political watcher that the Government does not like the watchdog characteristics of the CJC or EARC. My political instincts tell me that this House will not see freedom of information legislation operating before the State election—and I invite the Attorney-General to prove me wrong—nor will the parliamentary scrutiny legislation be established. The institution of Parliament itself has been debased and abused by the Labor Government, and the omission of the parliamentary scrutiny of legislation committee from this Legislative Standards Bill further adds to the degradation of this House. It also shows that when it comes to the crunch of standing up for individual rights and liberties, this Government could not enshrine in legislation the body to oversee that these basic fundamental principles were not transgressed. The Labor Party was not sufficiently committed to these principles or to the reform process to crash through. Rather, this Government decided to crash. The most sensible course of action would have been to Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5497 include the parliamentary scrutiny legislation committee in this Bill to avoid having to amend it at some future date. Failure to do so at this point suggests that the Goss Labor Government has an agenda of its own. The Opposition will support this legislation, because it establishes the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, but it falls far short of what EARC recommended. I wish to read into Hansard today what is missing from this legislation. I refer to the draft Bill that EARC—one of the sons of the Fitzgerald commission of inquiry—recommended. I refer to missing Part 3, entitled “Explanatory Memoranda”. That section states— “Explanatory memoranda required for Bills 23. (1) The Minister who presents a government Bill to the Legislative Assembly must, during or at the end of the Minister’s second reading speech, lay before the Legislative Assembly an explanatory memorandum relating to the Bill. (2) The explanatory memorandum must— (a) be in clear and precise language; and (b) outline— (i) the purposes or objects of the Bill; and (ii) the reasons why legislation is necessary or desirable for achieving the purposes or objects; and (iii) the estimated cost for the Government of implementing the Bill; and (iv) the consultation undertaken with persons likely to be affected by the Bill; and (c) describe the purpose or object, and intended operation, of each clause. (3) To allay any doubt, it is declared that failure to comply with this section does not affect the validity of any legislation. Explanatory memoranda required for subordinate legislation 24. (1) When any subordinate legislation is laid before the Legislative Assembly, it is to be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum prepared under the authority of the Minister administering the provisions of the Act under which the subordinate legislation was made. (2) The explanatory memorandum must— (a) be in clear and precise language; and (b) outline— (i) the purposes or objects of the subordinate legislation; and (ii) the reasons why legislation is necessary or desirable for achieving the purposes or objects; and (iii) the estimated cost to the Government of implementing the subordinate legislation; and (iv) the consultation undertaken with persons likely to be affected by the subordinate legislation; and (b) describe the purpose or object, and the intended operation, of each clause or similar provision of the subordinate legislation; and (c) indicate the provisions of the Act under which the subordinate legislation was made. (3) Failure to comply with this section does not affect the validity of the subordinate legislation.” I believe that the next part, headed “The Parliamentary Scrutiny of Legislation Committee” is important, relevant, and challenges the validity of this Government’s commitment to the reform process, as recommended by EARC— 5498 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

“Division 1—Constitution and meetings of the Committee Constitution and appointment of Committee 25. (1) A committee to be called the Parliamentary Scrutiny of Legislation Committee is established. (2) The Committee is to be appointed— (a) immediately after the commencement of this Act; and (b) immediately after the first session of each later Parliament. (3) The Committee is to consist of 7 members. (4) The committee members are to be appointed by the Legislative Assembly. (5) Not more than 4 of the committee members are to be nominated for appointment by the Minister who is recognised in the Legislative Assembly as the Leader of the House. (6) Not less than 2 of the committee members are to be nominated for appointment by the Member who is recognised in the Legislative Assembly as the Leader of the Opposition. (7) A Minister is not to be a committee member. (8) The practice of the Legislative Assembly in relation to the appointment of members of Select Committees applies to the appointment of committee members so far as it is consistent with this Act. Committee taken to be Select Committee 26. The Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly relating to Select Committees apply to the Committee and the conduct of its business as if it were a Select Committee of the Assembly. Term of committee members 27. (1) The committee members go out of office on the dissolution or expiry of the term of the Legislative Assembly. (2) The membership of the Committee is not affected by the prorogation of the Parliament. Casual vacancies 28. (1) The seat of a committee member becomes vacant if the person— (a) dies; (b) resigns by writing signed and delivered to the Speaker or, if the office of Speaker is vacant, the Clerk of the Parliament; or (c) ceases to be a Member; or (d) becomes a Minister; or (e) is absent, without approval by resolution of the Committee, from 3 consecutive duly summoned meetings of the Committee; or (f) is removed from office by resolution of the Legislative Assembly. (2) Subject to section 25, the Legislative Assembly may appoint a Member to fill a casual vacancy in the membership of the Committee. Chairperson and deputy Chairperson 29. (1) After each appointment of the Committee, the committee members are to appoint a committee member to be chairperson and another committee member to be deputy chairperson. (2) The chairperson is to preside at all meetings of the Committee at which he or she is present. (3) In the absence of the chairperson, the deputy chairperson is to preside.” Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5499

Mr Wells: Why don’t you just incorporate it in Hansard? Mr BORBIDGE: No. I am sorry. After the shameful conduct of this Government in the Parliament this morning, the Attorney-General lost such cooperation from the Opposition. I have 71 minutes left. I could have tabled the draft Bill. However, I intend to read it into Hansard, particularly as this is what EARC recommended should be in the legislation. I say to the Attorney-General that if he wants cooperation in this place—brother, it is a two-way street! The draft legislation continues— “(4) In the absence of both the chairperson and the deputy chairperson, the committee members present may appoint one of their number to preside. (5) A committee member presiding under subsection (3) or (4) has all the powers of the chairperson.” Mr Wells: You’ve got a boring monotone. Mr BORBIDGE: I have 71 minutes left and, quite frankly, I do not care how long I keep the Attorney-General. He is not even the responsible Minister; he is an interloper. The Premier does not even have the decency to be in the Chamber. Mr Wells: Incorporate it. Make it up yourself and prove you can understand it. Mr BORBIDGE: The Attorney-General can squawk all he likes. He pretends to be the champion of Fitzgerald reform; he pretends to be the champion of the reform process. Every time the heat is on, the Attorney-General wimps out and runs the other way. What EARC said should be contained in this legislation is not contained in it. The EARC report went on to recommend the following— “Quorum and voting 30. (1) Subject to subsection (2), 4 committee members form a quorum. (2) When the Committee meets for the consideration of a proposed report to the Legislative Assembly, the quorum is to consist of not less than 5 committee members. (3) A question is to be decided by a majority of the votes of the committee members present and voting. (4) The chairperson has a deliberative vote and, if the votes are equal, also has a casting vote. (5) If a committee member dissents from a decision of the Committee, the report is to include a report of the views of the member. Meeting times 31. The Committee may sit and transact business at any time while the Legislative Assembly is not sitting and, with the leave of the Assembly, at any time while the Assembly is sitting. Evidence and procedure 32. The Committee— (a) is not bound by rules or practice as to evidence; and (b) may exercise its functions without formality or technicality; and (c) may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it considers appropriate. Division 2—Functions and powers of the Committee Functions 33. The functions of the Committee are— (a) to review each Bill presented to the Legislative Assembly and report to the Assembly if, in the Committee’s opinion, the Bill appears— (i) to trespass unduly on rights and liberties, whether or not by, for 5500 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

example,— (A) making rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on insufficiently defined administrative powers; or (B) making rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on non- reviewable administrative decisions or administrative decisions that are not subject to appropriate review; or (C) being inconsistent with principles of natural justice; or (D) inappropriately delegating administrative powers; or (E) reversing the onus of proof in criminal proceedings; or (F) conferring power to enter premises and search or seize documents or other property without a warrant issued by a judge or other judicial officer; or (G) failing to provide appropriate protection against self- incrimination; or (H) adversely affecting rights and liberties, or imposing obligations, retrospectively; or (I) conferring immunity from action, proceeding or prosecution; or (J) providing for the compulsory acquisition of property without fair compensation; or (ii) to delegate legislative power inappropriately; or (iii) to authorise an Act to be amended by subordinate legislation; (iv) not to subject, or not to sufficiently subject, the exercise of a delegated legislative power to the scrutiny of the Legislative Assembly; or (v) to fail to have sufficient regard to Aboriginal tradition and Torres Strait Islander tradition; or (vi) to be ambiguous or drafted in an insufficiently clear and precise style; and (b) to review each item of subordinate legislation or proposed subordinate legislation laid before the Legislative Assembly and report to the Assembly if, in the Committee’s opinion, the subordinate legislation appears— (i) to exceed the powers conferred by the Act under which the subordinate legislation was made or is proposed to be made; or (ii) to be inconsistent with the purposes, objects or intent of that Act; or (iii) to trespass unduly on rights and liberties, whether or not by, for example, providing for any one or more of the things mentioned in subparagraph (a) (i); or (iv) to contain any matter that should properly be dealt with by an Act rather than by subordinate legislation; or (v) to amend an Act; or (vi) to provide for the sub-delegation of powers delegated by an Act; or (vii) to fail to have sufficient regard to Aboriginal tradition and Torres Strait Islander tradition; or (viii) to be ambiguous or drafted in an insufficiently clear and precise style; and Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5501

(c) to review the extent to which Queensland legislation has regard to fundamental legislative principles of Queensland’s system of government and law; and (d) to review the operations of the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel; and (e) to review the standard of explanatory memoranda in both particular cases and generally; and (f) to review the progress made towards achieving the purposes of this Act; and (g) to review the appropriateness of the provisions of this Act in achieving the purposes of this Act; and (h) to report to the Legislative Assembly on all matters reviewed by it. Reports on Bills and responses 34. (1) The report of the Committee on a Bill— (a) must be laid before the Legislative Assembly before or at the resumption of the second reading debate on the Bill; and (b) may contain such recommendations as the Committee considers appropriate, including a recommendation that amendments be made to the Bill. (2) The Member who presented the Bill must lay before the Legislative Assembly a response to the report before the conclusion of the second reading debate. (3) This section does not apply to urgent Bills. (4) To allay any doubt, it is declared that failure to comply with this section does not affect the validity of any legislation. Urgent Bills 35. (1) The Committee may review, and report on, urgent Bills to the extent that it considers practicable. (2) The Committee may further review, and report on, urgent Bills after they have been passed by the Legislative Assembly. Reports on subordinate legislation 36. (1) The report of the Committee on any subordinate legislation may contain such recommendations as the Committee considers appropriate, including a recommendation that the subordinate legislation be disallowed in whole or part. (2) The Committee must allow the relevant Minister a reasonable opportunity to respond to the Committee’s report before laying the report before the Legislative Assembly. (3) Subsection (2) does not prevent notice being given of a resolution disallowing the subordinate legislation in whole or part. (4) Failure to comply with this section does not affect the validity of the subordinate legislation. Annual report 37. By such day as the Legislative Assembly by resolution determines or, in the absence of such a determination, within 4 months after the end of each financial year— (a) the Committee is to prepare a report on the operations of the Committee during the financial year; and (b) the chairperson is to lay the report before the Legislative Assembly. 5502 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Incidental powers 38. The Committee has power to do all things necessary to be done for or in connection with, or incidental to, the performance of any of its functions. Committee may be given certain powers 39. (1) The Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly may empower the Committee— (a) to hold hearings; and (b) to summon witnesses and take evidence. (2) Subsection (1) does not limit the powers of the Committee nor the powers that can be conferred on the Committee by the Legislative Assembly. Subcommittees 40. (1) The Committee may appoint subcommittees to review and report to the Committee on matters with which it is concerned. (2) A subcommittee is to consist of at least 3 members of the Committee. (3) One member of the subcommittee is to be appointed by the Committee as chairperson of the subcommittee. (4) A majority of the members of the subcommittee constitute a quorum. (5) A question is to be decided by a majority of the votes of the members of the subcommittee present and voting. (6) The chairperson of the subcommittee has a deliberative vote and, if the votes are equal, also has a casting vote. (7) The subcommittee has, in relation to each matter referred it, all the privileges, immunities and powers of the Committee (other than the power to appoint a subcommittee). (8) The subcommittee is to report in writing to the Committee as soon as practicable on each matter referred to it. (9) If a member of the subcommittee dissents from a decision of the subcommittee, the report is to include a report of the views of the member. (10) The Committee may adopt the report of the subcommittee or reject the report or adopt the report with variations. (11) The subcommittee may sit at any time that the Committee may sit, and may sit despite the fact that the Committee is sitting at the same time. (12) Sections 27 and 32 apply to the subcommittee in the same way as they apply to the Committee. Consideration of evidence by later constituted committee 41. If the Committee as constituted at any time has taken evidence in relation to a matter, but the Committee as so constituted has ceased to exist before reporting on the matter, the Committee as constituted at any later time (whether during the life of the same or a later Parliament) may consider the evidence as if it had been given to it. Division 3—Legal Advisor to the Committee Legal Advisor 42. (1) There is to be a Legal Advisor to the Committee. (2) The Legal Advisor is to assist the Committee to perform its functions effectively. Appointment of Legal Advisor 43. (1) The Legal Advisor is to be appointed by the Parliamentary Services Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5503

Commission on the recommendation of the Committee. (2) A person is not eligible for appointment as Legal Advisor unless the person is a barrister, a solicitor, a barrister and solicitor or a legal practitioner of the High Court or the Supreme Court of the State, another State or a Territory of not less than 7 years standing. (3) An officer of the public service is not to be the Legal Advisor. (4) Subsection (3) does not prevent an officer of the Parliamentary Services Commission being the Legal Advisor. Division 4—Other matters relating to the Committee Appointment of officers and experts”. Mr Mackenroth: If I get a copy of Playboy, will you read that? Mr BORBIDGE: If the member wishes, I can move all of this at the Committee stage and read it out then. You take your pick. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Clark): Order! The member for Surfers Paradise will return to the Bill. Mr BORBIDGE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I was provoked. This is another example of how the Government likes everything its own way, and that it is quite okay to gag the Opposition. This is one of the major recommendations of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission, but I am not even supposed to read into the record of this Parliament what has been left out and what those guys have wimped on. It is only fair and reasonable that the people of Queensland know what this Government is not prepared to live with. I intend to continue with or without the concurrence of the recently re-elected chairman of caucus. If he is having difficulty, I can read more slowly to assist his powers of comprehension. The draft Bill continued— “Division 4—Other matters relating to the Committee Appointment of officers and experts 44. (1) The Parliamentary Service Commission may, after consultation with the Committee and under the Parliamentary Service Act 1988, appoint such officers, and engage such other employees, as the Parliamentary Service Commission considers necessary for the performance of the Committee’s functions.” Honourable members interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: When honourable members have finished, I will continue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! The House will come to order. Mr BORBIDGE: As I was attempting to explain to honourable members opposite, the draft legislation continues— “(2) The Committee may, with the approval of the Parliamentary Service Commission, appoint a person or body to review, and report to the Committee on, any matter relevant to its functions. Allowances 45. (1) Each member of the Committee is entitled, for his or her attendance at meetings of the Committee and its subcommittees on days on which the Legislative Assembly is not sitting, to such travelling expenses and allowances as are determined by order in council. (2) The expenses and allowances are in addition to any salary and allowances paid under an Act. Office not an office of profit under Crown 46. For the purposes of an Act— (a) the office of chairperson or member of the Committee or a subcommittee is not an office or place of profit under the Crown; 5504 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

and (b) the chairperson or a member of the Committee or a subcommittee does not hold an office or place of profit under the Crown because the person accepts any salary, fees, allowances or other expenses in relation to the office. Financial provision 47. Money required for the purposes of this Part is to form part of the estimates of expenses prepared by the Parliamentary Service Commission in relation to the Legislative Assembly and the Parliamentary Service.” That is what the Government has not included in the legislation and that is the concern amongst honourable members on this side of the House. I suspect it is also of concern amongst certain members on the other side of the House. I refer particularly to the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review, the honourable member for Yeronga. It is well known that the honourable member, who likes to support the reform process as much as the caucus line will allow him to do so, desperately wanted and fought for those provisions in that draft legislation to be included in the Bill before the House today. He was rolled by the caucus and by the Premier. The central issue after two and a half years—— Mr FitzGerald: “Give them nothing.” Mr BORBIDGE: As the member for Lockyer says—”Give them nothing” is the attitude of the Premier. The central issue is that in everything that the Government undertakes the Executive is protected and the Parliament is effectively prostituted. We have seen that every day of the week in the very limited sittings that the House has had in recent months. The Government should do the right thing, that is, the Premier as the responsible Minister not only should have the common decency to be in the House whilst this legislation is being debated but should, if he has a genuine commitment to the reform process which he claims to espouse, withdraw the legislation, have it resubmitted in the form that was recommended by the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission and reintroduce it into the Parliament, including provision for the parliamentary scrutiny of legislation committee. Mr BARBER (Cooroora) (4.35 p.m.): I listened with care—I could not say “interest”—to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr BARBER: I note that he was not well supported in the House by his party. The Leader of the Opposition put a novel proposition, that is, he seemed to say that, because provision for a committee for scrutiny of legislation is not in the Bill, the Bill is unworthy of its title. As he well knows, at present, there is an ongoing investigation into parliamentary committees. It is appropriate that the implementation of the report be considered in that process. The Bill is well deserving of its title. One only has to read Part 2 of the Bill to be assured of that. I note that the Leader of the Opposition is leaving the Chamber. On purely economic terms, the people of Queensland are entitled to a Bill such as this. The Bill states in Part 2 that one of the purposes of the Bill is to ensure that Queensland legislation is of the highest standard. Queenslanders are entitled to that. They invest tens of millions of dollars in this Parliament and they deserve an increasing degree of value for money. They deserve legislation that is quality controlled. The Bill certainly introduces better quality control. I refer to the Westminster tradition. The Bill seems to nourish in Queensland again the fruits of Westminster democracy that withered on the vine during the long decades of Liberal/National/Country Party rule. It resurrects in Queensland such spirit-lifting principles as fundamental legislative principles, the rights and liberties of individuals, and the institution of Parliament. Those are concepts in which Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen did not believe. They are concepts that his Cabinet colleagues did not understand, otherwise they would have reined in Bjelke-Petersen’s excesses. This evening, we Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5505 heard from the Leader of the Opposition, in his conversion to championing the cause of the supremacy of Parliament, probably the most Damascus Road experience that we have ever heard. I well remember those dim years when Parliament was debased by Bjelke- Petersen. There are concepts in this Bill that are the rich inheritance of the citizens of Queensland, but Mr Fitzgerald found that they had been ignored, trampled upon and abrogated. Electors place an almost sacred trust in members in this place to protect the ancient and hard-won rights of liberty. Day to day, they would assume that these rights are entrenched and immutable in the procedures and conventions of the Parliament. When one looks at the formidable facade of this building, one might assume that there is much that is entrenched here in Queensland parliamentary democracy to protect the citizens for all time. Sadly, Mr Fitzgerald observed that this was not the case. The heart is warmed to read, set out in plain English for all Queenslanders to read, understand and call their own, legislative principles such as the principles of natural justice; protection against non-incrimination in criminal proceedings; entry, search and seizure only with a warrant issued by a judicial officer; and avoidance of retrospective legislation. Westminster democracy can be categorised as the historical struggle of the people to govern themselves and to wrest power from the Crown. We saw the first kings of England summon the knights and peers to advise them and we then saw the progression that that council expanded to include representatives of the cities and towns as well as the hereditary peers. In later years, we saw the Parliament insisting on its right to vet taxation Bills passed by the Crown. Then there was the flourishing and refining of Westminster conventions in the House. The planting and growth of these rights and liberties in the colony, and then the State of Queensland, has had a chequered history. This Bill is another plank in the reform of Westminster democracy in Queensland. The groups that suffered most when Westminster democracy arrived in the colony of New South Wales—the groups that lost almost all—were the indigenes. In Queensland, these groups are the Aborigines and Islanders. Whites, such as myself, might celebrate the British tradition of democracy; they have nothing to celebrate. This Bill injects into the drafting of legislation in Queensland consideration for Aboriginal tradition and Islander customs. The mistake occurred when white men settled what they thought was an empty land. They considered Blackstone’s statements on what laws were appropriate to a colony, and I will quote from the case of Cooper and Stuart in the Privy Council in 1889 where the topic was canvassed. The judge stated— “The extent to which English law is introduced into a British colony, and the manner of the introduction, must necessarily vary according to the circumstances. There is a great difference between the case of a colony acquired by conquest or cession, in which there is an established system of law, and that of a colony which consisted of a tract or territory practically unoccupied with settled inhabitants, or settled law, at the time when it was peacefully annexed to the British dominion. The colony of New South Wales belongs to the latter class.” Their Honours went on to consider the case of this colony and to state that it had no settled law and, therefore, all the law of the United Kingdom of the day as was applicable was the law of the colony. When one travels to other countries, one can see indigenous people hanging on in the face of white settlement. New Zealand saw the Treaty of Waitangi. At least it got a treaty! This past decade, New Zealand has experienced the continuing tension of Maori traditional land claims under the existing law. When one travels around New Zealand, one can see the Maori culture hanging on. People still have clan meetings in their Marae—family living in traditional lands in the Coromandel Peninsula. The Maori tradition is hanging on in the face of the all-conquering blandness of western social tradition. When one visits a place of ancient settlement, often the land itself speaks to one’s spirit about what has gone on before. I well remember surfing on an isolated reef in New Zealand’s Mahia Peninsula. I knew that area to be Maori fishing and shellfish territory. It was beautiful. It was sparsely settled and I sat out in the water on that weather-beaten 5506 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly extreme of the island. As I sat there in the chilly surf with logs of wood floating in the open sea, I gained a strong sense that this was someone else’s place and I was awed and honoured to be able to share it. I hope to experience that in our Aboriginal lands in Queensland in the future as a member in this place. This Bill continues the determination of the Goss Labor Government that Aboriginal tradition and Islander custom shall be acknowledged by the laws of Queensland. This morning, an historic occasion occurred in this House and I cannot let that occasion pass without congratulating the member for Yeronga on introducing one of the few private member’s Bills ever to be introduced into the Legislative Assembly of Queensland. It was an historic occasion, and I congratulate the member. Henry VIII is a character who pops up in the Bill, because the Bill repeats the Parliament’s disapproval of subordinate legislation which amends an Act of Parliament, except in the most prescribed and limited cases. The test of whether a Bill has sufficient regard to the institution of Parliament depends on, for example, whether the Bill authorises the amendment of an Act only by another Act. Henry VIII attacked the powers of the Parliament and was an executive ruler and an “executionary” ruler of the highest degree. He gave his name to such subordinate legislation, and this Bill reiterates the supremacy of the Parliament over the Executive and again sounds a cautionary note. Finally, I will consider the nature of subordinate legislation generally and its treatment by this scheme of legislation, the first of which is the Bill before the House. Recently, legislation in Westminster Parliaments has become voluminous, extending Government intervention into daily life and often involving complex provisions. It has, therefore, become recognised that if laws of a procedural nature can be removed from discussion in the House, the House can get on with debating the matters of the day. Therefore, legislative power has often been conferred on the Executive by statute and arrangements have been made for parliamentary scrutiny of its exercise. The Subordinate Legislation Committee of this Parliament is one such arrangement. Its terms of reference include the power to consider and move disallowance of subordinate legislation before the House. It is required to consider regulations tabled in the House as to whether they are in accordance with the general objects of the Act pursuant to which they are made; whether the regulations trespass unduly on rights previously established by law; whether the regulations contain matter which, in the opinion of the committee, should properly be dealt with in an Act of Parliament; whether, for any special reason, the form or purport of the regulations call for elucidation; and whether the regulations unduly make rights dependent upon administrative and not judicial decisions. The terms of reference go on to include disallowance provisions and to give power to the committee to report to the House. The EARC report on the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel recommended, among other things, that the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 be amended to require all subordinate legislation defined in the report to be published in the Gazette, tabled in the Legislative Assembly and open to disallowance. That definition is contained in the scheme of legislation and provides that the House will scrutinise legislation in the above manner. In the Premier’s second-reading speech, he observed that most regulations require the scrutiny procedure and that Orders in Council were tabled or not tabled on an ad hoc basis. This scheme of legislation gives Queensland a satisfactory framework for defining and dealing with statutory instruments. All statutory instruments of a significant legislative nature will now be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Westminster rights and liberties were hard fought and won. In past decades in Queensland, the State lost its way. These rights were trampled and forgotten, but did not pass away. They are revived and celebrated in the scheme of the legislation. For about the first time, they are applied to our native people in Queensland. They bring warmth to the hearts of any true democrat. I support the Bill before the House. Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (4.47 p.m.): The Liberal Party is pleased to support the concept of a Legislative Standards Bill, and we will support the passage of this legislation. However, it should be made clear that this Bill does not have the teeth it needs to ensure that the relevant legislative standards are maintained. The purpose of Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5507 the Bill is clear, and the objectives are laudable. It is intended to stop new laws breaching the fundamental rights and liberties of the citizens of Queensland. It is supposed to ensure consistency with the principles of natural justice. It is supposed to provide protection against self-incrimination. It is supposed to ensure that the onus of proof required in criminal proceedings is not reversed. It is supposed to provide fair compensation for those whose property is acquired or confiscated. It is supposed to avoid imposing retrospective obligations. All of this sounds quite just and decent but, sadly, there is going to be a big difference between the theory and the reality. This Bill was originally suggested by the Electoral and Administrative Review Committee, but the big difference between what EARC suggested and what we have been given is the absence of the committee of review which EARC suggested. EARC wanted a parliamentary scrutiny of legislation committee, but that committee is not part of the Bill. For this reason, the Bill has been attacked, quite rightly, by the Queensland Law Society and the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties. The Council for Civil Liberties President, Terry O’Gorman, says the removal of the scrutiny of legislation committee means that this Bill is fatally flawed. In the view of the Liberal Party, he is absolutely correct. The committee was supposed to review all new Bills coming before the House, and report back on any breaches of fundamental principles that might arise from that new legislation—presumably so that they can be rectified before the Bills are passed. Without the committee to scrutinise new legislation for these breaches, there will be no check on the Executive arm of Government, which will continue to disregard these principles whenever it wants to. This is a situation somewhat similar to that concerning the requirement that people who ride bicycles must wear helmets. That is the law and it is supposed to be followed; but because there is no penalty allowed, it means that there is no effective means of enforcement, and kids ride around without helmets because they know the law cannot be enforced. It is the same problem with this legislation. Because there is to be no scrutiny of legislation for breaches of this Bill, then there is no watchdog, and there are no means of enforcing these provisions. In effect, the whole thing becomes a public relations exercise and, typical of the Goss Government’s approach of being seen to do something that sounds reasonable, but actually doing nothing at all. The lack of scrutiny and enforcement means that breaches of fundamental rights will continue. That is a great pity, and shows this Government’s supposed concerns for basic rights to be a complete sham. It wants to be seen to be supporting these fundamental principles, while at the same time allowing other pieces of legislation to contravene them. Let me look briefly, for example, at the Anti-Discrimination Act of 1991. Section 156 provides that all citizens may be required to provide information to the bureaucracy and if they refuse, they may be liable to contempt of court penalties, without the need for prior judicial determination. This means that the right to silence—the right to withhold information if it may be self-incriminating—effectively disappears; and even worse, it removes the protection of the umbrella of natural justice, even where there has been a judicial determination of the matter. Mr Wells: But it is not a criminal trial. Mr SANTORO: I will continue. As Law Society President, Ray Rinaudo, has commented, there has been widespread community disquiet about contempt proceedings in recent times. Mr Wells: You see, he didn’t understand. It’s not a criminal trial. Mr SANTORO: I think he understood. He said that even when there has been a judicial—— Mr Wells: In whose interests is it to have the laws of evidence before the tribunal? It is in the interests of the lawyers; it’s not in the interests of the people who go before the tribunal to have strict rules of evidence. Mr SANTORO: I think that the President of the Law Society is talking from a principle point of view rather than a point of view of self-interest. I understand that the Attorney-General, as a lawyer, has been often fond of saying that whenever the Law 5508 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Society or other lawyers such as Terry O’Gorman on behalf of the Civil Liberties Council contradict him, he immediately comes out and says that it is in the interests of lawyers. I must admit that it is a pretty good trick because there is within the general community a widespread feeling that lawyers are milking the system. Undoubtedly, some of them are, but the vast majority of lawyers—particularly those whom the Law Society represents—are not doing that. They speak from the principle point of view, and they are addressing this issue from that perspective. With respect to the Attorney-General, I believe that he should be gracious enough to acknowledge that it is, indeed, principle that is motivating those people and not self-interest, as he has just suggested. The Anti- Discrimination Act further undermines community confidence in that area and highlights concern about the elimination of the fundamental right to silence and to avoid self- incrimination. In theory, the Bill would ensure that such provisions were not included in the legislation but, without any means of scrutiny, that will not be so. Another example comes from the Valuers Registration Act 1992. That Act provides for the registration and regulation of valuers and imposes penalties for unqualified practice. Unfortunately, it also allows—under section 48—provision for an investigator to obtain a search warrant to enter any premises—and I emphasise the word “any”—including homes, at any hour of the day or night if there is reasonable suspicion that there is evidence there concerning an investigation. Note that the investigation does not have to relate to an alleged offence. Many matters not related to offences at all are investigated by the Valuer-General and his officers and, under the Act, the storm- troopers can break down a person’s door at midnight for virtually any reason at all. I know that the Attorney-General has told the Law Society that that sort of power will be exercised with discretion and goodwill, but that avoids the issue. The Act provides a mechanism for an attack on the fundamental principles of personal liberty and privacy. Again, this Bill should prevent such provisions being included in legislation, but, unfortunately, it will not. One of the most breathtaking breaches of the fundamental principles that our laws should uphold is contained in the Water Resources Act. The Legislative Standards Bill provides for the right to compensation when property is acquired by the Government or when other retrospective changes are made. Indeed, it says that obligations should not be imposed retrospectively and that rights and liberties should not be removed retrospectively. Sadly, provisions of the Water Resources Act breach those principles in a big way. Under that Act, what is called a designated area can be proclaimed, where the use of water is controlled and licensed by the Water Resources Commission. In effect, a designated area challenges a land-holder’s right to manage his own land and the equipment on it. Section 4.13 of that Act gives the commission power to order the removal, or to undertake the removal itself, of previously legal equipment and, under section 7.7, all that is to be done without the right to compensation. That is one of the issues that the Legislative Standards Bill should address. So, a person could be using his water-channelling and pumping equipment for years, then suddenly the commission could declare a designated area, declare all that person’s equipment illegal, confiscate that equipment and not be compelled to pay any compensation at all. That breaches two of the fundamental principles enshrined in the Bill: the right to compensation when one’s property is forcibly removed by the Government, and the right to carry on one’s affairs without the likelihood of retrospective legislation making everything that one does illegal. That has created great practical problems in some areas of Queensland. As an example, let me tell honourable members about Cubbie station, which is south west of Dirranbandi. Cubbie spent about $20m on water-channelling and pumping equipment and earthworks to produce a very professional irrigation operation. All the work was legal, the equipment was legal and it had the blessing of the Water Resources Commission. Then the Minister came along, declared a designated area, the equipment became illegal, the capital works became unusable and no compensation was payable. In addition, of course, 50 people lost their jobs and plans for a new cotton gin—employing 33 people—were put on hold. Cotton by-products and grain were to be used to establish a feedlot, which would have serviced a new abattoir, creating another Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5509

150 jobs. All of that went down the drain because of the breach of fundamental rights that the new Bill seeks to enshrine. In that particular example, I must give credit to the Water Resources Commission for reviewing the situation. There has been a court hearing and it now looks as though the matter will be resolved. However, the issue of the original legislation still remains, because it breaches fundamental rights and fundamental legislative standards. Under the Bill being considered, those rights and standards should be taken into consideration but, because of the lack of a watchdog and any enforcement provisions, the Government can choose to ignore them. The Liberal Party supports the concepts embodied in the Bill but asks the Premier, through the Minister, to legislate to ensure that the standards are upheld. Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (4.57 p.m.): This is yet another important reform which has come through the process of electoral and administrative review. Today, we are witnessing the establishment of yet another independent institution. The establishment of such institutions is important in terms of achieving what Mr Fitzgerald, QC, had in mind when he spoke of the need to restore public confidence in the institutions of the democracy. The institution to which I refer, of course, is the statutory Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. In this speech, I wish to address the issues of the nature of legislative standards, the significance of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, the significance of including reference to Aboriginal and Islander tradition and, finally, to comment on the aspect of the scrutiny of legislation committee. Before I do, let me turn briefly to the puzzling contribution of the honourable Leader of the Opposition. Again, we see the serious weakness in legal matters on the part of the Opposition. If members had been given little time to prepare, one could understand that, but the matter has been coming for the last couple of years, and members of the Opposition have had the benefit of reports from the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission and from the parliamentary committee. The speech of the honourable member included several simply false claims that the process of electoral and administrative review was somehow being shied away from by the Government. I suppose that one may say anything with a rising inflection in one’s voice and a sense of mock indignation and hope that the press gallery will be sufficiently uninformed to fall for it. However, let us look simply at the record. The allegation from the honourable Leader of the Opposition is that the Government has been slow to move or has failed to move on electoral and administrative review recommendations. What about the Electoral Districts Act passed by the Parliament? What about the legislation passed by this Parliament to implement EARC’s recommendations for a joint Commonwealth/State electoral roll? What about the Electoral Act, which was passed by this Parliament the other day in order to set up an independent Electoral Commission? What about the local government electoral boundaries changes, which were passed by this Parliament in 1990 so that we might have fair elections for local government? What about the Whistleblowers (Interim Protection) Act that was passed by this Parliament in 1990? What about the Pecuniary Interests Register that was brought into effect by a resolution of this Parliament at the insistence of the Government? What about the Judicial Review Act, which was passed by this Parliament at the end of last year? What about the position of Local Government Commissioner that was established under legislation passed through this House the other day in order to address the serious issues of reform of Queensland local government boundaries and Queensland local government generally? Mr Welford: Not much done! Mr FOLEY: I take the sardonic interjection from the honourable member for Stafford. It really was an astonishingly poor contribution by the Leader of the Opposition to the debate on this legislation. I note that the honourable Leader of the Opposition, who feigned such distress at the absence of the Premier from the debate, is himself not present to listen to the debate. He has fled from the Chamber, no doubt in the hope that the breathless indignation which he feigned on these matters might not be challenged by some simple facts. In short, the honourable Leader of the Opposition’s 5510 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly contribution to this debate boiled down to three points—that the legislation does not make specific provision for a scrutiny of legislation committee, nor does it compulsorily require explanatory notes, nor does it compulsorily require a regulatory impact statement. The honourable member glossed blithely over what one might have thought were the two fundamental advances that this Bill has made—firstly, to create an independent office and, secondly, to establish a new framework of law in which law- making itself could be judged, that is, by the establishment of legislative standards. The complaint of the member for “Paradise Lost” in truth is that although the Government speaks with the voice of angels in this Bill, it does not speak with the voice of archangels. If that be the height of his criticism, it is a criticism which no doubt will hang lightly about the shoulders of the Government. Let me return to some basic points about the Bill before the House. Firstly, I will deal with the fact that we are establishing legislative standards. In most walks of life, people have to comply with standards. If someone makes footwear, fridges or foodstuffs, he has to comply with certain standards otherwise the regulatory authorities will come down upon him. But if laws are made, then no standards have to be complied with because of the sovereignty of Parliament. As a consequence, the law-making exercise has in this State in the past become corrupted. All too often during the term of the Bjelke-Petersen Government and the other Governments of National and Liberal ilk we had midnight raids upon our liberties. This legislation sets out a set of civil liberties standards that will make Queensland lead Australia in providing a framework for the critical analysis of the law. Secondly, this legislation establishes the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and it establishes in law what has already developed in practice, namely, the provision of assistance by the Parliamentary Counsel on a confidential basis to private members of this House. Earlier today, I acknowledged the fine contribution of Mr John Leahy, Parliamentary Counsel, in the development of the private member’s Bill which I put before this House. What this Bill does is to set out in law the provision for the desirable practices to date of the Parliamentary Counsel. In the complementary Bills, provision is made for subordinate legislation and reprints, and suffice it to say on those points that they provide for better access to the law on the part of the citizens. Turning then to the issue of Aboriginal and Islander tradition, I am very pleased that the Government has included this provision in the Bill. Indeed, the honourable Leader of the Opposition appeared to me to have a great deal of concern about mythical debates in caucus, best known to himself. But on this issue of the recognition of Aboriginal and Islander law—EARC recommended it and National and Liberal members of the parliamentary committee rejected it. Fortunately, the Labor members of that parliamentary committee supported it, and I am delighted to see that this is in this Bill which has been brought before the House by the Government; that is to say, any future legislation must be considered as to whether it has sufficient regard to Aboriginal tradition and Islander custom. It is an attempt to make a rapprochement between the two great legal traditions of Australia—the western European tradition and the Aboriginal and Islander tradition. This is a most important development in Australian jurisprudence. I turn to the scrutiny of legislation committee. I note from the Premier’s second- reading speech that this matter will be further considered in the light of the review of parliamentary committees, and I look forward with great interest to that taking place. The Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review urged the introduction of such a committee, but in the coming months the Government is to receive a further report from EARC detailing its recommendations on future parliamentary committees. Cynicism is a poor substitute for analysis. This House has heard in this debate the usual shallow cynicism from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition. He suggested that somehow this Government is light on parliamentary reform. Yet, in making those cynical remarks, he carefully omits reference to the parliamentary reforms which have taken place to date, including the important development of a committee system such as the Public Accounts Committee, Public Works Committee, the EARC committee, the CJC committee, the Travelsafe committee and the Ambulance committee. He omits Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5511 reference to the vastly improved Budget Estimates debates, which enable the estimates of each department to be considered. The Leader of the Opposition omits reference to the general increase in opportunities for debate through more Adjournment debates and the Matter of Special Public Importance debates. He omits reference to the parliamentary education office, and he glosses blithely over the creation of this important institution, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. My learned friend the member for Rockhampton North said of this House the other day that it was a red-letter day because this Government was introducing electoral reform that was to set out the proper basis between the people and the Parliament. It is another red-letter day, to borrow my learned friend’s observation, for today we are creating the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel as an independent office. This was something that Mr Fitzgerald, QC, identified as being one of those deep structural aspects where Queensland public life had failed. This Bill does much to cure that state of affairs. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (5.10 p.m.): I rise to speak relatively briefly in favour of the Legislative Standards Bill. I make the observation, as did the member for Yeronga, that this House heard a great deal from the honourable member for Surfers Paradise in an attack on the absence from this debate of the Premier, who clearly had other important matters of State to deal with. Where do we find the Leader of the Opposition? He has not participated in this debate, other than to make a contribution and then scurry out of the House, which he does on so many occasions. It is sad that he should reflect on the Premier in that way, then not be present in the House himself. That is very disappointing. In fact, honourable members may notice that after the shenanigans of this morning’s question time, we have seen very little of the Opposition at all. In fact, the three or four members who are here is the most that we have seen in the Chamber since that time. Mr Welford: They are sulking. Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection. They are indeed sulking. I will now deal with the provisions of the Legislative Standards Bill. As has been indicated, some concerns were raised in the Fitzgerald report regarding the non-independence of the Parliamentary Counsel. EARC considered this matter and there are now a number of appropriate recommendations which provide for the establishment of the independence of the Parliamentary Counsel. That is a very important principle. I will focus on the principles that will apply in drafting legislation. Those principles are important. They provide a statutory basis for fundamental legislative principles, and that is certainly a very significant step. A number of principles will be encapsulated in legislation. They are set out clearly in section 4 (1) of the Act. I wish to deal with some of those points. If honourable members consider the history of this State, they will appreciate that in a number of pieces of key legislation introduced by the previous National Party Government, these principles were absent. What are these principles? The member for Surfers Paradise referred to them in a very cynical way as motherhood principles. I do not accept that proposition. I do not accept that the principles of natural justice are motherhood principles. They are very important principles, and they should be considered by the Parliamentary Counsel when legislation is being drafted. I will refer now to some of the other principles. I have mentioned the principles of natural justice. There are principles allowing the delegation of administrative power only in appropriate cases and to appropriate persons. There is the principle that the legislation should not reverse the onus of proof in criminal proceedings without adequate justification. The onus of proof in criminal matters has been one of the fundamental hallmarks of the British legal system and the system that is operational in this country. That onus of proof should be varied only in very extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, it is fundamentally important that that principle be taken into consideration in the most serious way when any legislation is being drafted. There is the principle to confer power to enter premises and search for or seize documents or other property only if a warrant has been issued by a judge or other judicial officer. These safeguards need to be put in place and entrenched in this way. 5512 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

The principles provide appropriate protection against self-incrimination. That is another fundamental principle of our legal system. The principles include not adversely affecting rights and liberties or imposing obligations retrospectively. During my speech in the debate on the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill, I said that retrospective legislation should be enacted only when a benefit is passed on to someone, not a detriment. That is another important principle. A further principle is that the legislation should not confer immunity from proceedings or prosecutions without adequate justification. The legislation provides for the compulsory acquisition of property only with fair compensation. Again, that is a very fundamental principle. In my own electorate, the former Liberal administration at City Hall raped the suburbs of the inner city by forcing through the Hale Street project. A number of people who were forced out of their homes because of that project—particularly elderly people—were given questionable compensation. Indeed, those people were unable to buy homes near Hale Street when they were forced out because they were not given adequate compensation. Under those circumstances, it is important that that principle of fair compensation be enshrined when this Parliament is drafting legislative provisions. As has already been indicated, sufficient regard has to be given to Aboriginal tradition and Islander custom; there must be unambiguous drafting; and the legislation should be sufficiently clear and precise. I believe that all those principles are of significant importance. It is true that, in democratic societies, those principles are not absolute. That has always been the case under the Westminster system. For example, there may be parliamentary conventions, common law rules or presumptions which may, in certain circumstances, override those principles. They should override those principles only in very specific circumstances. The principles must be put into the legislation—and this is what the honourable member for Surfers Paradise missed—they must be clearly understood, and on those rare occasions when they are overlooked or ignored, they must be ignored or overlooked only on very specific and overwhelming grounds. Therefore, because those principles are enshrined in legislation, those occasions will become a matter of public record and be rare. This Government will not allow the legislative bastardry that took place under the National Party. I ask honourable members to reflect a little on the National Party’s legislative program over the last 15 years. I will not go back and draw out all the worst examples; the last 15 years will do. Those examples demonstrate the desperate need for legislation such as the Legislative Standards Bill. Those honourable members who can remember back to the late 1970s and the early 1980s will recall the essential services legislation which was introduced and which took away the basic rights of a large number of Queenslanders. They will also recall the very draconian right to work legislation that, again, was designed to take away people’s basic rights. In fact, it had parallels only in the deep south of the United States. What a track record! What a precedent for the National Party to follow! Those Bills took away people’s basic rights. I will now deal with the legislation that governed the world’s tallest building. It was going to be the world’s tallest building. When it was cut down to size, it was not even built. Mr T. B. Sullivan: The world’s deepest hole. Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection. It was the world’s deepest hole. The legislation that was passed for the world’s tallest building took away not only the basic town planning rights of the Brisbane City Council but also any judicial review of the plans that were submitted. At the same time, the National Party removed certain rights that allowed individuals to challenge the decisions of the Governor in Council. In regard to the world’s tallest building legislation—the Government said, “That’s it, no-one has any objective rights. No-one has any appeal rights. All your legal opportunities to challenge this building have gone.” The National Party did not care about my constituents in Spring Hill, or my constituents who live in the inner heart of the city. Their basic rights were thrown out the door. That is why the principles outlined in this legislation are so important. They enshrine a number of basic principles which must be considered in any piece of legislation. Should anyone believe that the illustrations that I have given of past legislation are only fleeting examples, I say that they are not. If one refers to the EARC Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5513 report on the review of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel—— Mr Santoro: I thought you were going to be brief. Mr BEATTIE: When I become as longwinded as the honourable member, he should give me a call. It will be approximately 200 years from now. An honourable member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The honourable member should stop blowing in Mr Santoro’s ear as I can hear the echo. If one refers to pages 18, 19 and 20 of the report on the review of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, EARC sets out a number of pieces of legislation that have taken away basic principles. It refers to the Banana Industry Protection Act 1989 and states— “Section 26 of the Act limits liability for actions done or omitted to be done for the purposes of the Act by the Crown, the Minister or the Banana Industry Protection Board. Such a limitation could be viewed as inconsistent with the principle that equality before the law is an essential element in the rule of law.” The report also refers to the Fauna Conservation Act and Another Act Amendment Act 1989 and states— “Section 72A (1) of the Act makes a principal or employer liable for offences by agents and employees. The liability is vicarious and strict as the Act makes it immaterial that the offence was committed without the authority of the principal or employer, or was committed contrary to the instructions of the principal or employer, and specifically excludes the operation of section 23 of the Criminal Code which provides inter alia that, subject to express provisions of the Code relating to negligent acts and omissions, a person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission which occurs independently of the exercise of his will, or for an event which occurs by accident.” The report referred to provisions, similar to those contained in the Banana Industry Protection Act and the Fair Trading Act 1989, and stated— “. . . under section 89 (2), only requires a warrant to be obtained prior to entry by inspectors to ‘any part of premises which part is used as a dwelling’, yet section 89 (1) authorises entry by inspectors to ‘any premises’.” The last illustration that the report gave was a provision contained in the Plant Protection Act 1989, which stated— “The effect of this is to remove the exercise of significant legislative power from Parliamentary scrutiny.” Again, that is a principle about which we should all be concerned. The legislative history that the National Party has given this State is a very sad one. I endorse the comments made by the honourable member for Yeronga in that regard. It is a very important and significant day for Queensland when these principles are enshrined in the legislation in such a way that, I believe, in future, Queenslanders will have some degree of pride in the Parliament. The honourable member for Surfers Paradise made specific reference to the scrutiny of legislation committee. Let us live in the real world. EARC is in the process of undertaking a review of the parliamentary committee system. It would be unwise to have a one-off situation in relation to this piece of legislation without waiting for EARC’s recommendations. I support the establishment of such a parliamentary committee. I support the views expressed by the honourable member for Yeronga and I support the establishment of the scrutiny of legislation committee. Nevertheless, it would be inappropriate to establish such a committee without waiting for the full EARC review. Mr FitzGerald: They recommended it. Why wait for the next report that will reinforce that? Mr BEATTIE: I do not know where the honourable member has been, but if he had not just walked into the Chamber he would have been aware that I said that I support the establishment of a committee, but that that committee must be established 5514 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly as a total package. It should not be a haphazard action. That is one of the reasons why the National Party passed such dreadful legislation. It came in and passed legislation in a bitser fashion. It had no overall plan, no legislative guidelines, and no standards at all. That is why the National Party is finding this legislation so difficult. That is why the National Party finds it so difficult to understand that legislation of this type must be passed in a systematic and constructive way. That is why it is sensible to wait until EARC has completed its review and until this can be done as part of a total committee package. I have made no secret of the fact that I agree with the honourable member for Yeronga that such legislation should be introduced. I know that some comments have been made by Terry O’Gorman and the Queensland Watchdog Committee, which have already been referred to. I believe that what we are doing today is sensible and practical. Mr O’Gorman and the Queensland Watchdog Committee will have to wait and see what EARC’s final propositions are in relation to the parliamentary committee system. Mr FitzGerald: They recommended that the committee be formed. That’s what they did. They have handed down their report on this committee. Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection. Nothing that we are doing today will prevent the scrutiny of legislation committee from being set up. Unfortunately, the member for Lockyer has spent too much time in the sun and does not understand that. I refer to what happened when the National Party was in Government. I use former Minister Hinze as an example. He would introduce local government legislation into the House, and then someone would say, “Hang on, Hinzey. You can’t do that. It won’t work.” Mr Hinze would then rush around and try to amend the legislation. In the end, he would give up in desperation. Further down the track, after the Bill had been given royal assent, amendment after amendment was made to that legislation. Talk about a hotchpotch of legislation! That is how the National Party used to deal with legislation in this House, and that is how it governed. However, this Government cannot operate in that way. That is why what we are doing now is very sensible, and we are doing it in the most pragmatic and logical way. Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is referring to the late Mr Hinze, who served as a member of this House, claiming that his local government legislation was always amended. I draw his attention to item 11 on the notice paper which relates to an amendment to the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act, which was introduced by his Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! There is no point of order. Mr BEATTIE: I am almost left speechless by that inane, nonsensical, ridiculous and puerile interjection, which had no relation to fact. I can tell by the smirk on the member’s face and by his hysteria and giggling that he knows that his point of order was frivolous. The reality is that Mr Hinze introduced and amended Bills that involved significant—not minor—changes to local government legislation. The bottom line is that the Opposition can bleat and carry on—— Mr Santoro interjected. Mr BEATTIE: There is a dreadful noise coming from the Liberal Party’s corner. An honourable member: A gaggle. Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection. Members of the Opposition gaggle on about the Legislative Standards Bill. This is sensible, important legislation that represents a continuation of the reform process. The Leader of the Opposition can carry on all he likes, but the people of Queensland know that the reform process was going to be difficult; that there would be trials and problems along the way. At the end of the day, this Government has kept on track and delivered the sensible reform for which Queenslanders voted. Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (5.26 p.m.), in reply: It is a pleasure to stand in this House representing the Premier and to support the passage of this important piece of legislation that provides statutory independence for the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and provides reference to the fundamental legislative Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5515 principles that have been a point of reference for this Government throughout its term but which have been a point of departure in the history of Queensland. The honourable the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Merthyr stood in this place and ritualistically quoted Terry O’Gorman, and then spoke blithely of the importance of civil liberties. This demonstrates the truth of Shakespeare’s dictum that the devil can quote scripture to his purpose. To hear the National and Liberal Parties speaking about fundamental legislative principles is extraordinary—the most profound conversion since St Paul tripped up on the way to Damascus. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lockyer! Mr WELLS: It was extraordinary to see those members, who have been the chief exponents of Government by Executive decree, standing in this House—with the purgative and cleansing experience of Opposition—now converted to the cause of fundamental legislative principles. Mr T. B. Sullivan: A miracle. Mr WELLS: As the honourable member for Nundah says—it is a miracle that has been brought about by the wisdom of the voters of Queensland who have put those people into Opposition for a long period during which they can have the catharsis and purgation of looking over the sins of their past and realising that there are matters that they had failed to observe. As a matter of course, those members on the other side of the House who misgoverned this State for donkey’s years introduced legislation containing violations of fundamental legislative principles. That was just par for the course. It was just the daily fare. It was just the way that they used to do it. Mr Beattie: They were thugs. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Brisbane Central for his elucidation and clarification of what I was saying. Every run-of-the-mill piece of legislation that those members opposite introduced contained violations of important, fundamental legislative principles. If they were dealing with legislation as run of the mill as the chook feathers amendment Bill, it would contain a provision such as: the chook feathers inspector may enter and seize premises at any hour of the day or night and seize feathers and any other property which may be considered by him to be relevant. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lockyer has already been warned. Mr WELLS: The finding by the chook feathers inspector of two feathers in the place that he was inspecting would be conclusive proof of the guilt of the person who was being inspected. Mr Santoro: This is serious legislation you are talking about. Mr WELLS: It is very serious legislation. Constantly the honourable member’s predecessors used to include provisions such as that. In every piece of primary industries legislation where an inspector was given power, he was given more power than the Queensland police. Honourable members should remember that, when in Opposition, I constantly was taking points during Committee stages concerning violations of fundamental legislative principles. I remember on one occasion that I asked a then Minister of the Crown why we were reversing the burden of proof in a particular case. I asked: why was it to be assumed that, because a person had some document or other record in his possession, he was therefore to be assumed guilty unless he could prove otherwise? The answer that I was given, after the Minister had consulted with his advisers in the Chamber, was that there were policy reasons for reversing the burden of proof. There were no good policy reasons. However, we have reached the point at which the Leader of the Opposition, with all the zeal of a convert, has gone too far in his conversion. EARC never said that the fundamental legislative principles were absolute provisions. Nobody said that they could never be departed from. What EARC proposed, and what this Government has pursued, is a policy that the fundamental 5516 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly legislative provisions were prima facie principles which ought to be adhered to unless some overwhelmingly good reason to the contrary existed. There is in certain circumstances an overwhelmingly good reason to the contrary. There is no overwhelmingly good reason to give some primary industries inspector more powers than the Queensland police, but there are in certain circumstances reasons why one would want to have the fundamental legislative principles as a prima facie recommendation rather than as an absolute. Let me give an instance. A defence of diminished responsibility exists under the Criminal Code. Diminished responsibility arises where people, because of their particular mental state, are not as responsible as they would otherwise be. Mr Beattie: Mr Santoro will take heed of that provision. Mr WELLS: I was going to say that one would consider an example to be acting under the influence of mental illness, intoxication and so on, in which case diminished responsibility can be pleaded. In those circumstances, the burden of proving the existence of a particular mental state rests on the persons who are pleading that they have that particular mental state. Obviously, it would not make sense to do it any other way. One cannot require the Crown to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a particular person is in a particular mental state, because mental states are something to which the person who has them has privileged access. In those circumstances, in the Criminal Code there has been a reversal of the onus of proof, and it is a reversal of the civil standard of onus of proof. A better way of putting that is to say that the defendant then has to prove to the civil standard of proof that he was in a particular mental state. This demonstrates that reversals of the onus of proof can be completely non- controversial. There will be circumstances in which one will want to do it and nobody will raise a whisper. There will be other circumstances, however, in which one will not want to have reversals of the onus of proof, and that will be nearly all the time. It should be a fundamental regimen of one’s life when involved in legislation that one considers all the fundamental legislative principles with a view to saying, “Yes, we are going to abide by these unless there is some overwhelmingly good reason to the contrary.” In the complaints that the Leader of the Opposition has made, he has overlooked that we are dealing here with prima facie principles. From the beginning, this Government commenced to proceed with respect to the fundamental legislative principles as the legislation now recommends that it should do. My department has always been consulted on legislation. There has always been at least one officer going through the legislation with a fine-tooth comb to ensure that none of these fundamental legislative principles was overlooked without there being overwhelmingly sound policy reasons for doing so. The Leader of the Opposition made one other point that concerned the parliamentary scrutiny of legislation committee, but he also admitted in the course of his speech that EARC was doing a review of parliamentary committees and it would be foolish to set up a committee in advance of that review taking place. There would be very little point in setting up a committee that might be scrapped within a matter of weeks. As for his mention of a requirement for explanatory notes to be tabled, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, they already are tabled. No further needs to be said about the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I thank the honourable member for Merthyr for his contribution. Unlike members of the National Party, he, as a new member to the Parliament, did not necessarily have a Pauline conversion. He may very well have come into this House already as a disciple of the Council for Civil Liberties and of Terry O’Gorman. It may be that he has had no need for a conversion and that he was that way when he got here. If so, he would be the only member of the Liberal Party to have that characteristic. Mr Santoro: I disagree with some of their views, and so does the Liberal Party. What’s wrong with that? Mr WELLS: That is a fine thing. It is a fine thing to hear the Liberal Party occasionally supporting these principles. It is a pity that one has never seen them in this State putting those principles into practice. What we got from the Liberal Party in Government was pathetic obeisance to those master practitioners of the art of Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5517

Government by Executive decree. We got a pack of sycophants and toadies who were prepared to sit back and take every violation of fundamental democratic and legislative principle that the National Party was prepared to serve up. Mr Beattie: They were the master’s apprentices; they learnt well. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Brisbane Central who said that they were the master’s apprentices. I would have said that they are a pack of bland, vapid, marshmallow, wishy-washy, fence-sitting yes-men who are prepared to do anything that their political masters tell them to do. I thank the honourable members opposite for their conversions, although I consider them to be threadbare. This legislation which we have now introduced into this House and which will now go through the House with, I expect, the support of honourable members opposite, was absolutely necessary to ensure that their conversion continued into the future so many decades ahead as may be necessary for the Constitution of this State to have to cater for a resurgence of the Government from people from the other side of the House. I thank the honourable members for Cooroora, Yeronga and Brisbane Central for their remarks. They have, in the course of the preparation of this legislation, made many useful contributions independently of their comments tonight. I commend the legislation to the House. Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. D. M. Wells (Murrumba—Attorney-General) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Mr QUINN (5.39 p.m.): Clause 10 refers to access to the Parliamentary Counsel by private members. This is a point I made when the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review submitted its report on EARC’s recommendations. I agree that the Government’s drafting program should have priority over a request for private members’ Bills. I have no trouble with that. I do have trouble with the fact that when legislation comes before this Parliament members seeking to have amendments drawn up to that legislation still take second place to the Government’s drafting program. Subclause (2) states that the Parliamentary Counsel should comply with such a request unless the program is significantly and adversely affected by the Government’s legislative program. It would be possible for the Government to have an extremely heavy drafting program in place. A Bill could be introduced into this Parliament on extremely short notice. A backbench member or a private member requesting the assistance of Parliamentary Counsel in drafting an amendment to that legislation would only be told by the Parliamentary Counsel that, because of the heavy drafting program and the shortness of the time of notification, he would not be able to help with the drafting of that amendment. By allowing this clause to be passed, the Government is giving the Government of the day precedence over this Parliament. In other words, the Government’s legislative program takes precedence over the proceedings within this Parliament. I do not think that is in the best interests of democracy in Queensland. If we are going to have a deliberative process in this Chamber, we need to have full access to all the resources necessary to enable us to do our job in a complete and proper manner. Mr WELLS: The honourable member will be pleased to hear that the language of the legislation is quite clear and that the Parliamentary Counsel must comply with the request unless it would not be possible to comply with the request without significantly adversely affecting the Government’s legislative program. The honourable member would be very pleased to know that that makes it practically mandatory upon the Parliamentary Counsel to do so. Mr Quinn: Not fully. Mr WELLS: The honourable member must assume that we are dealing with people who are motivated by goodwill. 5518 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Mr Santoro: After listening to you this evening, it is difficult to believe that that would be the case in all instances. Mr WELLS: I ask honourable members to consider what a judge would say if he were interpreting this particular provision. If one brought a writ, for example, to seek specific performance of this particular obligation, the judge would read that and say, “Well, where is the indication that the Parliamentary Counsel has not had the time or the resources to do it? It has always had it in the past during the currency of the present Parliamentary Counsel.” I will tell honourable members what it used to be like under the Bjelke-Petersen Government. In 1987, an attempt was made to produce a private member’s Bill. Mr Santoro: Not his Government. Mr WELLS: No, that is true. It was not the honourable member’s Government; it was some other honourable member’s Government. Mr Mackenroth: It was their bedfellows. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Chatsworth. Mr Randell: How did you handle it in the Federal Parliament? Mr WELLS: The same way as this. I will tell the honourable member opposite what happened in 1987. An attempt was made to produce a private member’s Bill. That private member’s Bill was drafted. The member concerned rang the Parliamentary Counsel at the time and said, “We’ve drafted this piece of legislation. We would like you to have a look at it and give us a hand.” The Parliamentary Counsel replied, “No, I am an officer of the Premier’s Department. I do not assist Opposition members with any of their projects.” Those were the words used, on instructions, by the Parliamentary Counsel at that time. I say to the honourable member that this provision gives members opposite a guarantee that they will get on the agenda unless they rush to the Parliamentary Counsel and say, “We want it done the day before yesterday”, at a time when the Parliamentary Counsel has a very heavy workload. I would say that since 1987, members of this Parliament’s Opposition have come a very long way. They have done so because of a benign Government being prepared to do what is necessary to maintain an effective Opposition, even though members of the Opposition cannot do it for themselves. Mr FITZGERALD: I place on record my appreciation of the Parliamentary Counsel, particularly with regard to drafting. I can say from my present experience that the Parliamentary Counsel is assisting the Opposition. On a couple of occasions, I have required amendments to be drafted. I have explained to an officer what I was seeking to do, and I was then given a draft to peruse and an explanation of why certain procedures were necessary. On one occasion, I did not move the amendment in Committee because I realised that I really was not achieving what I set out to do and that there were provisions elsewhere in the legislation to cover it, anyway. This is one of the problems experienced by members who do not have a legal background. When we wish to achieve a particular object, we ask lawyers and draftspersons to assist us to achieve what we want to do. On one occasion, I requested assistance at relatively short notice and late at night. I explained what I wanted to achieve and the officer showed me all the courtesy I could have wanted, and in fact came back with a number of copies so that I could distribute the information. I acknowledge that, in the past, difficulties have been experienced by members of the Opposition and by Government members. I have seen some extremely sloppy drafting in amendments when members on the Opposition side of the Chamber and backbenchers suddenly wished to move an amendment owing to the way in which the legislation was framed. It is important for members of Parliament to be able to obtain advice from expert draftspersons so that they can achieve the effect they desire and put forward amendments, etc. I only hope that sufficient funds are made available to maintain that office in an excellent manner. In the past, some difficulties arose in that office, and these have come to my attention. However, I believe that even the Premier has gone to the office to speak to one person who intended to leave the service and Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5519

Queensland, or that he had a message conveyed to that person suggesting that he did not wish to lose that particular officer from the department. It has been brought home to me that members of Parliament need the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. I urge the Minister to support it in the way that it needs to be supported. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for his statesmanlike remarks and his comments on the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Since this is a clause that directly concerns the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel itself, I think it is appropriate to advise the honourable member that I have just been informed by those officers that the Parliamentary Counsel has been able to meet all private members’ needs during the currency of this Government and that it is anticipated that this situation will continue. Moreover, every willingness to cooperate has been indicated, not only by past experience but also by a visibly helpful attitude. Honourable members can be assured—not by me, but directly by the Parliamentary Counsel—of that approach. I might just emphasise that the language of this clause has been taken directly from the recommendation made by the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review, which is a committee comprised of all parties in the Parliament. Clause 10, as read, agreed to. Clauses 11 and 12, as read, agreed to. Clause 13— Mr SANTORO (5.49 p.m.): This clause is important because it refers to a principle that the Minister and members opposite are very fond of talking about as often as they can. I take the opportunity afforded by discussion of this clause to speak very briefly in response to some of the comments made by the Minister. He said that it was the Liberal Party in 1983 which took the very courageous stand on principle that everyone knows about and to which some members have referred previously. Without speaking for too long, I simply wish to say that contrary to the indication given by the Minister, the Liberal Party has been a party displaying courage and a party of principle, and it has a philosophy that is based on concepts of civil and personal liberties. Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr SANTORO: I take the interjection made by the member for Chatsworth. If he regards it as a mistake, it was a mistake that I am sure the member for Chatsworth and other members opposite would not have the courage to make today if they were in a similar position. I stand in this Parliament to defend the good name of the Liberal Party. It is a party that has always supported the concept of accountability, and will continue to support it. That is one of the reasons why members of the Liberal Party are pleased to support the Bill in general, and the clause presently being discussed, in particular. We totally reject the descriptions of the Liberal Party given previously by the Honourable Minister. Clause 13, as read, agreed to. Clauses 14 to 24, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Wells, by leave, read a third time. Sitting suspended from 5.53 to 7.30 p.m.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 6 May (see p. 5009). Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (7.30 p.m.): As the Premier pointed out in his second-reading speech, the Bill has its genesis in a 5520 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review recommendation, which stated that the part of EARC’s Legislative Standards Bill dealing with subordinate legislation should be enacted as a separate Bill. According to the Explanatory Notes, it is Part 6 of that Bill. In its report on the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, EARC said that it was apparent that the State lacked— “. . . a satisfactory framework for defining and dealing with subordinate instruments of a legislative character.” It was particularly concerned that not all subordinate legislation was subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. The Bill ensures that that will now occur. It must be kept in mind, however, that EARC proposed that the parliamentary scrutiny of legislation committee should scrutinise delegated legislation as well as the Parliament. As already pointed out in the previous Bill, the Goss Labor Government decided to ignore the recommendation of both EARC and the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review to establish such a committee. The inherent weakness injected into the Legislative Standards Bill has trickled through to this Bill and will show up again in the next Bill to be debated, the Reprints Bill. At least the existing Committee of Subordinate Legislation will continue to examine all subordinate legislation that is tabled. In its report on the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, EARC recommended that— “. . . the proposed Parliamentary Scrutiny of Legislation Committee should, as one of its first tasks, review the notification, publication, tabling and disallowance provisions of all statutory instruments not covered by the Commission’s proposed amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act, including local authority by-laws and ordinances, to determine whether any of them should be brought into conformity with the proposed new arrangements.” It is very clear that that will not occur in the term of this Government, as the Goss Labor Government has dumped the scrutiny of legislation committee. The Legislative Standards Bill and the Freedom of Information Bill should be standard-bearers of the Goss Labor Government’s commitment to open Government. Instead, as I indicated earlier, freedom of information legislation languishes at the end of the business paper and the Legislative Standards Bill has been gutted of its strength. I say to the Attorney-General: if he is fair dinkum about freedom of information, he should bring us back to this House next Tuesday and put that Bill through the Parliament. Every day when we come into the House, the Freedom of Information Bill is further down the notice paper. As I said, the Legislative Standards Bill has been gutted of its strength—the mechanism which was to improve the capacity of Parliament to monitor Government action properly. Mr Wells: Are you going to support the retrospectivity clause in the Freedom of Information Bill? Mr BORBIDGE: I take that interjection from the Attorney-General. Freedom of information is hardly new. The Attorney-General had only to mirror legislation that has been passed in the other State Parliaments or to mirror the Commonwealth legislation. Here we are, two and a half years into his term as the great reforming Attorney-General, but he cannot get it right because he does not want to get it right. The Attorney-General has wimped out of freedom of information. He wants to deny the people of Queensland and the Parliament of this State the right to freedom of information before the next election. If I am wrong, when we come back to this Parliament, the Attorney-General should make sure that the Freedom of Information Bill is No. 1 on the notice paper. That is the test of the sincerity of the Attorney-General and of the Government. I can understand the sensitivity of the Attorney-General—a man who promises much and delivers little, a man who has demonstrated his capacity to be the most political Attorney-General in the history of this State, a man who is proud that he can muster the numbers in this place to censor democracy and to expunge proper and informed Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5521 parliamentary debate. It is very clear that this is a secret Government. The Goss Labor Government has thwarted every move to open the Government to scrutiny of its affairs. The question that people increasingly ask is: what is the Government hiding? Mr Foley interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: I know that what the honourable member for Yeronga says publicly in this place and what he says privately outside do not always conform. I know that he is basically an honourable man, and I am sure that he is ashamed of the way in which Cabinet gutted the Bill of the parliamentary scrutiny of legislation committee. I know what happened in caucus. I know that the honourable member was rolled. I know that his principles and his commitment to open Government and accountability went out the window again. The Opposition knows that, when the member comes into this House, he must toe the Government line, the Premier’s line, the caucus line. The Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review recommended also that subordinate legislation be provided in a manner similar to the pamphlet forms of Acts, and it is pleasing that that is included in the legislation before the House. The Opposition supports the Bill. It has its genesis in both the EARC report and the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review report on the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. However, I want to put on record that it is again most disappointing that the Government has not seen fit to give statutory standing to the EARC proposed parliamentary scrutiny of legislation committee. Mr WELFORD (Stafford) (7.36 p.m.): The Opposition and, in particular, the Leader of the Opposition, can never be satisfied. They are simply never, ever happy. For the Leader of the Opposition to talk about the Attorney-General or the Government lacking sincerity would have to be the great irony. No matter what the Government were to do, the Leader of the Opposition would not agree with this Government’s course. On the Freedom of Information Bill, for example, if the Government were to bring it through quickly, mirroring the other States, then the Government would still be subject to two criticisms by the Leader of the Opposition, namely, that it was too fast and there was not enough consultation and debate and, in any event, that the Government was merely copying those terrible Canberra bureaucrats. However, because the Attorney-General had the good sense to give the people of Queensland the opportunity to scrutinise the draft Bill and to hear people’s submissions on it, the Government is now too dilatory. The Leader of the Opposition can just never be satisfied. Mr Foley: If we had simply copied other States’ legislation, local government would not have been covered by freedom of information at all. Mr WELFORD: Absolutely. The member for Yeronga makes a salient point. Incidentally, many members of the National Party were opposed to that proposal, in any event. With their colleagues littering local government across the State, the last thing the Nationals wanted was to expose themselves to laws which they had studiously avoided for some 32 years. The Statutory Instruments Bill complements the other two pieces of legislation being dealt with in this House today—the Legislative Standards Bill and the Reprints Bill. As with the previous Bill debated in this House, the Statutory Instruments Bill provides for a formal legislative framework for the drafting and scrutiny of statutory instruments. There are a number of provisions which set out what matters may be the substance of statutory instruments and define, in some areas, the power which may be exercised by way of statutory instruments. Previously, the procedure for the scrutiny of statutory instruments was relatively limited under section 28A of the Acts Interpretation Act. That section provided for this House to deliberate on motions of disallowance in respect of certain statutory instruments, and that in fact has occurred in the life of this Government. In its report to the Parliament, the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission referred specifically to one example, namely, a piece of subordinate legislation under the Public Service Management and Employment Act. That Act, of course, provides that promotion appeals may lie in respect of public service positions. It also delegates power to the Governor in Council to determine by Order in Council particular positions to 5522 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly which appeals will not lie. As EARC correctly raised, there are questions which are often fundamental to what should be part of an Act of Parliament as distinct from a statutory instrument or piece of subordinate legislation. Matters of policy or matters which determine people’s substantive rights by and large should be part of the principal piece of legislation rather than the procedural elements of subordinate legislation. However, the more important issue was that an Order in Council of that kind would not be required to be tabled in this House and be subject to scrutiny. On that basis, particularly where questions of appeal rights are involved, EARC came to the view, which I heartily endorse, that subordinate legislation which does deal with people’s rights, particularly rights of appeal, should be properly disclosed, not just to the public but to this Parliament, and be subject to the scrutiny of the Parliament. The recommendation of EARC was that all subordinate legislation should be published in the Government Gazette, be tabled in the Legislative Assembly and be open to motions of disallowance. That formula has been largely followed in this Bill, except for a slight twist in that the publication in the Government Gazette is by way of notification rather than publication of the complete piece of subordinate legislation. Frankly, I think that is a preferable course. The reality is that virtually no-one, other than people in the public service, reads the Government Gazette. It is an official publication designed simply to notify that certain official steps—official actions—of Government have been taken. It really does not add much to it to incorporate the full terms of subordinate legislation providing, as is proposed in this Bill, that the notification of any subordinate legislation also details where the full terms of such legislation can be obtained and perused. But it is the case in this Bill that all subordinate legislation will be now tabled in the Legislative Assembly—this House—and be open to disallowance. One final point I would like to make concerns the question relating to explanatory memorandums, not just in relation to statutory instruments or subordinate legislation but also in relation to legislation generally. It is a matter that I have raised in passing on previous occasions in this place. I strongly believe that explanatory memorandums should indeed explain to members of Parliament and to members of the public who are trying to understand a piece of legislation precisely what the legislation is designed to achieve. Too often—and it is as true of Federal legislation and the explanatory memorandums in the Commonwealth Parliament as it is of this one—a memorandum simply outlines what each clause contains. As we gradually improve our skills in all legislative forums throughout the country in the process of plain English drafting, the question of what each clause specifically contains becomes less and less a problem for those trying to understand what the legislation is about. In legislation relating to State taxation laws and, for that matter, Commonwealth taxation laws in which matters are not only technical in the drafting of the law but also very complex, it seems to me to be more important that the explanatory memorandums should explain what deficiency in the law the legislation is designed to remedy. It is easy enough sometimes to understand what the legislative provision provides, with the help of a paragraph that tells one what the clause says. However, often that explanation does not tell a person why the clause is being introduced or what gap in the law the relevant legislative provision is designed to remedy—and tax law is a classic example of that. There is room for improving the format and the content of explanatory memorandum, and I would urge upon the Attorney-General and the Parliamentary Counsel and his staff that this matter be continually reviewed over time. Hopefully, in due course, there will be not only legislation which is easily understandable because it is in plain English, but also explanatory memorandums which indeed explain why it is that particular clauses of a Bill are drafted in the way they are, rather than simply explaining what the clauses say. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (7.46 p.m.): It is with great pleasure that I rise on behalf of the Liberal Party to support this legislation. The area of subordinate legislation is an important one. This legislation clarifies a number of issues that have previously been covered by the Acts Interpretation Act and in some respects by the Standing Orders of this House. The significance of subordinate legislation can only be understood fully by the breadth of the matters covered by it. It is important that it be understood that all subordinate legislation is covered by this legislation. The list is quite Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5523 explicit, whereas the current provision in the Acts Interpretation Act it is not explicit. It is quite clear that a statutory instrument means a regulation, Order in Council, rule, by-law, ordinance, statute, proclamation, notification, standard or guideline. The legislation covers that range of statutory instruments, and, with the exception of three cases, in each case is classified as subordinate legislation. The three instances are set out in the Bill, and it is quite clear what is meant by those three exceptions. This legislation has clarified any doubt that has existed previously, and that is welcomed. There is one point on which I would like some clarification. I will raise that with the Minister at the Committee stage. It relates to the notification. In recent years, more and more legislation has been classed as subordinate legislation. That was an important point covered in the EARC recommendations. Consequently, this legislation has been introduced. In more recent times, Ministers have perhaps been in the situation where in reality often the difference between Acts and subordinate legislation is not altogether clear. Provisions that some honourable members have believed ought to be included in an Act are included in the subordinate legislation. In recent times, the importance of subordinate legislation has been magnified somewhat. The matters covered by the legislation are generally important issues such as the setting of fees and charges or a series of rules or regulations governing some aspect of the Government’s operations. All of these issues ought to be subject and must be subject to the scrutiny of this Legislature, particularly as this Parliament only has one House. That magnifies the importance of this legislation, and magnifies the importance of the job of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. The committee is confronted with wide range of matters and issues on a regular basis. I am pleased to see that the legislation is before the House this evening. However, I do reserve my judgment on one aspect, which I will raise with the Minister at the Committee stage. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN (Glass House) (7.49 p.m.): This is the second in the trilogy of Bills that have arisen out of the Government’s consideration of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission’s report on its review of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, which has a significance that I doubt is fully appreciated by many, both outside and inside this place. In that review, the commission considered a number of principles that are regarded as fundamental to high-quality laws. In Chapter 2 of the report, the commission stated that foremost among those principles was— “Upholding the sovereignty of Parliament and democratic principle—for example ensuring that Parliament has sufficient scrutiny over delegated legislation and that undue law making powers are not conferred on officials.” After considering the commission’s report, the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review recommended a separate Bill for subordinate legislation. I believe that the committee was correct in its recommendation. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of the resultant Bill. At the same time as EARC and the parliamentary committee were considering the broader issues in their review of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the Administrative Review Council in the Federal jurisdiction was undertaking its own report to the Federal Attorney-General on rule making by Commonwealth agencies. That report was submitted to the Federal Attorney-General in late March this year. The ARC report should be required reading for all members of this Legislative Assembly, addressing itself as it does to delegated legislation only. Importantly, recommendation No. 1 of that report recommends— “A new Act to be called the Legislative Instruments Act should be enacted to prescribe procedures for the making, publication and supervision of delegated legislative instruments in accordance with this report.” I believe that that recommendation speaks volumes for the ability of the committees of this House to arrive at appropriate conclusions on matters brought before them. I believe it would have been premature to have brought on legislation on this matter—and indeed the other matters before the House tonight—without having the opportunity to first examine the ARC report. The confirmation of the approach suggested by the EARC Parliamentary Committee on this matter expressed in the ARC report is an endorsement 5524 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly for this Bill from the organisation that must be considered to have done the most extensive work ever undertaken in this area. Delegated legislation powers can be traced, at least in Great Britain, back to 1385 and the Statute of the Staple. I am sure that my colleague, the honourable member for Yeronga, would be interested in that date. At over 600-years old, it is no new phenomenon, and it is widely accepted as a rule-making practice today. Among the most common of the various quarters from which pressure to delegate rule-making powers come are, as listed in the ARC report— “Scarcity of parliamentary time. The volume and complexity of legislation is such that Parliament has neither the time nor the resources to enact all rules directly and deal with their amendment; Flexibility and responsiveness: some rules must be changed more often and/or more quickly than is feasible with Acts of Parliament.” If I may digress, we have seen some procrastination and delaying tactics in this place. The report continues— “This may be the case where the environment in which rules are operating is uncertain and rapidly changing, particularly where the rules are specific and prescribe matters of detail; and Complexity of legislation: it may be argued that it is undesirable for Acts of Parliament to be cluttered with matters of detail. This argument assumes that principal rules are more readily comprehensible if expressed more concisely.” For these and other reasons, reliance on delegated legislation has grown, and grown rapidly. The ARC report includes a table that, in the Federal jurisdiction at least, admirably demonstrates that fact. Effectively, as the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances reports, in 1982-83, there were 553 statutory rules and 150 other disallowable instruments, which in 1990-91 had grown to 484 statutory rules and 1 161 other disallowable instruments. One of the consequences is a proliferation of classes of both disallowable and other instruments. In defining “statutory instrument”, this Bill instances, by way of example, 10 types of instrument. In 1988, the Senate Committee on Regulations and Ordinances reported no fewer than 115 different categories of disallowable instruments, with different and often inconsistent practices for drafting, publication, scrutiny, and so forth. A similar broadening of nomenclature may well have led to EARC’s particular concern that in Queensland not all subordinate legislation was subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. This legislation ensures that all statutory instruments of a legislative character are open to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. In Queensland, if in no other State of Australia, people are aware that their system of government is based on the existence of a distinction between legislative, Executive and judicial functions. The legislative function involves the making of legally binding rules, usually of general application. As I have said, this Bill applies to instruments of a legislative character, but not to those of an administrative or Executive character. Therefore, I admit that I was perplexed by the lack of a definition of the term “legislative character” or “administrative character” within the Bill. I mentioned that fact to a number of my colleagues. In seeking to understand this absence, I was grateful for the assistance and advice from Madeline Cook, the secretary to the Subordinate Legislation Committee; Greg Cooper, the committee’s legal counsel; Theresa Johnson from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel; and Mr John Leahy, the Parliamentary Counsel. It would seem quite fundamental that such a distinction be made within the legislation, but, in fact, my subsequent investigations have shown that as the guidelines exist in case law, it is appropriate that no definitions are included. Basically, there are three characteristics of legislative instruments. The first characteristic is that legislative instruments determine the content of the law, that is, a legislative instrument has the effect of changing or determining the content of the law rather than applying the law. The second characteristic is that legislative instruments contain binding rules rather than guidelines. The binding quality of a rule is an indication of its legislative character. The third characteristic is that legislative instruments usually Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5525 have general application. The general test is whether the instrument is of general application or it only applies in a particular case. Attempts to define in some way the distinction between legislative, Executive or administrative are worthy of inclusion in the legislation. The leading Australian authority is Commonwealth v. Grunseit, in which Chief Justice Latham stated— “It is not always easy to draw this distinction.” That is, the distinction between legislative and Executive. Chief Justice Latham continued— “The general distinction between legislation and the execution of legislation is that legislation determines the content of law as a rule of conduct or a declaration as to power, right, or duty, whereas executive authority applies the law in particular cases.” The Donoughmore committee on Ministers’ powers in the United Kingdom in 1931 drew the following distinction between the legislative and administrative function— “The former involved the formulation of rules of general application, without reference to particular cases, usually having prospective operation; whereas the latter involved performing particular acts, or issuing particular orders, or (most commonly) making decisions which apply the general rules (legislation) to particular cases.” The committee was aware of the shortcomings of the definition and stated— “It is indeed difficult in theory and impossible in practice to draw a precise dividing line between the legislative, on the one hand and the purely administrative on the other.” In the case of the Minister for Industry and Commerce v. Tooheys Ltd in 1982, the Full Court of the Federal Court stated— “The distinction is essentially between the creation or formulation of new rules of law having general application and the application of those general rules to particular cases.” Although that seems a simple distinction, it is certain that there will always be different points of view in a determination of whether something is general or particular, important or not important, or a discretion as to content or execution. As it has been explained to me, a term that involved a subjective assessment is not suitable for use in establishing precisely which statutory instruments are to be dealt with in a particular way. Further—and I am heartened to report—recommendation No. 3 of the ARC report expressly indicates that the definition of “legislative” should not be set out in the Act that it has proposed. However, that does not mean that the concept of “legislative in character” is an inappropriate concept to use in determining what instrument should be drafted by Parliamentary Counsel and subject to the requirements of Part 5 of this Bill. This is a particularly good piece of legislation which will overcome the concerns expressed by EARC in relation to the lack of tabling and disallowance provisions of important delegated legislation. It should be a matter of some pride for all members of this Assembly that such a piece of legislation is currently before us, and will shortly become law in this State. This is particularly so because it is pioneering in respect of Australian jurisdictions. As a member of the Committee of Subordinate Legislation, I welcome the fact that this legislation is a great advance in the circumstances in which our committee works. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (8 p.m.): I rise to join in this debate on the Statutory Instruments Bill to point out a couple of concerns that the community might have about this legislation. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said— “The Statutory Instruments Bill is intended to give Queensland a satisfactory framework for defining and dealing with statutory instruments. This framework has, up until now, been lacking in this State. This Bill defines subordinate legislation and clarifies what are the statutory instruments used . . .” As a member of the Committee of Subordinate Legislation, I am concerned that 5526 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly there should be an ability to amend legislation by regulation as will be possible under the Statutory Instruments Bill. I do not believe that we should be heading in this direction. The Minister has stated that statutory instruments of a significant legislative character must be tabled in this House. That is all very well if members have time to peruse those regulations. If it is good enough for regulations to be included in legislation, it should also be good enough to amend them by legislation. Recently, at a conference that I attended, one speaker made the comment that it is possible to almost abolish the Commonwealth by Executive action. I am concerned that because members must read a great deal of material, it is possible for fairly substantial changes to be made to statutory instruments without members knowing about them. I turn now to clause 40, which states that subordinate legislation must be notified in the Gazette. In common with other members, I seek from the Minister an interpretation of that notification. Even if members do not see a notification in the Gazette, clause 41 states that failure to comply with the provisions relating to publication of a notice does not affect the validity of the notification under clause 40. If copies of the Gazette are not available for whatever reason to the people who require them, that appears to be of no real significance to this Bill. This appears to be a bit of window-dressing. As I said, I seek from the Minister an explanation of that notification and look forward to discussing this matter at the Committee stage. Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (8.04 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members who have participated in this debate, particularly the honourable members for Stafford, Toowong and Glass House. I note that the honourable member for Glass House is a keen member of the Committee of Subordinate Legislation. The remarks of the member for Gympie carry weight that goes beyond their own intrinsic merit, because under the previous Government he was the Chairman of the Committee of Subordinate Legislation. In that capacity, he was a fierce crusader for the principles for which the Committee of Subordinate Legislation stands. I had the opportunity to witness that at first-hand, and I pay him that compliment across the floor of the House. As members would be aware, not very long ago the Committee of Subordinate Legislation was a very important committee because it was the only committee of this House that had anything significant whatsoever to do with any interaction with the outside world. At the beginning of the previous Parliament, there was a library committee, a refreshment rooms committee and a privileges committee. None of those related to the world outside, yet in this environment and with this history—this creditable past—honourable members opposite, such as the Leader of the Opposition, come into this House and announce how important it is to introduce, with great rapidity, those principles of open government to which they were vehemently opposed when they were in Government. It really is astounding to hear members opposite make statements such as those made by the honourable Leader of the Opposition. When he was in Government, he was opposed to defining legislative standards. Now that he is in Opposition, he supports it. When he was in Government, he was opposed to freedom of information. Now that he is in Opposition, he cannot get it fast enough. When he was in Government, he was neglectful of the standards relating to subordinate legislation. No department produced more Henry VIII clauses than did the department over which the honourable member opposite had responsibility. Yet, in Opposition, he supports freedom of information. It appears that the Leader of the Opposition is opposed to all progressive reform until the point at which it becomes inevitable. Then he supports it with great vehemence and, might I say, with great dignity. I thank the honourable the Leader of the Opposition for his astute, if somewhat churlish, support for the Bill, and I commend it to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. D. M. Wells (Murrumba—Attorney-General) in charge of the Bill. Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5527

Clauses 1 to 39, as read, agreed to. Clause 40— Mr BEANLAND (8.08 p.m.): This clause relates to notification and publication in the Gazette. Although I support the legislation in glowing terms, I have concerns with this provision. The clause sets out clearly that subordinate legislation must be notified in the Gazette and then explains publication. Clause 40 (3) states— “Publication in the Gazette of the subordinate legislation is also sufficient compliance with subsection (1).” It makes the point that notification purely means notification of the particular subordinate legislation and not full publication of it. When I read this clause in conjunction with the following two clauses, I am concerned that the Gazette will not set the matter out sufficiently for members to ascertain the exact position. I am aware that the Parliamentary Counsel publishes a subordinate legislation series and that matters will be tabled in this place. However, we have been accustomed to full publication of particular ordinances or regulations in the Government Gazette. As a result of Part 5 of this legislation, we might get two or three lines giving notification of a matter and not full publication. Could the Minister clear up what we will gain from this provision? From reading the Explanatory Notes, that appears to be the position. Mr WELLS: The concern raised by the honourable member for Toowong is the same as the concern that was raised by the President of the Law Society in correspondence with the Premier. In that correspondence, the President of the Law Society expressed his concern that a practitioner would have to pay $320 to buy the subordinate legislation series and that that would be an additional cost to the practice. I understand what the honourable member for Toowong is saying. This matter was before the Parliamentary Electoral and Administrative Review Committee, the Law Society and other interested community groups for a long period before it came to this place and no concerns were raised. The system is the same as the system that operates in the Commonwealth and in Victoria, and it does not present a tremendous difficulty there. If the solicitors had an interest in a particular area of subordinate legislation, they could have a clerk watching the Gazette and, if the particular area of interest came to their attention, it would be possible for them to obtain in pamphlet form the relevant pieces of subordinate legislation. In that case, they would not have to spend $320 to buy the subordinate legislation series. I hope that solves the problem for the honourable member for Toowong. Mr BEANLAND: No. It raises more problems. Unfortunately, I was not aware that the Law Society raised concerns about this issue. I am concerned from the point of view of a member of Parliament. I accept that matters will be tabled in this Chamber. However, with the hurly-burly of politics and a series of issues being raised, if one misses the two or three lines in the Gazette, one may not pick it up when it comes before the Chamber. I am somewhat of a student of the Gazette. I peruse it carefully and find the matters for which I am looking. If the Gazette contains only two or three lines about a matter, it will be easy to miss them. If similar issues arise, I will have to chase them up. I may have to spend a great deal of time going down a lot of dark alleys before I come across the particular regulation, ordinance or Order in Council for which I am looking. Although I thank the Minister for the explanation that he has given, I regret that it causes me more concern. It does not allay the fears that I have on the matter. I am disappointed to see that we are headed in that direction. It is not in the interests of members of Parliament—I appreciate that the solicitors would be concerned about it, too—and the public generally. The information will not now appear in the Gazette and people will have to go to a number of sources to obtain information. The process will not be as easy as it currently is. That is a pity and it detracts largely from what otherwise is good legislation. Mr WELLS: I acknowledge that the honourable member for Toowong is an avid reader of the Government Gazette. I appreciate that he is a former member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee and that he has an interest in these matters. I think 5528 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly that it is unlikely that he will miss a matter in the Government Gazette. I have seen how avidly he reads that publication. I observed that in his contributions to the Subordinate Legislation Committee in 1989. It is most unlikely that he would miss a matter; but, in case that should happen, I will speak to the Minister for Administrative Services to see whether he can get the Government Printer to use larger print. Mr STEPHAN: I have also been concerned with this matter. Mr Gibbs: Wonder no more. All will be answered. Mr STEPHAN: The honourable member can be assured that I will listen to the answer attentively. I note the provision that subordinate legislation shall be published and that copies will be available, but why add a clause providing that a failure to comply with the section does not affect the validity of the notification? I appreciate that the Minister has tried to explain the position, but the inclusion of a provision that invalidates another part of the clause ensures that it means nothing at all. Mr Wells: It’s a standard clause to avoid Government mistakes. Mr STEPHAN: Is it a standard clause to be able to say that it is of no consequence whether it is published or not? That does not seem to make any sense at all. Why put it in in, the first place? Mr WELLS: Honourable members are just talking to hear their own voices. I think they should stop. Mr STEPHAN: I think it deserves a better answer than that. I am not just talking about it. It is written in two of the clauses that it shall be available, but the Minister has said that it is of no consequence if it is not available. That is contradictory. Mr WELLS: It is a standard clause. The reason that the standard clause is there is so that the Government of this State will not be reduced to nonsense if some procedural matter is not complied with. It prescribes a procedure which, if generally followed, will be for the betterment of the efficient government of the State. It is not the sort of procedural clause that one would want to have the characteristic that it will be invalidated if it happens not to be complied with by an oversight. Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5529

Question—That clause 40, as read, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 43 NOES, 26 Ardill McElligott Beanland Watson Barber Milliner Booth Beattie Nunn Borbidge Bird Palaszczuk Connor Braddy Pearce Coomber Briskey Robson Cooper Campbell Schwarten Dunworth Clark Smith FitzGerald Comben Smyth Gilmore D’Arcy Spence Goss J. N. Davies Sullivan J. H. Harper Eaton Sullivan T. B. Horan Edmond Szczerbanik Lingard Elder Vaughan Perrett Fenlon Warner Randell Flynn Welford Rowell Foley Wells Santoro Gibbs Woodgate Sheldon Hamill Slack Hayward Springborg Hollis Tellers: Stephan Tellers: Livingstone Prest Turner Neal Mackenroth Pitt Veivers Quinn Resolved in the affirmative. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Power): Order! I remind honourable members that for future divisions, the bells will ring for two minutes. Clause 41— Mr BORBIDGE (8.23 p.m.): As a result of the explanation given by the Attorney- General, I have some new concerns in respect of this matter. I ask the Minister to clarify the position. I invite him to correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation. Mr BEANLAND: I rise to a point of order. Madam Temporary Chairman, I cannot hear. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Members who are not correctly attired should leave the Chamber. All honourable members should confine their remarks so that the member for Surfers Paradise can be heard. Mr BORBIDGE: My concern regarding clause 41 arises out of the explanation that I received from the Attorney-General. It creates a contradiction which, in my view, flies in the face of accountability and basically gives a blank cheque to the Executive. What we are saying by virtue of this clause is that there is a certain requirement on the Government of the day, and if the Government fails to comply, it does not matter. In the time when I was a Minister, I was aware that in terms of subordinate legislation, if certain matters did not comply there was a problem. I can recall previous Governments having to bring in validating legislation. I can recall previous Governments having to reintroduce into the Parliament or re-table regulations if there was an administrative foul-up. There was an obligation on the Government to get it right. Clauses 40, 41 and 42 impose a requirement on Government or on the Executive to take certain action, but that is followed by the disclaimer that if it is not done, it does not matter. I have to say that, to date, I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the Attorney-General. Mr BEANLAND: I rise to speak to the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition. There have been cases when money has been involved which have required validating legislation and other matters that have required validating legislation. It seems to me that what the Government is saying is that if there is no compliance, it does not matter because the regulations are still in order. The other point I raise is that the Explanatory Notes attached to the Bill state— 5530 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

“The Government Printer has been authorised to refuse to publish a notification unless the Government Printer has been given a copy of the legislation.” I ask for the Minister’s assistance in relation to this matter. Unless I have overlooked the provision, I cannot see in the legislation where that is stated. I may have missed it, so I ask the Attorney whether it is stated in one of the clauses or is stated somewhere else. Is this a rule that the Parliamentary Counsel or the Government has made on this matter? Mr WELLS: Honourable members have expressed a concern that the legislation says that if certain procedures are not complied with, it does not matter. I can understand that if that was really the case, they would have a genuine concern. I acknowledge the sincerity underlying the questions that they ask, but that is not in fact what the legislation means. It is not even what the legislation states. It states— “Failure to comply . . . does not affect the validity of the notification . . .” There are a number of different types of sanctions that can be applied for failure to perform an administrative function. The first sanction is to invalidate the whole of the procedure. The second sanction is for the procedure itself not to be invalidated but, nevertheless, to be imperfect and for that imperfection to be capable of being drawn to the attention of the officer who is supposed to implement it. It may be done to the disadvantage of the Government of the day by having the matter raised in the Parliament. Mr FitzGerald: But, to repeat the popular phrase, there are big gaps in the year when we don’t sit, at times. Mr WELLS: Yes, but this Parliament sits more often than any other State Parliament. Mr Borbidge: Oh, come on! It has been 15 days in five months. Mr WELLS: That is another argument, but if the honourable member cared to look back over the last year, that is in fact the case. That is the sanction that is available, and honourable members will remember very well that that sanction has often been applied in the past. It is not the case that it does not matter. Mr FitzGerald: Is this new, this provision, or is it a provision that is in existing legislation? Mr WELLS: It is new language, but it is an old tradition of this Parliament. If the honourable member looks at the next clause, he will see that the Minister for Administrative Services also has a role in ensuring that these functions are effectively performed. Mr Borbidge: Basically, “Trust me” is what you are saying. Mr WELLS: No, I am not saying that. If that were what the clause stated, the Leader of the Opposition would have cause for genuine concern. Mr FitzGerald: What sanction do we have if it isn’t? Mr WELLS: The sanction of Parliament. Mr FitzGerald: That is the only sanction? Honourable members interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr WELLS: Does the member for Lockyer want to say something else? Honourable members interjected. Mr WELLS: I am anxious—— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! If the member for Surfers Paradise and the member for Lockyer wish to continue, they will get their turn. Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5531

Mr WELLS: I am anxious for the member for Surfers Paradise and the member for Lockyer to hear what I have to say. This Parliament has a choice between determining that a procedural default should lead to invalidation of a piece of legislation, or determining that it should be a matter for the scrutiny of members of this Parliament and a matter for this Parliament. I ask honourable members to consider the mischief that is to be addressed by this legislation. In this case, the mischief to be addressed is the mischief of a piece of procedural behaviour going awry. If we are to make the penalty for that occurring the invalidation of a piece of subordinate legislation, we could do much greater mischief, because that could lead to local councils, for example, being unable to enforce by-laws over a long period. It could lead to changes in the price of goods and services being delayed for a long period. If the Government were to lose the procedure of invalidation of the instrument, it would create greater mischief than if we were simply to have this provision. I also draw the attention of members to clauses 42 and 44, both of which address the problem that the Opposition raises. Mr BORBIDGE: The explanation by the Attorney-General is not satisfactory. The Opposition will divide on the clause. Government members talk a lot about accountability. When members of the Opposition were in Government and some administrative error was made in respect of subordinate legislation, we copped it, we wore it, and we had to come back to this Chamber and re-table regulations or introduce validating legislation. Tonight, we are seeing from a Government that has an alleged commitment to accountability a reversal of that tradition where the Government automatically has an out when it bungles. I say to the Attorney-General that it is not acceptable. His explanation is basically, “Trust me.” I say to the Attorney-General and to members of the Government that the Opposition does not trust them. We are very suspicious about the clause and the motivation behind it. It is no good saying that, on the day of the publication of a notice or as soon as practicable after that date, copies of the relevant subordinate legislation must be made available to be obtained at the place or at each of the places specified in the notice, but then afterwards saying, “But if we don’t do it, it doesn’t matter.” That is what the Attorney-General is submitting to the Parliament tonight. I suggest that it runs very much against the traditions of this Parliament and also against the Government’s alleged commitment to accountability. Mr WELLS: The honourable Leader of the Opposition just said that he hankers after the good old system whereby we could come back to Parliament and disallow a regulation. I suggest that he look a little further than his sublimely ignorant nose and have a look at clause 44, which states— “The Legislative Assembly may pass a resolution disallowing any subordinate legislation if notice of the resolution is given within 14 sitting days after the legislation is laid before the Legislative Assembly.” That is precisely what the honourable member wants. However, he says that he will call a division on the legislation. Let him call a division—because he wants to. Note that the honourable member is calling a division because he wants to call a division, not because he is failing to get what he wants. He stands up here and with his supine ignorance and conceit states before all honourable members that he wants the Parliament of this State to be able to disallow a resolution or some legislation. The honourable member says that because he has not read the next clause beyond the one that he is considering. When he hears that he is getting exactly what he wants, he still wants to call a division. I am willing to bet that the honourable member will call a division. Just watch him. He will call a division. Mr FITZGERALD: Anyone who has served on the Committee of Subordinate Legislation would know that mistakes have been made by officials, bureaucrats and Ministers in not properly tabling legislation, not gazetting it in the right form or not using the right instrument. That happens all the time. The Attorney-General now claims that, under clause 44, the Parliament has the right to disallow a regulation. That right, of course, must remain. It is the fundamental principle of our Westminster system that the Executive can administer the Acts of Parliament and make regulations subject to the Parliament. The Parliament has never, ever intended giving that up. The question is not whether the Parliament has the right to disallow a regulation but whether the 5532 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Government has the right by regulation to make mistakes and not comply with an Act because it has not fulfilled all the provisions. We have not received a satisfactory explanation from the Attorney-General. He just said that the Parliament has the right to disallow regulations. It might be six months before that can happen. Parliament does not sit regularly. The Minister has a considerable period before he must table the regulation. Then, under clause 44 (1), 14 sitting days are allowed in which notice can be given of a disallowance motion. It is a long period. The whole concept of our system of Parliament is that the Executive must comply with the Acts of the Parliament. The Attorney-General is asking for a blank cheque and I, for one, want to go on record as saying that I do not trust any Executive Government with a blank cheque. Mr WELLS: If only the honourable member were open minded enough, he would be pleased to hear the words of clause 43. It gives him exactly what he is asking for. Clause 43 (1) states— “Subordinate legislation must be laid before the Legislative Assembly within 14 sitting days after notification in the Gazette.” Mr Borbidge: So what? Mr WELLS: The honourable member should listen to the words of the statute. Clause 43 (2) states— “If subordinate legislation is not laid before the Legislative Assembly in accordance with subsection (1), it ceases to have effect.” The proposition that Opposition members put forward that they want the thing disallowed—— Mr Borbidge: You are missing the point completely. Mr WELLS: I will sit down, and the honourable member can tell me the point. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Power): Order! The member for Toowong. Mr BEANLAND: The Attorney has indicated quite clearly that the points that I made before are correct. That is the whole problem. If we insist that regulations and other subordinate legislation should be published in the Queensland Government Gazette and that the requirements for them should be strictly adhered to, the Attorney suggests that those requirements would be onerous. It is one of those fallacious arguments that the Attorney-General likes to whip himself up into a frenzy about, particularly when he refers to local governments. Local government by-laws, ordinances or statutory instruments are not subordinate legislation. They are outside the definition of subordinate legislation. They are not matters which will be disallowed in the Parliament and they are not matters which, as such, we will be concerned with as far as they relate to the issues that are before us this evening. However, as I said at the outset of this debate, we are concerned that the subordinate legislation must be correctly published and copies must be available. We know that, in the past, Ministers have had difficulties with this resulting in validating legislation being brought into the Parliament months and months later in order to correct errors. Why should the Attorney’s Government be any different? Why is he placing the Government in a position which is above that of the Parliament? I know all about the tabling. I have read clause 43. I can quite easily see that. Earlier, I made the point that it is okay if one has the time to carefully go through the Bill and pick these things up. However, as has already been said, Parliament does not meet on a regular basis. This Parliament is not meeting on any more days than have previous Parliaments with different Governments. The Minister might not like to hear that but, nevertheless, it is true. The Minister’s position on accountability is very much shot to pieces tonight by pushing this legislation through and not providing for a situation in which Ministers with subordinate legislation have to have that subordinate legislation in order. The Attorney has still not answered my question in relation to the Government Printer. I raise it again. I accept that I may have missed it and that it may be somewhere else in the legislation. The Explanatory Notes state— Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5533

“The Government Printer has been authorised to refuse to publish a notification unless the Government Printer has been given a copy of the legislation.” I still have not found that in the legislation. I am not saying it does not appear; it might be somewhere else. But it certainly does not appear in the clause now being discussed, nor does it appear in clause 41 or clause 42. I would like some clarification of that matter. Mr GILMORE: I think that the Minister is quite deliberately failing to address the point that has been raised by the Opposition tonight. We are aware that the legislation allows for a motion of disallowance to be moved. Regrettably, we are not talking about the ability of the Opposition or others to move a motion of disallowance of a particular regulation in the Parliament. On many occasions, the effect of a particular regulation may remain unknown. Indeed, the Parliament might remain oblivious to the effect or the legality or otherwise of a regulation, and that has happened in the past. In my few short years as a member of Parliament, I have seen such matters come before the Parliament. Mr Borbidge: It happens in every Parliament. Mr GILMORE: Of course it happens in every Parliament. We on this side of the Chamber have raised this subject ad nauseam, yet the Minister blithely goes ahead and accuses us of ignorance when in fact he is quite clearly failing to address the problem. We cannot stand here as an Opposition and watch a Government misrepresent the point of view of the Opposition, nor can we stand by and watch the Government legislate to do something which is quite improper. The fact of the matter is that we are not talking about our ability to move a motion of disallowance. We are talking about the legality of the regulation. A regulation that has laid on the table of the Parliament for 14 days is beyond the point of disallowance. However, it may still remain technically inoperational or illegal. It is for that reason that we have raised this point tonight. The Minister can smile all he likes. If the regulation involves the collection of money, what will be done about that? The Government will then have to come into the Parliament and validate the regulation with legislation, as has been done in the past. The Minister is trying to avoid the issue, and quite improperly so. Mr TURNER: The Minister said that the disallowance motion must come before the Parliament within 14 sitting days. He said that it would not take very much time for that to happen. Between early December and the end of April, Parliament has sat for only a six-day period. If 14 days is related to that type of sitting pattern, under this Government such a motion could take 12 months before it came before the Parliament. That is the point that I would like to make. Mr WELLS: The honourable members wanted the penalty to be the sanction of invalidation—they have got it. They wanted tabling and they wanted the capacity of the Parliament to disallow—they have got it. They wanted a nice short period—they have got what they legislated for in the past. It is exactly what it always was in the past. Honourable members should note that if the honourable members opposite call a division now, they are objecting to things that they have always supported in the past, and in doing so they are simply protracting with gratuitous conversation a matter which is very simple, which is clear and which is in accordance with the traditions of the Parliament. Mr BORBIDGE: I want to make one very simple comment to the Attorney- General. I will make it as simple as I can and I will talk as slowly as it takes for it to sink into some of those poor brains opposite. The Opposition has raised in all sincerity certain very legitimate concerns in respect of this clause. All we have sought from the Attorney-General is a reasonable explanation. The Attorney-General has failed to provide that explanation. In view of his failure to do so, the Opposition will divide the Committee. Mr Hayward: Sit down and get on with it. Mr BORBIDGE: I will take as much time as I need. What we are talking about tonight are the traditions that have been observed in this place for a long time. We are 5534 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly talking about accountability. We have a Government that brings into this Chamber a recommendation that changes the ground rules as they have never been changed before and in the process lessens the accountability of the Executive to the Parliament. Due to the inability of the Attorney-General to provide a satisfactory explanation, the Opposition will be opposing this and any subsequent clauses that—— Mr Gilmore interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: I take the very valid interjection from the honourable member for Tablelands. Mr BEANLAND: I still have not received an answer to the matter I raised concerning the Explanatory Notes. It says— “The Government Printer has been authorised to refuse to publish a notification unless the Government Printer has been given a copy of the legislation.” I am not too sure what that is all about. It does not seem to be contained anywhere in the legislation. Is that some instruction that the Attorney-General is issuing or that someone else is issuing that he can cancel tomorrow or the next day? I presume it is. I agree with the Attorney-General’s comments that this is a significant change that will take place. He will endeavour to allow it to slip through. I notice in the next clause that if matters are not properly advertised and copies of the subordinate legislation are not available, the relevant Minister—in this case, the Minister for Administrative Services—comes into this House, stands up and gives some excuse as to why in fact the Government has not abided by the correct procedure. The excuses could be numerous. For example, the Minister might say, “The public service forgot to do it”, or “The departmental officer forgot to do it or was too busy.” Honourable members have heard all those excuses. What the Attorney-General is doing here is making a significant change. He has not given any valid reasons for making this significant change. He refers to local authorities. As I said, that is a furphy; it is fallacious argument. What is not being discussed here are local authority ordinances or by-laws. What is being discussed are regulations of this Government, Orders in Council that relate to this Government, rules, by-laws, ordinances, statutes, proclamations, notifications, standards and guidelines. They relate not to some other level of government, but to this Government. The Attorney-General is not prepared to face up to his responsibilities on this issue. Therefore, the attempt by the Attorney-General to present himself as a person of accountability is sadly lacking tonight, and is seen for what it is—a facade which he tries to present out in the community. That facade has sadly been brought down this evening. Due to this clause being passed tonight, abuses will be allowed to occur in relation to subordinate legislation, which this legislation is supposed to remedy. The Attorney-General is not prepared to do that. He fixes up one aspect of the legislation and creates a hole elsewhere. There is still a hole that one could drive a stream train through. A giant hole is being created in this legislation as other aspects of it are being repaired. It is simply not good enough. I well understand now why the Law Society contacted the Attorney- General about some of these matters. It has obviously gone through this legislation very carefully and has identified its shortcomings. Mr FITZGERALD: The ordinary people in my electorate often complain that they do not know when the laws are changed. I tell them that they must read—— Honourable members interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Power): Order! Honourable members will cease interjecting. Mr FITZGERALD: I tell those people that they must read the Government Gazette on a regular basis, because that is the only way in which they will be notified. The Government of the day has the right to change regulations, providing it follows the correct procedure, and the notification must appear in the Government Gazette. The people in my electorate are rather concerned about that. Honourable members realise that ignorance of the law is no defence. Therefore—— Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5535

Mr Hayward: It certainly isn’t in your case. Mr FITZGERALD: My friend the present Minister for Health can have a go at me if he likes. I am going to line up on him some day, and we will see what eventuates. An Opposition member: Does he have copies of the Gazette in his office? Mr FITZGERALD: Does the Minister have copies of the Gazette in his office to supply to his constituents? This is a real concern of the ordinary people in the community. They really want to know when the laws get changed. I tell them that the Government must follow the correct procedure, and, provided it follows that correct procedure, the law is enforced. However, if the Government does not comply with clause 41 (1)—and it has an escape in clause 41 (2)—the law cannot be enforced. I simply stand up on behalf of all those people who are unaware of when those laws and regulations are changed and say, “This is not good enough.” It is not good enough. The Government has to wear the embarrassment of coming back here with validating legislation. I have served on subordinate legislation committees. I know that at times fees have been collected illegally. They have not been properly gazetted. At times they have not been tabled. All these sanctions should be in place to ensure that the Executive Government plays the game. The Parliament must be supreme. I have not received any explanation from the Minister as to how the ordinary person in the community can be assured that the laws of this land will be complied with. If escape clauses are included in the legislation, such as there are here, the Government can do anything it likes. I am not prepared to support the Government in respect to this type of clause. Question—That clause 41, as read, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 42 NOES, 25 Ardill McElligott Beanland Watson Barber Milliner Booth Beattie Nunn Borbidge Bird Palaszczuk Connor Braddy Pearce Coomber Briskey Robson Dunworth Campbell Schwarten FitzGerald Clark Smith Gilmore D’Arcy Smyth Goss J. N. Davies Spence Harper Eaton Sullivan J. H. Horan Edmond Sullivan T. B. Lingard Elder Szczerbanik Perrett Fenlon Vaughan Randell Flynn Warner Rowell Foley Welford Santoro Gibbs Wells Sheldon Hamill Woodgate Slack Hayward Springborg Hollis Tellers: Stephan Tellers: Livingstone Prest Turner Neal Mackenroth Pitt Veivers Quinn Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 42— Mr BORBIDGE (8.58 p.m.): I will not prolong the business of the Committee, except to say that for the very same reasons—— Mr Beanland: I cannot hear. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Members who are leaving the Chamber should go quickly and others should be quiet. Mr BORBIDGE: I indicate for the same reasons expressed previously, and also in the absence of a satisfactory explanation by the Attorney-General, that the Opposition opposes clause 42. 5536 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Mr BEANLAND: This clause is related to the two previous clauses. Clause 42 (1) states— “(a) that copies of the subordinate legislation were not so available; and (b) of the reasons why they were not available.” The relevant Minister must cause to be laid before the Legislative Assembly within 14 sitting days a statement to that effect. The reasons why copies of the subordinate legislation are not available is not set out. I can think of a dozen reasons why they would not be available. It is usually as a result of some bureaucratic blunder, or someone has decided that it is too difficult to go through the correct process and that person hopes that he or she may be able to get away with it for a while by hiding that fact. This legislation states that if that occurs, the Government is not going to wear it. This strikes at the whole basis of the Westminster system, the responsibility of Ministers and the responsibility of Government. The Attorney-General is trying to say, “We have ended up with some piece of subordinate legislation. It is all wrong. Its validity will not be affected because we have a disclaimer and, therefore, we are not going to accept our responsibilities under the Westminster system.” Of course, that is not how it should be. I believe that the Attorney-General knows that. This clause is a valiant effort by the Attorney-General to have passed something which I find difficult to believe. He is persevering with it and is not prepared to consider the matter afresh. Further, the Attorney-General has still not answered the question that I have asked him three times about the Government Printer, which is referred to in the Explanatory Notes. The “relevant Minister” means the Minister charged with the business connected with the Government Printing Service. However, that still does not indicate to me where in the legislation the Government Printer has been authorised to refuse to publish notification unless the Government Printer has been given a copy of this legislation. Question—That clause 42, as read, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 43 NOES, 25 Ardill McElligott Beanland Barber Milliner Booth Beattie Nunn Borbidge Bird Palaszczuk Connor Braddy Pearce Coomber Briskey Robson Dunworth Campbell Schwarten FitzGerald Clark Smith Gilmore Comben Smyth Goss J. N. D’Arcy Spence Harper Davies Sullivan J. H. Horan Eaton Sullivan T. B. Lingard Edmond Szczerbanik Perrett Elder Vaughan Randell Fenlon Warner Rowell Flynn Welford Santoro Foley Wells Sheldon Gibbs Woodgate Slack Hamill Springborg Hayward Stephan Hollis Tellers: Turner Tellers: Livingstone Prest Veivers Neal Mackenroth Pitt Watson Quinn Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 43 and 44, as read, agreed to. Clause 45— Mr GILMORE (9.03 p.m.): I have some serious concerns about subclause (a), which states— “anything done or suffered under or for the purposes of the legislation before it Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5537

ceased to have effect is not affected”. I ask the Minister to tell the Parliament whether my interpretation of this subclause is accurate. Given the circumstances that have already been discussed tonight in this Chamber, if a piece of subordinate legislation is ultimately deemed to be inactive, incorrect or improper, or is disallowed, do persons who have been fined or faced extra charges under that piece of subordinate legislation get their money back, or do they not? Would the Minister please explain to the Parliament what “is not affected” means? Mr BORBIDGE: The member for Tablelands has raised some serious and legitimate concerns about this clause. I notice that the Attorney-General has declined to answer those concerns, which relate effectively to the enforcement of tabling or disallowance within the Parliament. With respect, I suggest that the Attorney-General owes the Parliament an explanation. Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. Not only has the Attorney-General appeared to show contempt for this Parliament by refusing to answer legitimate questions; he has moved in the Chamber and turned his back to the Chair. I believe that that is a legitimate point of order. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Power): Order! There is no point of order. The Attorney-General has the right to choose whether or not he answers questions. Mr FITZGERALD: These are serious concerns. I ask the Attorney-General to indicate by a nod of his head whether or not he intends to respond. Mr WELLS: My reluctance to answer the question derived entirely from my belief that it was asked due to lack of sincerity on the part of members opposite, and filibuster. However, because I respect the member for Lockyer more than I do many of his colleagues, I shall answer the question. Mr FitzGerald: Is this a new provision not in the existing legislation? Mr WELLS: There is no change in relation to disallowance from the existing section 28A of the Acts Interpretation Act. Mr FitzGerald: The fact that the fines or charges stand—has that changed? Mr WELLS: The answer to the question is: this does not constitute a change from section 28A of the Acts Interpretation Act. Clause 45, as read, agreed to. Clause 46, as read, agreed to. Clause 47— Mr BEANLAND (9.07 p.m.): At first glance, this clause seems to be straightforward. It states— “The Governor in Council may make regulations for the purposes of this Act.” I was just considering the importance of this legislation and wondering exactly what regulations the Attorney has in mind. I understand that the Acts Interpretation Act provides for changes to regulations to be made through legislation in this Parliament because of their importance. If there are to be changes to this Act, they should be introduced into this Parliament in the form of legislation. I cannot understand exactly what sort of regulations the Attorney is contemplating under this legislation. I would have thought that these matters would be introduced in legislation, not in regulations, and that they would be debated properly in this Parliament. Mr WELLS: The regulations that can be made are regulations which further the purposes of the Act. The purposes of the Act are contained in clause 2. It is not possible to make regulations which expand on the legislative scope of the Act. Clause 47, as read, agreed to. Clauses 48 to 50 and Schedules 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. 5538 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Wells, by leave, read a third time. REPRINTS BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 6 May (see p. 5011). Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (9.10 p.m.): The Reprints Bill is purely a housekeeping Bill to modernise the law relating to reprints of primary and subordinate legislation. EARC, in its review of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, commented on the need to introduce plain English drafting for Acts and subordinate legislation. It appears that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel was already making progress in that regard. EARC also mentioned gender neutral drafting. It concluded, after careful research, that it was generally accepted that Government publications and legislation should not use language that unnecessarily discriminates against any one sex. Most significantly, EARC found during the course of its research that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel had already made substantial progress in the standardisation of legislation into modern language and a more readable style. EARC did make a recommendation regarding the move towards a clearer legislative style. It said— “As an additional incentive . . . the commission considers that the proposed parliamentary scrutiny of legislation committee should have authority to draw the attention of Parliament to any Bill or subordinate legislation that appears to be ambiguous or drafted in an insufficiently clear or precise style.” As we have indicated in a debate earlier tonight, the Government decided not to bother with the scrutiny of legislation committee as recommended by the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission. It would seem that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has adopted the modern style for new legislation, but this Bill, as the Premier indicated in his introductory speech, allows for the gradual standardisation of existing legislation into a modern, readable style. I am sure that that will be welcomed by all members of Parliament and, indeed, by all people who have to read our laws. Perhaps some people may not be too pleased about having the laws of the land demystified. The Opposition supports the legislation. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (9.12 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports the legislation. There is a need for the Parliamentary Counsel to regularly update the various Acts. On many occasions, legislation is not updated, that is, amendments are not included in the main legislation sometimes over a period of a decade. Some legislation has 15 or more amending Acts attached to it. It takes great patience and time to locate various sections of some Acts. In some cases, legislation is made so complex by all the amendments that one has to resort to a legal office, the Parliamentary Counsel or the library to obtain an updated version of an Act. In many cases, an updated version cannot be found. Sometimes it is impossible to follow the amendments that the Government of the day is bringing forward. With the passing of this Bill, I trust that we will have more regularly updated legislation. It is all very well passing the legislation, but at the end of the day it depends on finance. I hope that adequate funding will be made available—I made this plea to other Ministers about similar matters—to ensure that legislation which has a considerable number of amendments to it is given priority in being updated. Understanding the Land Act is difficult at the best of times, but it is made more difficult by the large number of amendments to it. The current legislation dates back to 1962. Since that time, a number of amendments have been made to it, which makes it difficult to follow. I trust that we are going to find that following the passage of this legislation that the oldest and most complex, as far as the number of amendments is concerned, is done first and that we will get an across-the-board update of legislation. Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (9.15 p.m.), in reply: I thank Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5539 the Leader of the Opposition and the former Leader of the Liberal Party for their courtesy and for their support for the Bill. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 58, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Leader of the House) (9.16 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to make various amendments of the statute law of Queensland, to repeal certain Acts and to declare certain matters.” Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Leader of the House) (9.17 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” I introduce the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1992. The purpose of this Bill is to facilitate the making of amendments to Acts where the amendments are concise or of a minor nature and are non-controversial. This Bill amends 36 Acts. In addition, the Bill repeals the Roads (Contribution to Maintenance) Act 1957 and the State Government Insurance Office (Queensland) Act Amendment Act 1979 which are no longer of public utility; and, to allay any doubt, declares certain other matters. All amendments take effect from the date of assent unless the contrary is expressly provided. In certain cases, amendments are declared to operate retrospectively. In most cases where retrospective operation has been provided, the amendments correct minor errors and are of a technical or machinery nature. Retrospective operation has also been provided to proposed section 14 of the Traffic Amendment Regulation 1991 (No. 4). This amendment will allay any doubt about the validity of a regulation dealing with the automatic cancellation of drivers’ licences. The format of this Bill is similar to the last such Bill introduced into this House last December. The Bill contains five clauses and four schedules. Each schedule serves a particular purpose. For example, Schedule 1 deals with minor amendments, that is, amendments of a minor policy nature. Schedule 2 deals with amendments by way of statute law revision. These amendments correct minor errors ranging from typographical errors to the updating of citations. In accordance with past practice, if an Act contains amendments, some of which are of a minor policy nature and some of which deal with statute law revision, all amendments to that Act are placed in Schedule 1. The Explanatory Notes are placed at the end of each Act being amended. Each amendment to an Act is numbered and the note explaining the nature of the amendment can be identified easily. The notes are also given headings to give a general indication 5540 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly of the nature of the amendment. The notes are not part of the Bill. The review of the statute book as a whole continues. As part of this review, archaic language in the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990 has been replaced. This process will continue as the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel now has standing authority to prepare Bills of this kind as and when required. The Bills will also provide departments with a facility to attend quickly to the amendment of matters of a minor, concise and noncontroversial nature. As Leader of the House and the Minister charged with the carriage of the Bill through the House, I commend it to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

ART UNIONS AND PUBLIC AMUSEMENTS BILL Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Leader of the House) (9.21 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to provide for the conduct of art unions and public amusements, and for related purposes.” Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Leader of the House) (9.22 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” In the absence of the Honourable the Treasurer, I introduce this Bill into the House. This Bill will replace the Art Unions and Amusements Act 1976-1991. The Bill will provide a simple legislative framework within which charities and other eligible associations may raise funds through the conduct of art unions. This Bill will deregulate small private raffles with gross proceeds up to $500. Tickets cannot be sold to the general public, but persons who all work or reside on the same premises will be able to run small raffles amongst themselves. Raffles may also be run amongst members and guests of an association. This will legalise the thousands of illegal raffles currently being run. It will also remove the legislative burden on the estimated 6 000 to 8 000 social and pastime groups which are presently authorised to conduct minor art unions. These groups will no longer have to pay annual registration fees or lodge returns with the Treasury Department. The list of eligible associations which may run art unions in the public arena will be extended to include political parties. The Bill will replace the current annually approved association registration system for minor art unions with a three-year renewable licensing system. In the circumstances, I seek leave to table the remainder of my speech and have its contents incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. A minor art union permit can also be obtained for one-off minor art unions. Incorporated eligible associations, parents and citizens associations formed under the Education (General Provisions) Act and prescribed eligible associations will be able to apply for a minor art union licence. Under incorporated eligible associations, branches of institutions holding letters patent under the Religious,Educational and Charitable Institutions Acts 1861 such as RSL sub- branches and scout groups could apply for a minor art union licence. Under prescribed eligible associations, new religious groups and political parties registered under the Electoral Act together with their branches or sub-branches could apply for a minor art union licence. Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5541

The minor amendment Act last year raised the upper monetary limit for minor art unions from $500 to $5000. As a consequence associations running art unions with gross proceeds between $500 to $5000 were able to do so under their approved association registration number. They also saved between $33 to $99 in major art union permit fees each time. Further, associations did not have to get specially printed tickets or have each art union audited. Associations reaped significant cost savings from the minor amendments. The proposed regulations will cut the cost of running minor art unions even further by removing the maximum $1 ticket price and relaxing some of the printing requirements on tickets. The annual registration fee for charities, schools, religious and community purpose groups has been set at $10 since 1984. That registration fee entitled those groups to conduct art unions with a gross proceeds limit of $500. With the ten-fold increase in the gross proceeds upper limit, it is now proposed that the minor art union licence fee will be $50 per year. Sporting clubs and political parties will, in addition to the $50 annual licence fee, pay 1% of gross proceeds. Previously, sporting groups paid an additional fee of 5% of net proceeds. The Bill will provide for the issue of permits to conduct major art unions. The proposed regulations will permit cash as a prize in trade promotion art unions. Queensland residents will no longer have to take their prize in gold bullion. Cash will also be permitted to be offered as part of a holiday/trip package in major art unions. The Bill will provide for the issue of permits to conduct major bingo. The number of associations which may conduct bingo at the same premises, without the premises being licensed, will be raised from 6 to 8. New bingo centres will be permitted to start. However licensing provisions have been strengthened to ensure the adoption of practices and procedures of centre management which guarantee the integrity of bingo games and which eliminate sharp and dishonest practices that would tend to damage public confidence in the games conducted at the centre. Lucky envelope printers and suppliers and associations will be licensed to ensure the integrity of lucky envelope art unions. It is intended to eliminate the dishonest practices that have damaged the integrity of this type of art union in recent years. Calcutta sweeps will be legalised by providing for the issue of permits for the conduct of Calcutta sweeps. The current permit system for entertainment and commercial amusements will be replaced by a licensing system of entertainment and amusement machine operators. Sites where four (4) or more entertainment and/or amusement machines are to be operated will be specifically approved so that the concerns of the community, especially the possible effect on minors, may be taken into account. Billiard tables will be deregulated. Duplication of control over amusements conducted by travelling showpersons at agricultural shows and fetes has also been eliminated. Merry-go-rounds and kiddie rides will now be completely controlled under the Workplace Health and Safety Act. The Bill will ensure the integrity of art unions; and eliminate sharp or dishonest practices that would tend to damage public confidence in the purchase of art union tickets. It will also ensure that the community get value for money from the conduct of art unions and that waste and inefficiencies are eliminated. The Bill represents the most comprehensive review of art union legislation in this country in recent years. The provisions of the Bill will provide adequate protection for the public and encourage and support associations that conduct art unions as a worthwhile form of fundraising. This Bill is the result of extensive consultation with a wide range of charities and community purpose groups. The art union sector generates an annual turnover in excess of $175 million per annum and provides a wide range of welfare and support services which benefit thousands of people in the State. The Bill indicates our commitment to ensuring the long-term viability of non-profit organisations that play such a vital role in our community. I commend the Bill to the House. 5542 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Debate, on motion of Mr Slack, adjourned.

OFFENCE NOTICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 28 April (see p. 4593). Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (9.24 p.m.): At the outset, I indicate that the Opposition will be supporting the amendment that is before the House. In the Minister’s relatively short second-reading speech, he explained exactly what the Bill contains. There have been various changes to the manner in which ticketing offences have been regulated, implemented and enforced throughout the brief period during which they have been used in Queensland. I understand that before 1956, there were no offences for which a ticket was written out or for which fines were collected. With the massive number of tickets that are now written out for traffic violations, it would be very difficult for an officer to proceed or take all the complaints to court to have the matters heard. I do not believe that people who have been picked up for speeding would complain about the fact that they have actually received a ticket for the offence rather than a summons to appear before the court. Most of us consider—or at least those of us who unfortunately have been booked, no matter how rarely—that issuing a ticket is the more humane way of dealing with these matters. However, experience shows that many people do not appear before the courts either because they forget to turn up or collect so many tickets for various offences that they wish it would all go away, and simply ignore the infringement. A process has to be undertaken to ensure that the person who received the ticket appears in court. My understanding of the purpose of this legislation is that it is to simplify the procedure from the point of view of the courts so that the number of offences that have been ignored by the people concerned can be processed automatically. I support the concept of the right of a person to appear in court to state his or her case. Some people may have an excuse that the officer who was booking them did not accept. Generally, an officer asks a person whether or not he or she has a reasonable excuse or any excuse for speeding or for committing the offence. If, to his mind, the excuse given is legitimate, he will issue a caution and that will be the end of the matter. However, I have known people who have received a speeding ticket and believed that they did not commit an offence. When they have tested their word against two police officers in the court, the court has found in favour of the two fine, upstanding police officers. The person decided, because in his mind he was still innocent, to go to gaol rather than plead guilty and pay a $40 fine. It is the democratic right of people to do so, and I think the point they are making is that sometimes the law is wrong. A person has a right to serve a sentence of seven days instead of paying $40. A constituent of mine felt so strongly about a matter that he preferred to go to gaol for seven days rather than pay a $40 fine. That person and any other person have the right to have their day in court and then lodge an appeal. Mr Milliner: Couldn’t you talk him out of going to gaol? Mr FITZGERALD: No. I was unable to talk the person out of going to gaol. The person concerned was a fine, upstanding citizen of the City of Toowoomba. After one or two days in gaol, his wife paid the fine because she needed her husband at home to do some work. Her husband was very upset about it because he wanted to take a stand. People must be allowed to exercise their democratic rights. I reiterate my support for the rights of citizens to pursue the legal course as far as they can possibly do so. The legislation is known as SETONS legislation, that is, Self-enforcing Ticketable Offence Notice System. Sometimes acronyms make one wonder exactly what the true meaning of the term is, but that is what the system is known as. I understand that it has been agreed to by all the Justice Ministers throughout Australia. It is bringing about uniform legislation throughout Australia and I think it will bring a great deal of benefit to Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5543 the police. It is absolutely ridiculous that police officers should waste a great deal of time on these matters. Therefore, the Opposition supports the legislation. Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (9.29 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports this legislation because it will make the administration of justice in this State more streamlined without impinging upon the rights of citizens who feel wrongly accused. The idea of a virtually self-enforcing ticket system is an excellent one which, with the aid of computers, will result in a freeing up of court time and police resources. The current system of being given a ticket and, if it is not paid, then being dealt with through the court system by way of a complaint and summons is not working efficiently. In 1956, when this system was first introduced, there were comparatively few offences. More than 55 000 traffic tickets are now written in Queensland each year, as well as approximately 20 000 other tickets which mainly concern parking violations or infringement of local authority by- laws. The 1956 system has simply been unable to cope with the explosion in ticketable offences and, sadly, the explosion in the number of offenders who do not pay their fines. With all States now implementing the uniform demerit point system and uniform fines and penalties, it is important that all States deal with the non-payment of tickets in a similar manner. This Bill provides for that type of uniformity, and the Liberal Party supports it. Rather than have each matter go before a magistrate, the clerk of the court will be able to issue enforcement orders with the aid of a computer, thereby ensuring uniformity of penalty. This will only take place after a reminder notice has been served and if there is no contact made with the clerk of the court either to pay the fine or to seek a court determination of the matter. If the enforcement order is still ignored, the amount owing is still unpaid and no application has been made for a court determination, then a warrant will be issued by the clerk. Of course, it is to be hoped that fine defaulters do not end up in prison. The Liberal Party has made it clear that goal is not the place for people who cannot afford to pay fines, and that community service work is a much better option and one that actually provides a benefit to the community rather than something that costs the community money. Indeed, at a time when real criminals—murderers, armed robbers and rapists—are being pushed through the revolving door at great speed and sent back into the community, there is a need to ensure that we have enough space in our prisons for those dangerous criminals. The most effective way of doing that is to keep petty fine defaulters out of gaol. In that way, there will be no need for the sorts of massive remissions we are now seeing in the corrective services system, and the community can be confident of “truth” in sentencing—at least after the coming election when the Liberal Party is returned to Government in this State. Of course, an important part of the Bill is the continuation of the right to a court determination. It would seem that very few people would seek to take that option, but those who feel genuinely wronged may well seek to have their day in court. That is an integral part of our justice system, and must always be retained. The two great beneficiaries of the legislation will be the courts and the police. No longer will magistrates be tied up for hours at a time rubber-stamping the convictions of offenders who choose not to turn up in court. Because police will no longer have to prepare briefs on all of those offenders and then present them in court, police prosecutors and clerical staff will be able to direct their efforts elsewhere. The final result should be a freeing up of the whole court system, and a faster track for other matters through the courts. That is a most worthwhile objective, and the Liberal Party is pleased to support it. Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (9.32 p.m.), in reply: I thank both the member for Lockyer and the member for Merthyr for their support for the legislation. It is commonsense legislation, because it will free up valuable resources in both the police force and the courts. As the member for Merthyr quite rightly points out, under the system some 55 000 traffic offences will be dealt with, which will be a significant saving. We will monitor that new initiative very closely, because obviously it can be expanded into other areas, such as local government, to deal with matters such as parking violations and dog fines. I endorse the sentiments of 5544 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly the member for Merthyr that, obviously, for a number of reasons, we want to keep fine defaulters out of the prison system. Most importantly, because it is very costly to induct people into the prison system, if they can be diverted into alternative, community-based systems, that will be a saving. It is a great reform. It is very important to recognise that a person still ultimately has the right to have his day in court if he so desires. That is a very fundamental principle, which must be retained at any price. Once again, I thank the two honourable members for their support. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 6, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

FINANCIAL TRANSACTION REPORTS BILL Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (9.35 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to provide for the giving of further information in relation to suspect transactions reported under the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 of the Commonwealth and the giving of information in relation to other suspect transactions, and for related purposes.” Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Wells, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (9.36 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” Organised crime is one of the most complex and insidious problems confronting society today. Law enforcement agencies at all levels continue to evaluate progress and recommend changes which will see increased success in stamping out what has become known as white-collar crime. A major development in the fight against this activity has been the establishment of the Cash Transaction Reports Agency under the Commonwealth Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988. That Act requires financial institutions and other cash dealers to provide the Commonwealth agency with reports of transactions which may be relevant to the investigation of breaches of taxation or other Commonwealth laws. The Cash Transaction Reports Agency can pass that information on to law enforcement agencies, including State police forces. The legislation has, from the States’ point of view, two shortcomings. First, although the agency is empowered to distribute information received from cash dealers to State police forces, the Act provides no protection to a cash dealer who provides further information in response to follow-up requests from State police. Second, there is no obligation placed on cash dealers to provide information about suspected offences against State criminal law. This Bill addresses both those issues. It will provide for information in relation to suspect transactions reported under the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 to be given to State law enforcement bodies when the information relates to the commission of State offences. Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5545

The Bill provides that a State police officer, or the Commissioner of the Police Service, or a police officer seeking to enforce the Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act, may request cash dealers to provide information which relates to financial transactions specified under the Commonwealth Act. If a cash dealer has reasonable grounds to believe that financial information obtained may relate to an offence against State law, under the provisions of this Bill, a report on the transaction must be prepared and sent to the director of the cash transaction agency. The Bill provides statutory protection to a cash dealer who provides such information. The information provided by the dealer must be truthful. It is an offence under the Bill to provide false or misleading information. The Bill will not permit the police to engage in large-scale invasion of privacy of citizens’ financial affairs. They will only be able to request financial information which is relevant to the offence against State law they are investigating. Thus, if the police are investigating a specific offence under another Act, they will not be able to start asking the Commonwealth agency about the suspect’s financial transactions, if such information would be irrelevant. The Bill is part of a uniform legislative attack on organised crime in Australia. It has the support of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, and each State is moving to enact it as soon as possible. This national cooperation on important areas of law enforcement is to be welcomed. It shows a recognition that the insidious problem of white-collar crime is one that is bigger than each individual State, and will require the sum total of all our efforts to contain. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald, adjourned.

PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY BILL Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (9.40 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to provide for the recognition, exercise and any necessary and reasonable restrictions of the right of peaceful assembly, and for related purposes.” Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (9.41 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” The introduction of the Peaceful Assembly Bill is an historic occasion for Queensland. The outrageous and repressive restrictions on the right to public assembly perpetrated by successive former National and Liberal Party Governments represent a blight on Queensland’s history which will forever remain. The opposition parties, while in Government, inflicted on this State bans on public assemblies which were redolent of the worst excesses of totalitarian dictatorships, rather than the benign democratic inheritance one would expect the parties of tradition to support. While a Liberal/National Party Government used statutory powers to do away with the ancient common law right to procession, now an Australian Labor Party Government will use its legislative mandate to create a statutory right to peaceful assembly. So while history will record that an odious Right Wing Government repressed the Queensland peoples’ liberty to peacefully assemble—so history will record that the Goss Labor Government changed all that. The Goss Labor Government has restored democracy to Queensland. History can now record that the sorry chapter characterised 5546 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly by the subjugation, the domination and the violent suppression of the rights and liberties of Queenslanders is now closed. The Peaceful Assembly Bill will restore the right of Queensland citizens to participate in peaceful assembly thereby increasing their participation in the democratic process. Society is an amalgam of ideas. No one has a mortgage on the truth. Democracy as a whole benefits from the freedom of expression the Goss Government believes will be enhanced by the introduction of this Bill. In the past, the Traffic Act 1949 and its regulations had the effect of making the police the final arbiters of whether a public demonstration would be permitted. The result I am sure we all remember well. From September 1977, there was bitter confrontation as a politicised police force used all in its power to crush peaceful Queenslanders. From plumber to politician, from carpenter to clergy, they were all there and they were all arrested for standing up for freedom of assembly. The right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental right recognised internationally in Article 21 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights to which Australia is proud to be a party. In February 1991, the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission issued its report on the review of public assembly law. The report recommended — a right to peaceful assembly in a public place be legislatively recognised; the legislative enactment be given supremacy over any other inconsistent law; a non compulsory “notification of intent to hold a peaceful assembly” system be introduced; authorisation of the notice by the relevant authority—Police Commissioner or local authority—will mean that participants are granted legal immunity from the traffic laws; and the court is to be used as an arbiter about whether an assembly is authorised or unauthorised. The objective of the legislation is to confer several basic rights on the citizens of this State. They are— the right of peaceful assembly; the right to participate in public assemblies; and to ensure the right to participate in public assemblies is only subject to such restrictions as are necessary and reasonable in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, public order, the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons. The Bill also seeks to ensure that the right of people to participate in a peaceful assembly may be exercised without the payment of a fee. The Bill clearly outlines that a person has the right to peaceful assembly with others in a public place, subject only to such restrictions as are necessary and reasonable in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, public order, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. These are taken to include the rights of members of the public to enjoy the natural environment and the right to carry on a business. Peaceful assemblies may be authorised or unauthorised. Unauthorised assemblies must conform to traffic laws and relevant by-laws and regulations. An unauthorised peaceful assembly invokes the immunity provisions of the Bill, and participants risk no civil or criminal liability for obstructing a public place. Under this Bill, to be allowed to hold an authorised peaceful assembly, the organiser must give an assembly notice to the Police Commissioner or representative, and the local authority, if relevant. The notice must give all the particulars of the intended assembly. A notice of permission is given to the organiser. Terms and conditions may only be imposed if they relate to public safety, the maintenance of public order, the protection of rights and freedoms—which includes the rights of persons to enjoy the natural environment or carry on business—the payment of clean-up costs arising out of the assembly, the Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5547 recognition of any inherent environmental or cultural sensitivity and the application of any resource management practice of a delicate nature. The organisers must agree in writing to those terms and conditions. If conditions cannot be agreed upon, the local authority has to attend a mediation session with all the interested parties in an attempt to resolve the issues. If the local authority wants to prevent the assembly going ahead, it can apply to the Magistrates Court for an order if it has formed the opinion that, if held, the assembly would jeopardise public safety, occasion serious public disorder or unduly interfere with the rights or freedom of other people. In determining applications made to it, the court must have regard to the objects of the Act, and must determine the application with the greatest expedition so that the decision of the court is not delayed until after the assembly is proposed to be held. The court is not bound by the rules of evidence, and the proceeding is to be conducted with as little formality and technicality as possible. Costs are to be borne by each party, regardless of the outcome. This legislation implements the philosophy of the EARC recommendations and continues the Fitzgerald process. The legislation sets right a longstanding wrong—a wrong perpetrated gratuitously against the people of Queensland. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald, adjourned. CRIMINAL LAW (ESCAPED PRISONERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 28 April (see p. 4597). Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (9.49 p.m.): The legislation before the House is significant and important. It has eventuated because of the Government’s reaction to a set of circumstances that it certainly is not happy with—that is, there have been a large number of escapes from the prisons and corrective institutions throughout Queensland over the last couple of years. The tide has not stopped flowing out through the prison walls. In fact, I understand that on this very night, two more prisoners from Wacol prison have taken notice of the sign that is out on the side of the road that says, “Beware! Prisoners cross here at night”. So, a further two prisoners some time today or this evening took their own leave of absence and are now escaped prisoners. It is interesting that this legislation comes forward in the form of an amendment to the Criminal Code. That is the method that this Government uses to be seen to be correcting a problem that exists. The Minister for Corrective Services has been under considerable pressure in regard to the prisons portfolio since the Labor Party has taken office. What has been the reaction of the Government? Its reaction has been to stiffen the penalties. The Criminal Code is being amended by the Criminal Law (Escaped Prisoners) Amendment Bill. When people ask themselves how this legislation will prevent people escaping from prisons, I am afraid that I have to tell them the truth. Why is the Government amending this piece of legislation? The facts are that the prisoners who escape can be charged under two pieces of legislation, one of which is the Criminal Code; the other is the Corrective Services Act. I recently asked the Minister in this Chamber how many prisoners had been charged under the Criminal Code. The Government had made a great play of, “We are going to get tough. We are going to take action.” What was written under those headlines was, “We are going to be seen to be doing something about the situation.” The Government was under pressure with regard to the escaped prisoners. What action did the Government take? It foreshadowed that it would introduce legislation to get tough on this issue. I estimate that there have been between 90 and 100 prisoners who have escaped from lawful custody from the beginning of 1991 until now. The Queensland Corrective Services Commission annual report states that in 1990-91, 64 prisoners escaped from lawful custody. That figure is considerably more than in the previous year, when 21 prisoners escaped. I will quote the figures for other years. In 1985-86, 37 prisoners escaped; 31 in 1986-87; 27 in 1987-88; 37 in 1988-89; and 21 in 5548 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

1989-90. The number increased to 64 in 1990-91. The tide has not stopped flowing. The Government has a problem. I admit that escapes seem to be a catching condition. Quite often when one prisoner escapes, a run of escapes follows—others get the idea and try it. The Government’s answer was to amend the Criminal Code. On 6 May 1992, I asked this simple question of the Minister for Justice and Corrective Services— “(1) How many prisoners have been charged under the Criminal Code for escaping from lawful custody since 1 January 1991? (2) How many of those cases have been processed by the courts? (3) What were the penalties imposed by the courts?” That was a simple, fact-finding question from an Opposition spokesman on Corrective Services to the Minister for Justice and Corrective Services. I asked that question because he had indicated that the Government intended to double the penalties relating to prison escapes and take action on the matter. I will read to honourable members the answer that I received to my question. Mr Milliner stated— “The following information has been provided by the Corrective Services Investigation Unit, which is an independent police unit attached to the Queensland Corrective Services Commission. That unit’s records show that three escapees have been charged under the Criminal Code, and all have been dealt with by the courts. One escapee was convicted and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. The escapee appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The conviction was quashed and the escapee was sentenced to the rising of the court. The second escapee was convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, the sentence to be served cumulatively. The third escapee was convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, the sentence to be served cumulatively. It is possible that police in other parts of the State could have charged escapees under the Criminal Code, but I am not in a position to gain this information quickly.” That is the answer to the prison escape problem. During that period, approximately 100 prisoners escaped. Three escapees were charged under a section in the Criminal Code that the Government is now amending. One escapee won on appeal, yet the Government believes that it is solving the problem. Mr Connor: It’s a farce. Mr FITZGERALD: As the honourable member for Nerang said, it is a farce. It is the greatest farce I have ever seen. Mr Connor: It’s a Clayton’s. Mr FITZGERALD: It is a Clayton’s amendment. The Government says that it will double the sentence from three years to seven years. Not one of those escapees received a sentence of three years. One escapee received a sentence of two years. All criminals who escape are charged under the corrective services legislation. In early February, I conducted some investigations into the last 42 escapes from prison and I asked what the position was. I was advised that of those escapes, nine escapees were awaiting trial, one received a sentence of between one and three months, seven received between three and six months, 14 received between six and nine months, three received between nine and twelve months, seven received a year, and one received a sentence of three years. That was the information I received at that stage. Obviously, none of those escapees received a sentence of three years because the Minister gave me the answer that under the Criminal Code, only one escapee had received a sentence of two years and one had received a much lesser sentence. From open security prisons, there have been 22 escapes. Those escapees have generally received sentences of approximately one to six months. Only one escapee received a sentence of six to nine months, and one escapee received a sentence of a year. That is a joke. Prisoners receive sentences such as those that I have outlined, and the Government states that under the Criminal Code it will increase the sentence from Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5549 three years to seven years. It is not being as tough on escapees as it could be. What is the law’s attitude towards escaped prisoners? What does the law say with regard to the right and the duty of Governments to maintain people in prison? What should be done to encourage prisoners to stay in prison? I conducted some research in the library and I came up with a few facts. Mr Eaton: There are not too many prisoners who want to stay in prison, are there? Mr FITZGERALD: The Minister is perfectly correct. Not too many prisoners want to stay in prison. Section 143 of the Criminal Code is one of the sections that are being repealed and replaced, so it is relevant to this debate. It states— “The motive for leaving prison is irrelevant R v Hinds (1957), 41 Cr App R 143. The interests generally of inmates of any penal institution whether open or high security, require the putting down firmly of escapes and attempted escapes. This is because the only alternative to effective deterrence from escaping is a hardening of the prison discipline so as to make escape more difficult. See R v Payne (1976) 2 NSWLR 446, where it was held that an escape from an open institution requires a significant element of deterrence to be reflected in the sentence to be imposed in consequence of it, and in this connection the facts that the prisoner (1) was at large for a relatively brief period, (2) was involved in no criminality during his period of freedom, (3) and gave himself up voluntarily, are alike irrelevant.” In other words, there needs to be a toughening up on prison escapees. I note with all due respect that the ministerial benches are occupied by the Minister for Land Management. I think that it is disgraceful and appalling that the Minister for Corrective Services is not present for the debate, nor is the Attorney-General, who has the carriage of this legislation. Mr Eaton: The Attorney-General is outside meeting with some of his departmental officers. Mr Beanland interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! The member for Toowong! Mr FITZGERALD: I accept that explanation—— Mr T. B. Sullivan interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nundah will cease interjecting. Mr FITZGERALD: Although under the Criminal Code most of those offences presently carry a penalty of three years’ imprisonment, I note that under the Corrective Services Act 1988, section 93 states— “Prisoner offences (1) A prisoner who— (a) escapes, attempts to escape or prepares to escape from lawful custody; . . . (3) Where a prisoner is convicted or a prisoner offence, the court shall order that he be imprisoned for a period not exceeding 2 years.” At present, the maximum penalty that can be imposed upon an escaped prisoner is two years under the Corrective Services Act. Under the Criminal Code, it is three years. Virtually no escaped prisoners are charged under the Criminal Code. The Minister has made great play of this issue, which I have raised in the media. Statements have been made to the effect that the Government is doing something about this issue, but I believe that it is all a bit of hype. An article in the Sun Herald of 17 May 1992 stated— “Police Minister Neville Warburton said he believed perceived loopholes in charging escaped prisoners were likely to be covered under amendments to the Criminal Code. He said legislation to be debated next week would mean escapees would be charged under the Criminal Code.” I ask the Minister: does he agree with Mr Warburton, who said that escapees would be charged under the Criminal Code? The Minister has advised that, since 1 January 1991, 5550 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly only three prisoners have been charged under the Criminal Code. Is it the intention of the Government to ensure that escaped prisoners are charged under the Criminal Code? The article stated further— “Mr Warburton said people in jail for minor offences were charged under the Corrective Services Act when facing charges for escaping. People in prison on indictable charges are charged under the Criminal Code when facing charges for escaping.” That was the advice that Mr Warburton gave Mr Greg Abbott, a reporter of the Sun Herald, and it was reported in that newspaper on 17 May 1992. I ask the Minister whether this is correct, and whether there will be a change in Government policy with regard to prisoners escaping from prison. One must ask why prisoners are escaping. I believe that they are escaping because there is a complete lack of morale in the Queensland prison system. The administration in the Corrective Services Commission is abysmal. I have formed that opinion after reading some of the reports that have been released. Members are aware that mass escapes have occurred. They are also aware that the Government was in financial trouble and decided to cut back the budget of the Corrective Services Commission. The commission then decided to close down the Woodford Correctional Centre. A decision was then made to move maximum-security prisoners and high-security prisoners from the Sir David Longland Correctional Centre to the Moreton Correctional Centre. When those prisoners were moved, there was a mass break-out. Members are also aware that there was a major problem at the Sir David Longland Correctional Centre. These are the factors that caused prisoners to escape. The Moreton Correctional Centre was not ready to take those prisoners. The imposition of those budgetary restrictions on the Corrective Services Commission forced the closure of the Woodford Correctional Centre. It is interesting to read the report prepared by inspectors Detective Superintendent Ken Morris of the Queensland Police Service, Stephen Lonie of KPMG Peat Marwick, and Trevor Carlyon of the Queensland Corrective Services Commission. Their report into the break-out of eight prisoners from the Moreton Correctional Centre on Tuesday, 9 July 1991, contains some interesting information about why it happened. Why did those prisoners break out? The report states— “The major findings and conclusion of this inspection are that: The eight prisoners were able to escape because: Prisoner Morrell, one escapee, was able to join a prison works maintenance team contrary to the authorised works roster that enabled him to work outside his allocated prison yard and gain access to cutting tools; There is no evidence that prisoner Morrell or any other prisoner engaged on the outside work maintenance team were: Supervised in any manner whatsoever, either in the A Wing yards or within the compound; Subjected to any searching processes during their movement from the A Wing Yards through the compound to the Carpenter’s Shop; or Subject to any form of effective movement control to and from the A Wing Yards; The prisoners allocated to works maintenance teams had access to cutting tools in the Carpenter’s Shop and were able to take tools and use them without any formal tool control procedures being in place; and The small area between the Number Two Yard and the Number Two Yard kitchen area was not adequately secured with roof mesh and had a large step ladder temporarily stored in this area which facilitated the escape. The Moreton Correctional Centre was not in a state of physical or operational preparedness to receive the transfer of the long sentence high security prisoners or the Custodial Officers and management personnel transferred to the Centre on Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5551

1 July, 1991. Major deficiencies included: Outstanding maintenance works such as in the area of the escape between Number Two Yard and Number Two Yard Kitchen; Significant amounts of building materials and tools located within the prison compound, which in the hands of an escaping inmate could be used as weapons;” A number of other points are listed. Further down, the report states— “During 1991, the Queensland Corrective Services Commission engaged in a planning process to evaluate the options to accommodate declining prisoner numbers, resulting in a strategic planning initiative process to consider the closure of a Queensland Correctional Centre. This proposal was resisted by the Director of Custodial Corrections and his Directorate as they considered that it would be prudent to wait and see if the new initiatives in Community Corrections could provide sustainable reductions in prisoner population numbers. However, once these arrangements were dismissed and senior management had imposed a Custodial operating budget ceiling of $89m for the 1991/92 financial year, the Custodial Directorate proceeded in early May 1991 to produce a plan to meet this budget ceiling. This plan was in part based on the assumption that the Moreton Correctional Centre was an effective, fully operational, high security facility then operating as the south east Queensland Reception Centre. Once accepted, the Custodial Directorate then drove the plan to implementation, mindful that one lost day would take funds out of other areas of Custodial operations.” It is a damning indictment of the pressure that has been placed on the Corrective Services Commission that, because of budgetary constraints, it was forced to close down the Woodford Correctional Centre and implement those other actions. Mr Connor: They had 22 escapes that month when they closed that prison. Mr FITZGERALD: The honourable member for Nerang advises me that there were 22 escapes in that month. Another important comment in the report was— “The total management team under the Director-General are all in some form responsible for the failure of the planning process to highlight the problems inherent in the plan, particularly given the critique prepared by the Sir David Longland management team in early June 1991 which was never perceived to have been adequately addressed by the Moreton or Sir David Longland Correctional Centre managements.” Another comment was— “The Custodial Officers must be ‘recaptured’ into the system because he or she is on the average disillusioned and frustrated if our experience at Moreton Correctional Centre is a fair reflection of the total system. Perhaps it is not but the message is still clear that physical features alone will not provide secure facilities and that committed, well trained and motivated personnel are essential.” I could not agree more with that statement. Committed, motivated and highly trained personnel form the basis of a prison system. Recently, by courtesy of the commission, I inspected several prisons in Queensland. A month or so ago, I visited the Borallon and Sir David Longland Correctional Centres. Last week, I visited the Rockhampton, Townsville and Lotus Glen correctional institutions. At the Townsville medium-security prison, I am sure that I could easily scale the fence without losing too much blood from being caught on the barbed wire. An officer said to me, “They are not high-security prisoners. Certainly they can get out, but we rely on procedures to stop the escapes. The wire on the fence is only to hinder the would-be escapees. It does not take long to get over the fence.” Procedures must be put in place to stop prisoners from escaping. Escapes cannot be stopped by providing physical barriers such as those at the medium- security prison in Townsville. In Rockhampton, the record for scaling the first fence is nine seconds; the time for the second fence is about the same. There is a gap of a couple of yards between the fences. The Etna Creek Correctional Centre at 5552 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Rockhampton is a high-security prison, yet anyone could escape in less than 20 seconds. It would be easy for 20 prisoners to run at the fence at the one time and attempt to scale it. Even a person as portly as I am could easily fit between the top rail and the bottom strand of barbed wire. In fact, one officer told me that he crawled through it. I am not saying that it is wrong to have barriers to keep prisoners in gaol, but there must be highly motivated, trained personnel to stop escapes from those institutions. Some prisoners abscond from low-security and open-security prisons. Earlier, I quoted from the Criminal Code. Even though prisoners might be classified as low-security, the penalties must be sufficient to discourage them from attempting to leave. The low- security prisoners are there on trust. If they breach that trust, they must go one stage higher in the security system so that they do not have another chance to escape. Once they have escaped, they have relinquished their right to be trusted. Some inmates of prisons and prison farms behave well and serve their sentences. The idea of prisoners being locked behind bars, eating bread and water and being whipped every week is way in the past. I do not want to see that occur again. I do not want to see people who are being deprived of their liberty suffer more than the deprivation of liberty. That is the penalty that must be imposed; nothing more and nothing less. If prisoners are not disciplined, if they fight with other prisoners or if they are uncooperative, other steps must be taken to alleviate the problem. However, when large numbers of prisoners are able to escape, something has to be done. At present, the prison system has a shocking morale problem. Last year in north Queensland, prisoners went on strike. In addition, prison officers went on strike. A group of officers marched on this Parliament. Regardless of the legislation that was in place, they seemed to be able to take part in that march. When people are upset about a matter, I believe they have a right to demonstrate. I have some sympathy for those people who had massive changes to their work practices. As well, they had no confidence in the Minister or the Director-General of Corrective Services. Those matters must be addressed. Unless the officers have confidence in the system and are highly motivated, well-trained officers, we will not stop prisoners from escaping. The strike in the north Queensland prison last year was a joke. The Corrective Services Commission should not tolerate a strike in a prison. It is just a riot or a mutiny. In those instances, if I had been the Minister for Correctional Services, I would have ordered a complete screwing down of that prison. I would have locked all the prisoners in their cells. Then I would have gradually unlocked section by section and kept control of the prison. If I had started to lose control, I would have locked them up again. Under the old system, if there was a riot or disturbance in a prison, the prisoners were locked up and the security was gradually released. Many relatively innocent prisoners are caught up in the disturbances that occur and they have to suffer some of those problems. However, they all have to suffer those penalties until the prison is under control. Mr Welford: How are they relatively innocent? Mr FITZGERALD: Because they may not have taken part in the disturbance. If a group of prisoners create a riot and other prisoners happen to be present, the prison system still has to be shut down. Mr T. B. Sullivan: Do you acknowledge that some of those prison officers with the low morale you are talking about could be deliberately undermining the system? Mr FITZGERALD: I make no comment on that. The honourable member is putting the proposition that some of the prison officers with low morale could be undermining the system. I would like him to provide some evidence of that. I do not make a judgment on that. If officers breach their code of conduct, they should be dealt with in the same manner as any other person. Mr CONNOR: I rise to a point of order. There is an action before a court at the moment in relation to a matter very similar to this. We should be careful with this subject. Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5553

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! I draw that to the attention of the member for Lockyer. Mr FITZGERALD: I accept that point. I will not pass any judgments on this. It is certainly a problem and I am aware of what the member for Nerang was referring to. I ask the Parliament: will this legislation correct the problem? It might be of interest to honourable members that the Minister’s speech in Hansard is less than half a page in length. In introducing this legislation, he stated— “The maximum penalty provided will be raised from three to seven years. The maximum penalty of two years is retained for harbouring an escaped prisoner.” The Minister has widened the meaning of the term “prisoner”. It is being replaced by the term “a person in lawful custody”. That is reasonable, and the Opposition will not be opposing the legislation; however, we needed to talk about it. Prisoners who skip parole and go interstate have to learn that, once a court has passed a sentence upon them, they must serve out that sentence. One joke has been that when remission was automatically granted to some prisoners after one-third or two-thirds of a sentence, a prisoner who had served half the sentence would be eligible for parole. I believe that some criminals wanted to go back to their criminal ways and associate with their criminal friends. They decided that they would rather serve their sentence until they were eligible for remission even though it might have meant serving only another year or so. Because of remissions, they had completed their sentences, and away they went. They could travel freely throughout Australia or overseas with their criminal friends. However, if they had been released on parole, they were still technically sentenced for their full term and would not have had that freedom because they would have to comply with the parole orders. If they failed to do so, they would have suffered the consequences. I have examined some of the provisions of the legislation that are being repealed. Does the Minister realise that for some offences the penalties have been reduced? Under the legislation, the punishment for one offence will be less than it is under the Criminal Code. I refer to the offence of forcibly assisting the escape of a prisoner. At present, if force is used to assist somebody to escape from prison and that person has been convicted of a serious offence such as murder or treason, that person is liable to imprisonment for life. Under this legislation, the maximum sentence will be seven years’ imprisonment. Is the Minister aware of that? I believe it is relevant. I will turn to the particular clause. Mr Wells: You should do that in the clauses. Mr FITZGERALD: I will talk about it now in general terms. There is a particular clause that actually makes it easier on somebody who assists an escapee who was in prison for a very serious offence. If the person assisting the escapee used force, that person was liable to imprisonment for life. Honourable members can imagine that there are armed hold-up gangs. We have seen great gaol escapes in the past that have been organised from outside. A number of the escapes have definitely been organised from outside. Gangs will use force to get their mates out. Reference to that offence is made in one of the provisions that the Minister is repealing. We should not be weakening this legislation. I do not understand why the Minister is doing that. If a criminal is behind bars for a very serious offence and someone tries to rescue that criminal, it becomes a problem. That person will be liable to imprisonment for seven years, which is a substantial term. I do not know why the Minister has reduced the penalty from life imprisonment to seven years. I think that the sentencing option should be left open for the judge to decide. I have been referring to section 141 of the Criminal Code. The Minister has said that he is toughening up the legislation. He has not toughened up on the harbouring of prisoners at all. That penalty has been left at two years, which is probably suitable. There are probably people who are caught in circumstances in which they have an escaped prisoner or somebody who has breached parole on their hands. What do they do? Girlfriends of prisoners may find themselves in this situation. Their boyfriend may turn up while he is on the run. If that girlfriend has had a close personal relationship with the prisoner, what does she do? The girlfriend may not want to report the offence. Rather, she might advise the escapee to see a solicitor 5554 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly and hope that he gives himself up. That would be a natural thing to do. There has to be a bit of compassion. I am sure that the judge hearing the case would take that into consideration. I can understand a mother, a wife or a husband not wanting to report an escape straight away. Naturally, what they really ought to do is ask the escapee to give himself or herself up so that the matter can be dealt with. The person could then get back to a reasonable lifestyle and allow the law to take its course. Those people are absolutely terrified of the process of arrest and of the embarrassment. The hunt for an escapee is very embarrassing for his or her family, and I have some sympathy for people who are relatives of escapees. Surely, the only course for them to take is to ask the escapee to give himself or herself up. While supporting this legislation, I must urge the Government to be more realistic in facing up to this problem. Its action is an absolute sham. Unless the Minister can convince the House that the Government will take firm action to stop prisoners from escaping from gaol, it does not deserve support. The Government’s present intention is to charge people under the Criminal Code. Will the Government appeal against the lenient sentences that at times are handed down? How does one get through to the judiciary that the Parliament of Queensland really wants to set an example? I know that the New South Wales courts are much tougher when imposing sentences on escapees under the Criminal Code. Unless the law in New South Wales has changed recently, some of the sentences can be up to seven years, which is a rather severe penalty for escaping from lawful custody. Unless the Minister can convince the House that he intends to take firm action to stop these escapes, the Opposition would be justified in thinking that it is being asked to take part in a propaganda exercise. If that is the Government’s intention underlying this Bill, then we are wasting our time. I remind the House that from 1 January 1991 until 6 May 1992, only three prisoners were charged under the Criminal Code for the offence of escaping from lawful custody. If the Opposition is being asked to pass legislation so that this Government can appear to be tough and to be correcting the problem, then this legislation is a joke and we should tell the people of Queensland that it is a joke. I want a firm commitment from the Government that it will reform the prison system and make sure that those who escape from lawful custody suffer an appropriate penalty. In many instances, a penalty of three months or six months means nothing. Some time ago, I asked a judge whether penalties imposed for escaping are a deterrent. He said, “If you have a group of lifers and the penalty is one or two years on top of their sentence no matter what they do, it is certainly no deterrent.” The mockery of the system that has been allowed to develop by this Government cannot continue. The prisons system is an absolute shambles. At this stage, the Minister for Corrective Services has a commission that is under pressure, and it is a fact that there is disunity among senior officers of the commission. I read the report on the escape from the Moreton Correctional Centre which clearly states that the gaol managers were not briefed on the proposal. The general managers did not agree with the steps being taken by the commission and they knew that there would be some problems brought about by the closure of the Woodford centre and the removal of high-risk prisoners from the Sir David Longland centre to the Moreton centre and then back again. There are fewer than 20 correctional services officers at the Sir David Longland Correctional Centre now who were there two years ago. Virtually all of them have either moved on or have been moved sideways because they have been disgruntled. If there is a sure sign that a system is breaking down, it is that the organisation is unable to keep its staff. They are moving out, they are becoming disgruntled, and they are under pressure, and that is a sure sign that the whole system is breaking down. I hold the Minister responsible. He must wear the blame. He may not have let out the two prisoners who escaped from Wacol today, but he must accept responsibility for a system that is allowing more and more prisoners to escape. If this is the solution to the problem, Lord help the correctional services of Queensland unless the Government brings forward some decent legislation providing tough penalties for escape offences. The Government’s action is a sham. The Opposition will support this legislation, but calls upon the Minister to take strong action to resolve the very serious Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5555 problem that exists in Corrective Services in Queensland. Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton North) (10.27 p.m.): The effect of the amendment before the Parliament tonight is to strengthen the penalties that are imposed on prison escapees and others who assist prisoners to escape from lawful custody. I wish to take up a couple of the points made by the previous speaker in relation to escapes. In particular, I wish to concentrate my remarks on the Rockhampton Correctional Centre, which forms part of my electorate. Since the beginning of this year, four escapes from the Rockhampton Correctional Centre have occurred. Three prisoners escaped at once, but because the matter of how the escape was effected is currently before the court, I do not propose to canvass it until the courts have made a judgment on it. The other escape concerned a prisoner by the name of Riley who escaped from lawful custody on 9 April. The authorities are not quite sure of the time he escaped from the prison, but I can tell them. It was at approximately 9.46 p.m. I know that because that is when my wife received a phone call from somebody who was obviously in the know. I was not at home at the time. This person said to her, “Is your husband home?” She said, “No, he’s not.” The voice on the other end of the phone said, “Good, because we’ve just let a rapist out of here and we’ve told him where you live, so he’ll be around shortly.” Needless to say, when I arrived home my wife had the dog off the leash and my house was all lit up. She was terrified. Mr Connor: Did you report that to the police? Mr SCHWARTEN: The member should mind his own business. The fact is that that phone call caused enormous trauma to my spouse. Later that evening, I received a phone call from a gentleman who threatened to shoot me. That did not bother me in the slightest. The fact is that these matters have been brought to the attention of the police who were quite concerned about it. The resultant stress that that placed on my wife and my two small children was disgraceful. As I remarked to somebody, in my opinion, the perpetrators of that crime against my wife certainly did not do their cause any great justice. Early the next morning, a very regrettable incident occurred when a constable by the name of Sondra Lena was struck by a car at a roadblock. Later that afternoon, she died. Earlier that morning—the morning of the 10th—I was contacted by a source and advised that the member for Peak Downs had made a media statement, in which he said something to the effect that, as a result of inactivity by the Government, it would only be a matter of time before a police officer was killed at a roadblock. That action was absolutely disgraceful. The woman was not dead. She was fighting for her life in a hospital—a fight which ultimately she lost—and there was a politician claiming some victory out of it. It was disgraceful. That was not enough. Councillor Glenda Mather, who has set herself up as something of an authority on the matter, was screeching at Keith Hamburger, who had arrived by that stage, that he was responsible for the death of that constable. Again, it was a disgraceful action that gained the attention of the media but certainly did nothing to ingratiate her to me or to anybody else to whom I have spoken. I place on record a tribute to that constable, who was called out in the middle of the night, accepted the call of duty and, as a result of that, lost her life. That day, when I went to the North Rockhampton Police Station, I woke up to one fact about police officers. Mr Fitzgerald was a bit harsh when he talked about the culture of the police. I know that, in times of stress such as that, it is good that police stick together. The comradeship that those people have for one another in those times of stress is a lesson to us all. Accordingly, I applaud the efforts of the police on that night in trying to recapture Riley. Unfortunately, at that stage, they were unable to locate him. However, locate him they did and he was returned. Early that morning, in the company of senior Corrective Services Commission officers, I went to the correctional centre and discovered how Riley had escaped. He had miraculously been able to climb some 13 or 14 feet, rip apart some half-inch weldmesh and crawl through what was effectively an 8 inch by 4 inch gap. He is a pretty 5556 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly light sort of a fellow. He had then managed to get over the fence. I was outraged at the ease with which he got out of the place. I said so publicly, and I will repeat that. It is a fact of life that that fence is an absolute joke. It is very simple to get over—but, guess what? That is not a new bit of evidence. A report was written on it 15 years ago, and nothing had been done about it. It was a very simple task for Riley to get over that fence. At that time, I called for the security to be upgraded completely out of next year’s Budget. The Corrective Services Commission people saw that what I was saying was correct and acted upon it directly. As a result of my representations, they have brought forward that works program and raised the wire. At the present time, a microphonic loop is being fitted to those exterior fences. I believe that will go a long way towards securing the place. As I have said publicly time and time again—and I will say it again—my first concern is for the people who live outside those fences. We have to make sure that the risk of escaped prisoners wandering into their homes is reduced dramatically. I also want to raise the issue of morale. This year, I have had a lot of contact with the State Service Union, which represents the correctional officers at the Rockhampton Correctional Centre. Blind Freddy could tell that there are morale problems. One does not need to look any further for evidence than the industrial action that was taken earlier this year at the Rockhampton Correctional Centre. That is always a pretty good indicator. Again, the police and other Corrective Services Commission staff were expected to step into the breach, and the whole place seemed to run quite well. I do not deny the right of any group of workers to withdraw their labour. Those people chose to do so, and they chose a workplace health and safety issue. As a result, they were allowed to return to work when they did and a seminar was conducted for them. One of the problems in that institution is that people have been expected to change from the old ways to the new ways with very little training. That is a glaring example of the problems that are caused. The industrial action that was taken by those people resulted in an investigation into the matters about which they complained. An Industrial Commission hearing was held on the matter, and a workplace health and safety audit carried out in the place, the results of which I do not know. However, the problems also stem from administration difficulties. I am not here to tip a bucket on Bill Irvine. I got on very well with him. However, I think that he would be the first to agree that it was a very difficult couple of years for him in that institution. He did not receive the cooperation that he sought, and there were some significant difficulties during that period. I believe that, right up until his departure from Corrective Services, Bill Irvine did try his hardest and he remained committed to the reforms that the commission had put forward. The other issues at the correctional centre that I think need ironing out—and I have spent a lot of time discussing these matters with the Minister, the director-general and various other staff from Corrective Services—is the classification of the prison. That is one thing that I believe needs to be ironed out. The place has never been classified as to what sort of prison it is, what duties it is to perform and who can be expected to be placed in there. The full range of prisoners, from high security to low security, are in there. With that, there is another problem, namely, that the Rockhampton Correctional Centre seems to be the stop-off point for a lot of protected prisoners, people who are in there for a variety of crimes that other prisoners find repugnant. If those prisoners were in open situations, they would probably be either murdered or at least badly assaulted. So they are separated from other prisoners. But therein lies the problem. In my view, the block that Riley was in was never meant to house high-risk prisoners. But there they were; they were in there, all right. They were there because they were protected. It was the only place in which they could be put. Within the protected system there are low, medium and high rated prisoners. They are simply there because they cannot be put with other prisoners. That in itself is a problem in the Rockhampton Correctional Centre. It is one that I have brought up with the Corrective Services people, and it is one which they are addressing. The fact is that we are addressing the problems of that correctional centre. They did not happen overnight, as Councillor Mather and the member for Peak Downs would Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5557 have us believe. They have not sprung up suddenly like Topsy overnight; they are age- old problems. It is this Government that is putting up the razor wire. It is this Government that is providing the funds for the extra lighting. It is this Government that is putting the microphonic loop around the exterior. It will also be this Government that upgrades the correctional centre to an appropriate level, because I believe that, because of the level at which it is now, one should not refer to it as a correctional centre; it is still a prison. It does not have the internal mechanisms—— Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: I am pleased that the honourable member has raised the matter of the internal fence. I understand that some members opposite are probably trying to blame either the Honourable Minister or me for the removal of that fence. I knew nothing about it being removed. The Minister knew nothing about it being removed. It was an internal decision that was taken there. The people who are in charge of those prisons are charged with the responsibility of making decisions in the best interests of those people who are there. Mr FitzGerald: I am asking about the one you pulled down. Mr SCHWARTEN: We did not pull the fence down at all. It was not pulled down by me. I know the political game that the honourable member for Lockyer is playing, and I do not blame him for playing it. But the fact is—and he knows it as well as I do—that this Government did not go out there and pull the fence down. I was not out there with the pinch-bar pulling it down. In Riley’s case it would not have made any difference whatsoever, because he got out of the roof and went over the other fence. It would not have mattered if there had been a 60- feet high fence in that location because that was not where he got out. I return now to the issue at hand. The fact is that the majority of people who are in prison are happy to serve out their time there. As somebody said to me recently, a chalk line could be drawn around the ground and the majority of them could be told not to walk over it, and they would not do so. It is only a selective minority that we are talking about. Sure, we have a responsibility to take steps to ensure that they stay inside. I believe that we are doing that. In terms of the administration of the Rockhampton Correctional Centre—I believe that we have a distance to go before those problems are ironed out. I believe that certain other people have not helped the situation, Councillor Glenda Mather being one of them. She is the very person whose voice comes over the radio advising prisoners how easy it is to get out of the Rockhampton Correctional Centre, and then has the hide to talk it up. Mr Connor: They already know. Mr SCHWARTEN: The fact is that the situation at that correctional centre is under control. By the way, the honourable member is treated as a joke up there. He is treated as an abject joke. The fact is that in that correctional centre a number of problems need to be ironed out, and we are going to ensure that they are ironed out. I personally have an industrial relations background and I am happy to assist the union in this matter. The union does not want the assistance of the tories. This complex problem will be ironed out and it will be solved—and it will be solved by this Government. I support any measures that this Government takes to make the laws tougher in this State. I support the Bill before the House. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (10.45 p.m.): The Liberal Party will support this legislation, even though it is a cruel hoax on the people of Queensland. It is the kind of legislation which one expects to see proposed by this Government. Although the Liberal Party will support the legislation, we say that it will not for one moment discourage prisoners from escaping from this State’s prison system—or perhaps I should say from this State’s revolving door prison system. Tonight, we have seen what can only be described as a performance in this Chamber from the Minister in charge of this legislation, the Attorney-General. Since the commencement of this debate, the 5558 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Attorney-General has either been absent from the Chamber, on the telephone or talking to other Ministers, but he has paid no attention to the debate. I suppose that really highlights the emphasis this Government places on this legislation. It really has displayed a total disregard for Queensland’s prison system. I will inform honourable members of the level of resources that the Government allocates to the State’s prisons. The facts speak for themselves. This Government allocates very few resources to the prison system and ensures that it is at the end of the line as far as the allocation of resources is concerned. The Government should start paying some attention to Queensland’s prison system and ensure that it has sufficient resources, both financial and personnel, in order to ensure that it meets the standards required by the citizens of this State. This legislation is like so many of this Government’s actions—or, should I say, non- actions. It is all huff and puff and has no substance. It is yet another farce being thrust upon the people of Queensland. The legislation demonstrates more indecisiveness from this Government, because if it had been decisive, worthwhile legislation would be proposed—legislation which did in fact mean that prisoners were to be penalised more severely should they escape than they have been previously under the legislation. That has not eventuated. I will illustrate several points that will prove that statement. I will show this House that, in one case in point, the legislation will mean that a lesser sentence will apply than that which is currently applicable. The Government says, “We are going to get tough.” The Government likes to advocate this sort of huff and puff around the community, and particularly after every escape—and there have been many of those—— Mr Coomber: Two more today. Mr BEANLAND: There have been two more escapes today, as I am reminded by the member for Currumbin. After every escape, the Government turns and says to itself, “What can we do that is going to be cheap and easy?” What usually happens is the Government issues another press release to the media and the community that says, “We are going to get tough with those escaped prisoners.” This is Clayton’s legislation, and I believe that the community will see it for what it is. There have only been three escapees charged under the Criminal Code in recent times, even though there have been approximately 150 escapes in the period from the beginning of 1991 until now. This legislation supposedly tightens up and extends the sentences under the Criminal Code for those prisoners who escape. I turn now to a detailed examination of this legislation. I will highlight the fact that the Government has failed—and failed miserably—as far as the people of Queensland are concerned. The issue of harbouring escaped prisoners is one about which one would have expected the Government to be serious about the imposition of penalties. Honourable members will find that the existing maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment, and that remains unchanged under this new legislation if the prisoner is charged with an indictable offence. It is reasonable to expect that the penalty for harbouring escaped prisoners should have been substantially increased, in line with other provisions in this Bill. If those penalties had been increased, I am sure that no person would be prepared to harbour prisoners, and that would certainly reduce the number of escapees. In other clauses the Attorney-General has extended the sentence of imprisonment for an indictable offence from three years to seven years. One would have expected the same policy to be adopted in relation to harbouring escaped prisoners, but that is not the case. The existing maximum penalty remains the same. In addition, the maximum sentence remains at one year if the offender is convicted on a summary conviction of the offence of harbouring an escaped prisoner. From the outset, an extremely important part of this legislation remains unchanged. I turn to the clause headed “Aiding persons to escape from lawful custody”. Although the definition has been widened, the maximum penalty remains the same—seven years upon indictment. However, the maximum penalty that can be imposed on summary conviction is two years. Two years! Honourable members must bear in mind that it takes a bit of effort for the Government to catch these people. Many Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5559 hours of valuable police resources are tied up in chasing these escaped criminals around the State. It is little wonder that police have little time to catch new offenders when they spend so much time chasing after escapees. When those offenders are caught, they are normally charged with a summary offence or under the Correctional Services Act, and not under the Criminal Code. It is worth while noting that the original section relates to forcibly rescuing certain offenders. That section states that— “Any person who, by force, rescues or attempts to rescue from lawful custody an offender under sentence for a crime of treason or murder or any other crime as defined in the second paragraph of section 81 or section 82 of the Code, or a person committed to prison on a charge of any of the crimes mentioned or referred to in this section is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment with hard labour for life.” In certain circumstances, prisoners who escape can be sentenced to hard labour for life. Yet under these amendments, that will no longer be the case. The maximum term will, in fact, be seven years. The Government is reducing the sentence for escapees. Escape by persons in lawful custody and permitting escape carry a maximum penalty of imprisonment for seven years, but for a summary conviction, again the maximum penalty is two years. I must stress that I am referring to maximum penalties. Generally one finds that under the current Government, magistrates and judges—mainly magistrates—sentence escapees to a maximum of an additional 12 months. Escaped prisoners are not receiving anywhere near the maximum sentence now, and are certainly not receiving a sentence of seven years. The Attorney-General would have the people of Queensland believe that this Government is going to get tough and ensure that maximum sentences are imposed upon escapees from gaols. The prison system needs tangible support from this Government. It is not receiving adequate financial resources or adequate personnel to keep dangerous criminals in gaol. All Queenslanders expect and demand protection from crime. In other words, they expect law and order in this State. That principle is breaking down under this Government. These days, in the suburbs, people are scared to travel on public transport. People are scared in their homes. In home after home, people are living with bars on their windows and security doors. Members of the community go about their activities living behind bars while the criminals seem to roam free. In recent times, it is the Government’s lack of responsibility in this regard, its lack of care, and lack of attention to law and order that has caused a skyrocketing increase not only in the crime rate but also in the number of escapees. The Government has contempt for Queensland’s prison system. I could not help noticing that the other day Silence of the Lambs was shown to prisoners. One can imagine the types of thoughts and suggestions that that movie may create in the minds of some of our most dangerous prisoners. Perhaps that is the rehabilitation system—rehabilitation to give them ideas and ways to get out of prison. That is about the only thing that movie would achieve. During this financial year, 77 prisoners have escaped from custody. During the last calendar year, 102 prisoners escaped. That is by far the highest number of escapes ever. This Queensland Government has received an Olympic gold medal record for the escape of 102 prisoners from its prisons. It is more than double the previous record. This Government ought to be disgraced and put to shame. To add further embarrassment to the Government, many of those escapes have occurred with ease. The best the Government can offer is to trot out this tired piece of legislation. It is hardly a piece of legislation that will resolve the problems that Queensland has within its prison system. It relates to the Government’s attitude and how it sees its role in the prison system. This State has experienced the worst recession—brought on by the Labor Party—since the Great Depression of the 1930s. That has meant a greater increase in crime, fewer resources for the Queensland Police Service, and fewer resources for the Queensland Prison Service. On top of that, there has been a total breakdown in the prison system. The last police report shows a 25 per cent increase in crime throughout 5560 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly the State. Under the Goss Labor Government, people cannot go outside their homes without fear of being robbed or attacked—and with the number of escapees from gaols, that includes being attacked by an escaped prisoner. I conclude by saying that this State can no longer afford to tolerate the Government’s current soft attitude towards crime and its prison system. It is little wonder that the people of Queensland now talk about the revolving door prison policy of the Goss Labor Government. That revolving door prison policy is now a trademark of this Government. Day after day, people see that the Government is not interested and not concerned in the least about the breakdown of Queensland’s Prison Service. Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (10.50 p.m.): “Caution! Prisoners cross here at night”—so said a sign that some wag recently put up beside the road at Wacol. After tonight, there will be a new sign which will say, “Caution! Only naughty prisoners cross here at night”—only the ones who get out. Regrettably, the legislation that is before this Parliament is not going to do much about the number of escapes from Queensland’s prisons. I say “regrettably” because I am talking about the greatest erosion of the security of Queensland’s prison system in donkey’s years. Prior to the investigation into the prison system which established the Corrective Services Commission in Queensland, we had some major problems. Those problems were structural, based on the culture of the organisation, and other matters. Members have heard that story many times. The National Party set in train an improvement process by which we could move towards a position of security, rehabilitative effort and everything that was deemed to be good in respect of correctional institutions in this State. When the Labor Party was in Opposition, on many occasions it paid lip-service to the failures in the prison system and stated how it would handle it better and how it knew it all. Regrettably, it knows nothing. Also regrettably, during the period of this Government, that sign “Caution—Prisoners Cross Here at Night” appeared. As mentioned by the member for Toowong, in the past financial year, 77 prisoners escaped from Queensland prisons. One wonders what we are attempting to achieve tonight. Of course, punitive measures are important in respect of people who disobey the law. They are important in respect of people who are incarcerated at Her Majesty’s pleasure. It does not matter whether the crime that they actually commit relates to escaping from lawful custody or whether it is a crime of violence within the prison or anywhere else, punitive measures are important. However, those punitive measures may not stand alone; they never have done, and they never will. If any member of this Government—including the giggling jackass on the other side of the House—believes that this legislation will do anything towards keeping people in prison in this State, he is absolutely and utterly wrong. There are a number of very good reasons for that. The basic problem that members confront is not the issue of escapes from prison. The problem is that people—not animals—are behind bars. Those people, who are competent to think, have nothing to do for 24 hours a day except work out how they can escape from behind those bars and return to their families and friends or simply go back onto the streets. While those persons are considering those actions, we must be one step in front of them. Punitive measures alone, as established by this legislation, will not achieve that. Regrettably, the people behind bars do not like it. That is interesting. I have visited every prison in this State, and there is none that I liked. While people are incarcerated in this State for whatever reason, we must have security of our correctional institutions. Security is the bottom line. On many occasions in this Parliament in the past three years, members have spoken about rehabilitation, programs and the fancy things that we do to ensure that we do not have recidivism; that when those people are returned to the community, they return as decent, fine, upstanding citizens who will not go back to gaol, because we will have taught them the error of their ways. Regrettably, that process has not worked. Even if all those programs were the most wonderful things on the face of the earth and were absolutely effective, they would not be worth a crumpet if we could not keep people in the correctional centres long enough to obtain a benefit from those programs. Regrettably, those are the circumstances in which we find ourselves today in Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5561

Queensland. We cannot keep people in gaol for long enough for them to take advantage of the rehabilitative programs that are put in place for them. So much money is put into rehabilitative programs that we have insufficient funds for adequate security. Although this Government pays lip-service in this Parliament and outside to the security of prisons and to the rehabilitative effort that it is about to make for prisoners, it is not providing sufficient funds to do so. I bring to the attention of this Parliament that we are facing a further reduction of over 10 per cent in this year’s Corrective Services budget. We cannot continue to reduce the security effort that is put into our prisons without ultimately finding ourselves beyond the critical mass—if I might use that term—where our security effort becomes impotent and no longer has any effect. Mr Wells interjected. Mr GILMORE: That is exactly what we have—an explosion of people wandering out through the wire. Has the Minister heard that two more prisoners escaped tonight? Obviously, he was too busy in here being a smart alec, accusing me of a lack of sincerity. The Minister should never do that again. Tonight, while members were in this Chamber using fancy words, two prisoners escaped onto the streets. God knows what they were in gaol for! Prison service and Police Service personnel are out there attempting to—— Mr WELLS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have perceived that the honourable member is offended by my earlier remarks accusing him of a lack of sincerity. I apologise for that remark. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): Order! I call the member for Tablelands. Mr GILMORE: I thank the Minister. We are not only facing a security problem—we have escaped prisoners on the street—we are also digging further into our limited resources by attempting to recapture them. They will then have to go back through the court system. According to this legislation, they will have to be recharged, retried and returned to prison for escaping from legal custody. The ultimate objective of putting people into gaol is to keep them there in the first place. The point that I am trying to make is that this legislation is not worth anything if it has no effect in respect of keeping people behind the bars. Quite frankly, our legal system is costing us enough—with our police, our judicial system and our correctional system—without putting escaped prisoners through the system again. Let us keep them behind the bars in the first instance. I have long harboured a view that there are a number of things that are not done in correctional centres that might be useful in terms of keeping people in them. Currently, electronic systems are used to keep people in correctional centres, including beams, pressure sensitive pads and pressure sensitive fences. Physical barriers and human resources are employed to encircle those barriers. However, once those barriers are breached, either from the outside or from within, there is nothing further which can be of use. Most of our prisons, except Boggo Road, have sufficient area around them for another barrier. I suggest that there would be no better barrier than a hedge about 10 feet thick of African boxthorn. For those members who have not seen African boxthorn, I inform them that it is absolutely covered in the most vicious prickles that I have ever seen. Mr Hollis: You’re joking! Mr GILMORE: I promise the honourable member that I am not joking. After the honourable member has seen as many prisons as I have seen, then he can laugh. If a barrier of African boxthorn was encircling a prison, it would act as a considerable deterrent to people going over the physical barrier and through the electronic barriers, because they would then have this enormous vegetative barrier which would be almost impossible to penetrate. Mr Hollis: What about poison ivy? Mr GILMORE: I understand that some honourable members find that curious. It 5562 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly would be almost impossible for any person on the run to penetrate that barrier. It would provide a period of time which is currently not available to those persons who are running the perimeter to get to the position as demonstrated by the electronic surveillance equipment where there has been a barrier breach. Mr Hollis: What about agricultural poisons? What about weedkillers? Mr GILMORE: I hear a squeak up the back. The honourable member asks, “What about weedkillers?” We have approximately 12 hours of daylight every day of the year. During that period, there are people driving around and observing these things. I inform honourable members that African boxthorn, dead or alive, is very difficult to get through. Mr Dunworth: Plant some bindies. Mr GILMORE: The honourable member might find that somewhat curious. Honourable members at the back of the Chamber are having some fun. However, I raise this matter in this Chamber as a very serious proposition. A few moments ago, we heard a great deal about the Etna Creek prison at Rockhampton. I take this opportunity to speak at some length about the Lotus Glen Correctional Centre which is within my electorate boundaries. That centre was established because I, amongst others, requested that it be established. At no time were we deterred from that course of action by some considerable pressure from community groups and others to prevent that facility from being established in my electorate. I am here to tell the House that it is a magnificent facility. It is run by the best staff in the State. It clearly has the best management in the State. That centre has been recognised Australiawide as the finest correctional institution in this State, with the finest programs and the best record. I place it on the record of this Parliament that I believe that that is so. I suggest that some day that prison might fail. Some day those outer barriers might be breached, for whatever reason. However, if that occurs, it will not be because of the failure of the staff to do their job properly; it will be because of the failure of the Government to provide adequate resources to ensure the absolute security of that correctional centre. There can be no doubt that, if the Government continues to cut the resources of Queensland’s correctional centres, there will be more break-outs such as the ones that occurred tonight at Wacol and at the Moreton Correctional Centre. Every year, more than 77 prisoners will escape, because the prisons will not be able to hold those people. This legislation is attempting to close the door after the horse has bolted. It has little to do with the security of our correctional centres. As was pointed out by my colleague from Lockyer, in the long term it will be demonstrated to be nothing more than rhetoric and very little to do with the security of the people of Queensland or with the serious business of keeping prisoners behind bars in this State. Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (11.14 p.m.): This Bill has been introduced because Queensland has a serious problem, that problem being a major collapse in the delivery of law and order by the Goss Labor Government. This Bill seeks to increase the penalties for inmates who escape from lawful custody, and for those assisting them. Prisoners and others who are detained will now face up to seven years’ imprisonment for the escape—more than double the penalty contained in the previous provision. As the Attorney commented in his second-reading speech, this will indeed have a significant deterrent effect. But a deterrent is only needed because of this Government’s appalling record in relation to escapes and crime. It is interesting to note that one of the changes made in this Bill is the replacement of the term "prisoner" with the new term of "person in lawful custody". This has been made necessary by the massive increase in the number of people absconding from release-to-work hostels and other detention facilities that are not really prisons. One positive result of this amendment will be that the Minister for Corrective Services will no longer be able to fudge the figures by claiming that only people who escape from prisons are escapees, and refuse to count those who abscond from release-to-work hostels, community correctional facilities and other places of detention. All up, 104 inmates escaped from lawful custody in Queensland in 1991—a national disgrace. Mr Quinn: Is that a record? Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5563

Mr SANTORO: I take the interjection from the honourable member for South Coast. It is a national disgrace and a national record. It is the highest rate of escapes in Australia, and it makes a mockery of the correctional system in this State. It is no wonder people are up in arms when it is suggested a prison or correctional facility be built nearby. They have the perception that dangerous prisoners will be leaping the fence every five minutes and going on a crime spree at will. This is indeed the community perception, and perception is very important when it comes to safety and security. People no longer feel safe in their homes, and they no longer feel safe in their workplace. It is fair to say that the streets of fear are alive and well in Queensland. This Government’s revolving door prison policy has done nothing to increase the feeling of security in our society and, as the events in Los Angeles have shown, when people lack a feeling of security and fairness, the situation quickly deteriorates into one of mob rule and riot. This must not be allowed to happen in this State. People must be made to feel secure and be secure. There must be a move to prevent prisoners from escaping. This Bill will provide at least some deterrent to escape. People must believe that when an offender is convicted and sentenced, that offender will serve the sentence that has been handed down; that they will be kept securely in a place of detention; that they will not be allowed to escape; and that there will be strict and severe penalties if they try to escape. Is that asking too much? I do not think so. It is merely a reflection of what the community is demanding and what this Government has failed to deliver. This Bill only serves to confirm what the people of Queensland already know at the moment—that there is no effective deterrent to escapes. Hopefully, this Bill will go some way towards providing such a deterrent. But alone, as other speakers before me have said, it will still not be enough. This Bill should have included a provision to allow for the implementation of “truth” in sentencing to provide that an offender who is given a sentence of, say, five years, actually serves five years. The Liberal Party believes that the courts should determine how long a prisoner spends behind bars, not faceless bureaucrats. At the moment, there are remissions for good behaviour, public holidays and just about every other possible excuse for shortening a prison sentence. In addition, the corrective services system only allows for a four-week month, so someone who has served a full calendar year is actually credited with serving 13 months, that is, one year and one month. For example, a 13-year sentence becomes, at most, only a 12- year sentence, even if the prisoner behaves badly and attracts no other remissions. In effect, most prisoners can expect to be out and on parole after serving half of their sentences at most, and many are out after serving only one-third of their time. In fact, so lenient is the system, it is a wonder anyone wants to escape at all! But they do, and they keep on doing so with ease. There needs to be a greater deterrent to escape, and this Bill, as I have said before and as others have said before me, only goes part of the way. In 1991, there were 104 escapes. This should be compared with the tally of escapes under the last Liberal Party Minister for Corrective Services in this State. When Terry White was Minister, there was only one major escape during his period in office. I am sure that, when the honourable member for Nerang gets his hands on the corrective services of this State, Terry White’s record will be the one that the honourable member for Nerang will, in fact, improve on. Then, there was no need for tougher escape laws, because it was made difficult for inmates to get out. Now, anyone except the blind and the crippled, can virtually stroll out at will. Last year, there were four mass escapes from Wacol gaol alone. This was due almost completely to ridiculously low staffing levels and, as the honourable member for Rockhampton North suggested, due to some very basic facilities being so basic that prisoners were able to abscond with great ease. The timing of the escapes could have been predicted. Indeed, my colleague the member for Nerang—whom members from the other side constantly have a go at—did predict some of them, and actually warned the Minister that the escapes were imminent. But sadly, it was to no avail. A high-security prison such as the one at Wacol should not be the venue for multiple mass break-outs. When escapes occur, an extra workload is placed on police. Earlier this year, a young policewoman was tragically killed in Rockhampton while searching for a prison escapee. Mr Hollis: Shame! 5564 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Mr SANTORO: I will take the interjection from the honourable member opposite when he says, “Shame!” Honourable members cannot deny that, unpalatable as it is. It is a matter of public record that that is what happened. That death is just one of the consequences of this Government’s laughable policies on law and order in our community. It may well have been prevented by tougher escape laws and tougher policing of methods aimed at preventing escapes. One of the consequences of that escape was the terror that was inflicted on the family of the honourable member for Rockhampton North, and about which he spoke so emotionally earlier. We listened with great sadness on this side—I certainly did—to the sort of terror that was inflicted on his family. I ask honourable members to take into consideration that that feeling of terror generally exists within the communities that we represent and to whom we have a responsibility of providing a feeling of security. If a Government does nothing other than provide for a genuine and real feeling of security for one’s person, the person of one’s loved ones and for their property, there can be no greater responsibility of a Government. If a Government does nothing other thanmanage to at least fulfil that responsibility, then I say that it has gone a great way towards being a good Government. I am afraid that any fair-minded Queenslander, when looking at the record of this Government, cannot make that judgment in all honesty. I believe that most fair- minded Queenslanders have made the judgment that the Government has not succeeded. An honourable member interjected. Mr SANTORO: People all over this State are being deprived of the protection of normal police patrols, because the police resources are being tied up in the hunt for escaped convicts. They should not have been able to get out in the first place. Mass escapes are not spur of the moment, “see a chance and take it” types of occurrences. They are well planned and well executed, and they take advantage of understaffing and poor procedures. On 11 January last year, people saw five prisoners climb down the side wall of Boggo Road gaol and happily wander off into the sunset. Later that month, three more prisoners escaped from the Sir David Longland Correctional Centre. On 16 March, the escape that resembled something from the movies occurred—the “garbage truck through the gate” escape—at Boggo Road. Four prisoners stole a garbage truck and just drove off, crashing through the metal gates. One of the inmates shot a detective before being recaptured 10 weeks later. In May, two prisoners escaped from Wacol and one was caught on the Gold Coast after a high-speed car chase. In June, three prisoners walked away from Palen Creek because they would have preferred to be at Woodford, so there was obviously not a sufficient deterrent to convince them not to try to escape. Although the Liberal Party is happy to acknowledge that this Bill will provide some deterrent, we say it is not enough. In July, the great escape—as the member for Nerang calls it—occurred. Eight prisoners from the Moreton Correctional Centre broke out, and a couple of them had done so for the second time. Will this Bill be a deterrent to people of that type? Again, I suggest to the Minister and to members opposite that it will not be. Mr Beattie: Of course, it will. Mr SANTORO: It will provide a deterrent, but it is not enough. Later that same month, three inmates escaped from Numinbah and were caught in a stolen car. It was lucky that the car’s owner reported it missing, because the first the prison authorities knew of the escape was when the owner told them that the inmates had run off with his car. Government members: Ha, ha! Mr SANTORO: Again, a stronger deterrent may have prevented these escapes. Members opposite laugh, but the tragedy of this Bill is that the deterrent factor that should be prescribed in this Bill does not in fact exist. In August, a convicted rapist escaped from Townsville and was picked up by chance. An off-duty prison officer happened to recognise him in a nightclub in the early hours of the morning. I pay a tribute to my colleague the member for Nerang, because he gave the credit to that off- duty prison officer and was recognised for having done so. Also in August, two Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5565 prisoners from Wacol escaped while playing tennis at Holland Park. Just before Christmas—one of those times when inmates traditionally try to escape—four of them took off from Wacol by breaking through the wall of a cell. During the first two days of this year, there were two more escapes, and so the story continues. In the interests of brevity, I will not keep giving examples of these escapes, even though this Bill deals predominantly with escapes. Let me conclude this part of my speech by saying that during the first two days of this year, two more escapes occurred. Another mass escape of three inmates from Wacol occurred later in January, just one day after two of their mates also decided to part company with Wacol. This sad tale is a symptom, or a result, of the attitudinal problem that has infested our correctional system and of the leniency shown to escapees. This Bill alone will not change that. “Truth” in sentencing is at least part of the answer to the problem of prisoners attempting to escape. Mr Davies: Just ask Michael Yabsley. Mr SANTORO: I will take the interjection from the honourable member opposite and talk about the New South Wales experience. About three years ago, “truth” in sentencing was introduced in New South Wales by the Liberal-led coalition Government and it dramatically reduced the increase in crime. At least such a system lets people know that dangerous criminals are being kept behind bars to serve the full time of the sentence they have been given. Tougher sentences for escapees will provide some deterrent to those thinking of making a break for it. Too often we hear about violent offenders being released early and then straightaway going out and committing new crimes. It is true that “truth” in sentencing will mean a larger prison population and will require a larger prison budget. The Liberal Party is happy to acknowledge that, and believes that the community is only too happy to bear that cost if it means that decent people can walk the streets and live in their homes without fear. The Corrective Services Minister is so worried about the success of “truth” in sentencing in New South Wales that he is trying falsely to discredit it when he should be incorporating it as a fundamental provision of this Bill. To set the record straight, let me say that the New South Wales Justice Minister has pledged his full support for what he calls the “great success” of “truth” in sentencing and has attacked Minister Milliner for “shamelessly twisting” the truth. The New South Wales Minister says that the Minister, Mr Milliner, is running scared. Members of the opposition parties say that the New South Wales Minister is right. It is an unfortunate fact of life that many Queenslanders are running scared but, unlike the Minister, through no fault of their own, law-abiding, decent Queenslanders are not game to go outside at night. In common with Brisbane businessman Mr Ian Davies, they sleep with a gun at their side at their businesses because they are so fed up with constant break-ins and burglaries. They fear being assaulted and robbed by escapees and others. In my electorate, a spate of break-ins, burglaries and vandalism has occurred at Hamilton and Ascot. In Racecourse Road, a sickening string of crimes has been committed. Some businesses have been broken into five times already this year and have had thousands of dollars worth of stock stolen. One menswear retailer had 19 suits stolen in one break-in when offenders simply cut a hole in the wall. In response to all these offences, I approached the Minister for Police. I give him due credit. Mr J. H. Sullivan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Glass House! Mr SANTORO: He has arranged for the traders to meet with the Assistant Police Commissioner. I thank the Minister and, in anticipation, I thank the Police Service. Members of the opposition parties give credit when some of the good members of the Government act properly. I see the former Police Minister, the honourable member for Chatsworth, smiling at me. I place on record that he received a delegation of those same traders when he was Police Minister. He spoke to people within the Police Service and they responded. For a while, increased patrols in that area resulted in a decrease in crime. However, because the additional resources had to be taken away, the deterrents are no longer present,, so the crooks have moved back in. 5566 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Mr Mackenroth: Maybe police stations could be closed. Mr SANTORO: I suggest to members opposite that what should happen is that a proper resource priority should be allocated to the Police Service and a proper resource priority should be allocated to the Corrective Services Commission. We need to have fair dinkum deterrents inserted into this type of legislation. The situation that I have described is no reflection on the police but is a massively disgraceful reflection on the Government, which is throwing law and order to the wind and turning the Police Service into a 9 to 5 operation. It is all well and good to make small increases in the number of police officers, but when resignations, a reduction in working hours to a 38- hour week and an almost non-existent overtime budget are taken into account, the reality is that fewer police are available on the streets at critical times to stop the crooks, including escaped prisoners, from running wild. That is simply not good enough. Earlier, the honourable member for Chatsworth interjected, but I did not quite understand the full implications of his interjection. He mentioned something about police stations. One credit that I give to the honourable member is that he did not close the police stations. However, because he is loyal to his Government and its misdirected policies, he did not tell us that those stations are effectively nothing other than shopfronts. When I travel on business with the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice, I talk to many police officers who say clearly that some stations are nothing other than shopfronts. Although the Government says that it is not closing down police stations, as my colleague the honourable member for Sherwood will testify, the Government is not opening any police stations, either. Not only have police stations been totally gutted and represent nothing other than shopfronts, but also we have the situation in which my colleague the honourable member for Sherwood and, dare I say it, the honourable member for Chatsworth find themselves. How many times has the member for Chatsworth told us that there is not a police station in his electorate? I say to the honourable member for Chatsworth: fight hard for those police stations. Mr Mackenroth: I’ll take it up. Mr SANTORO: The honourable member should take it up sincerely. It is simply not good enough that we do not look after the physical safety of our constituents, their families and their property. Crime on the north side of Brisbane has skyrocketed. In the past two years, major crime in the north Brisbane police region has leapt by 60 per cent. Arson has increased by 41 per cent, burglaries by 25 per cent, robberies by 21 per cent and rape by 13 per cent. Mr Beattie: What’s this got to do with prisoners? It’s irrelevant. Mr SANTORO: I will tell the honourable member for Brisbane Central what it has to do with prisoners. Some of those crimes are being committed by the people who are escaping. The answer to that explosion of crime is increased deterrents—such as those in this Bill—increased funding and an increased importance being placed on law and order by the Government. The Bill will at least provide some deterrent to prisoners who are thinking of escaping. That is commendable, but it does not go nearly far enough. The simple truth is that criminals behind bars are not breaking into people’s homes, or assaulting them, or raping them, or trying to kill them because they like their shoes or their car. Violent offenders must serve the full duration of their sentences, and the Corrective Services Commission must ensure that those prisoners are kept behind bars by improved security systems and more prison staff. When that is achieved, together with an increased police presence, people will once again start to feel secure in their homes. That they were ever allowed to have that security stolen from them is an indictment on this sick joke of a Government. Debate, on motion of Mr Braddy, adjourned.

PRIVILEGE

Breach of Privilege by Member for Landsborough Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5567

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, it has been drawn to my attention that the member for Landsborough stated outside the House— “Question time today in this House and in fact this week have been a shambles. The Speaker has lost control of the House. It is Rafferty’s rules in there. That is the rule that actually does run the House . . .” That is a clear breach of privilege—a contempt of the Parliament. In such circumstances, it is usual to name the member and move suspension from the House. Attempts by me, my office and the Liberal Party Whip to locate the member for Landsborough have been unsuccessful. I am giving the member for Landsborough an opportunity to come to the Chamber, to acknowledge her breach of privilege, to withdraw her remarks and to apologise to the House.

CRIMINAL LAW (ESCAPED PRISONERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed. Mr CONNOR (Nerang) (11.35 p.m.): The escape of two prisoners tonight is a timely reminder that stiffer penalties for escapes will not solve our prison security problem. This follows the escape at approximately 6 p.m. of two prisoners from Wacol prison: a Paul James O’Donoghue, 23, who was convicted of assault occasioning grievous bodily harm; and Frederick James Slade, 19, who was convicted of unlawful use of a motor vehicle. Obviously, the legislation increasing penalties for escape would not affect those people. It only proves what I have been saying, that is, stiffer penalties for escapees will not solve our prison security problem. The escape of those two prisoners tonight brings the escape tally for this financial year to 77. Greater deterrents are no answer to our prison security problem. Proper funding, proper management and good prison officer morale, together with well-planned, dynamic security is the only answer. I imagine that, right now, police are chasing around the Wacol/Ipswich area after those escapees. I recommend to the Minister that, as the chasing of those escapees is using up all the police overtime, the Minister may consider reimbursing police overtime from the Corrective Services Commission budget. It is only fair that those responsible for the escapes should pay for them. Police overtime should not be used up in that way. The question here is not just about punishment for escaping from lawful custody, it is about trying to stop escapes from lawful custody and the deterrent effect of the legislation. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said— “The enactment of this legislation will have a significant deterrent effect.” That is really what the debate is all about—the deterrent effect of the extra sentence. When they escape, prisoners do not expect to be recaptured. They do not believe that they will have to face the penalty. The same argument is currently being used by this Government in relation to the overall running of the prison system. The Government says that harsh prison sentences are no deterrent to crime. It cannot have it both ways. It cannot say, “We are going to be harsh on escapees because that will be a major deterrent”, and at the same time say, “We are going to have more lenient sentences for criminals in Queensland because harsh sentences are not a deterrent.” The Government cannot have it both ways. There are all sorts of reasons why prisoners escape from Queensland prisons. As we saw recently on the Gold Coast, a low-security prisoner who escaped from Wacol prison immediately gave himself up—— Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! The House will come to order. Mr CONNOR: For those members who could not hear because of the interjections, I will repeat what I was saying. As we saw recently on the Gold Coast, a low-security prisoner who escaped from Wacol prison immediately gave himself up and, with his father, presented himself before the Southport police and then later appeared in court. Because of the extenuating circumstances, the magistrate ordered an additional 5568 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly sentence of only one month. The young offender claimed that he was being raped and that he feared violence within the prison. Why was this allowed to occur in our prisons? If this Government is a truly compassionate Government, why does it not also guarantee the security of the prisoners inside our gaols? The Government’s own figures show that it is trying to run the prisons on the cheap. The Budget papers show quite clearly that this year there has been an 18 per cent reduction in the funding of prisons. Also, the Government’s own investigation into the great escape from Moreton Correctional Centre shows that one of the major reasons for the escape was a massive reduction in the funding of prisons which necessitated the closure of one of the prisons. Running prisons is all about security. Security must come first. Then there can be as much of the rehabilitation, the programs and the education as the Government likes. But it must guarantee not only the safety of the public at large from sometimes quite violent escapees but also the safety of prisoners—safety from each other. That is not to mention the safety of the prison officers who have to work in an extremely stressful environment. Dynamic security in a prison—this is not the security of iron bars, razor wire and big, stone fences—is a security that involves good intelligence and involves prison officers with good morale trying to do a difficult job to the best of their ability. Without a doubt, morale amongst prison officers is at an all-time low. At a time when the number of strikes is possibly at a record low, there is an inordinate number of industrial disputes at our prisons. In fact, it was recently reported that Laurie Gillespie of the Queensland State Service Union said that, of the 18 strikes in the public service in the last two years, 14 were in the prison service. The Corrective Services Commission has had the responsibility of running the prisons for three and a half years. Most of the employees have never experienced anything other than the Corrective Services Commission, so how could they be Old Guard? Dynamic security costs money. There has to be sufficient manpower to watch each prison officer’s back. If prison officers do not feel secure and safe inside the prison, they are not going to perform at full proficiency. They will, what is called, stress out. I think it will be found that the level of stress-related illness in prisons at the moment would be at a record high. On a recently leaked videotape of the problems at Rockhampton prison during a strike, it was made clear by the prison management that it was having a lot of problems trying to maintain a requirement of an upgrading in security while at the same time allowing the prisoners the access to programs, recreation and education that they deserved. Prisoners complained that they could not get back into their cells—remember they are locked during the day—to be able to obtain property or gain access for one reason or another. The prison officers said that because they were dealing with visits and other prescribed privileges for prisoners, they were unable to open up the cells and give the prisoners access to them. There is a big manpower problem within the prisons. That means that prison officers are stressed. They are going off on sick leave. While they are off on sick leave, other prison officers have to be brought in on overtime. They are working hours which are too long and that is stressing them out as well. This problem is occurring at most prisons, especially at Rockhampton at the moment. Owing to the Government-imposed budget constraints, there are insufficient prison officers to ensure security within the prison. What happens is that the predators within the system make victims of the other less violent prisoners inside. The Minister has stated over and over again that he finds it extremely unusual that prisoners with only a matter of weeks or months of their sentences to serve are escaping. The reason they are escaping, even when they have only a short time to serve, is that they are frightened. The alternative of a potential extra few months or even few years in custody because of escaping has no comparison with the risk of being killed or raped inside the prison by a predator. I might mention that with the total breakdown of morale within the prison over the last 12 months, two of the most senior members of management in the Corrective Services Commission, the Deputy Director-General of Corrective Services and the Assistant Director-General of Corrective Services, Carlyon and Dalton, have resigned. There are obviously major problems within the prisons. Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5569

I turn now to the accounting aspect of prisons. This Government claims continually that budgetary requirements have had nothing to do with the record number of escapes that have occurred since it took office. Page 124 of Budget Paper No. 3 under the heading “Program: Custodial Corrections” shows quite clearly that the number of officers has been reduced from 1 632 by 306, which is effectively about 20 per cent of the prison work force. At the same time, the Budget funding has been reduced from $144m to $122m—a reduction of about $22m or almost 20 per cent. The fact that the main driving force behind the closure of Woodford prison and the rearrangement of prisoners that led to the great escape was Budget driven was also highlighted in the report into the great escape. The Budget paper states— “The program’s role involves ensuring the safe and secure custody of inmates and maintaining the security and good order of the correctional centres.” The Government has obviously failed dismally in those two tests. Under the heading of “Performance of 1990 to 1991”, the Budget paper also states— “The operational cost of correctional centres has been decreased by 5 per cent overall. Work practices at Lotus Glen, the women’s and Wacol Correctional Centre were reviewed and changed, with reductions in staffing levels of 30 officers.” I remind honourable members that Wacol Correctional Centre which, as can be seen, has had a major reduction in staffing levels, has the worst record for escapes of any prison in Queensland. That prison had 22 escapes last year. One prison with 22 escapes! I remind honourable members that that is the same prison from which the two prisoners escaped tonight. I remind honourable members that in 1989, before this Government came to power, the total number of escapes from the prison system was only 22. There were then more than 10 prisons in the system. An interesting aspect of the comments in the Budget paper appears under the heading “Outlook 1991/92”. It states— “The Brisbane and Woodford Correctional Centre will be closed. The new reception and remand centre will be opened.” The paper goes on to explain how the Government will achieve the closure of Woodford by moving inmates into the western outreach camps and into other areas more in line with the security classification. They are the only areas that are mentioned as far as the outlook for 1991 and 1992 is concerned, yet the paper shows a reduction in staffing levels of 306. It is interesting to note that the two figures add up to almost exactly that for the staffing level reductions as a result of the closure of Woodford and also the privatisation of the remand and reception centre. It is quite clear that this Government, when framing this Budget prior to September last year, had already decided that the R and R centre would be privatised. The charade that the Government went through as far as suggesting that there was a breakdown in the side agreement between the union and the Government in relation to the remand and reception centre was purely that—a charade. The Government built up a side agreement that it knew that the union and the prison officers could not accept. The Government negotiated it as a side agreement because it knew that if it inflicted these sorts of requirements across the board it would have a general prison strike. Again, this Government says one thing and does another. In an endeavour to further undermine the morale in the prisons, any prison officer suspected of not being a “Yes sir, no sir” prison officer—someone who is totally compliant and will not question any of the directions of this Government and the commission—has been transferred to Brisbane Correctional Centre—Boggo Road—so that when the centre is closed they can be made redundant. The whole process of privatising the Wacol remand and reception centre and closing Boggo Road without any guarantees of jobs within the rest of the system was designed specifically as a politically expedient method of ridding the Corrective Services Commission and this Government of what they considered were old guard screws. When examining the issue of escapes, it is most important to recall some of the more recent escapes. One does not have to look far back in order to do that. I remind the House that the charges arising from one of 5570 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly the recent escapes at Rockhampton on 4 April, involving the prisoners Baston, McIlwain and Paige, are presently before the court, and on that basis I cannot comment specifically on that case. I will comment on one of the greatest tragedies this State has seen as a result of the prison chaos in Queensland, and that was the death of Constable Sondra Lena as a result of the escape of Lawrence John Riley from the Rockhampton Correctional Centre on Thursday, 9 April. As honourable members will recall, Constable Lena was working overtime as part of a search effort for escapee Riley. She was taking part in a road block north of Rockhampton. She is the second police officer to die in the last 12 months directly as a result of the escape of prisoners from Queensland prisons. As honourable members will recall, another police officer was killed in a car accident. The editorial in the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin really sums up the situation. The editorial is headed “Fix it—we’ve had enough”. The editorial stated— “Enough is enough. Today our community is mourning the death of a young police officer who was involved in an accident while manning a road block set up in response to the escape from Rockhampton Correctional Centre of convicted rapist James Riley.” It stated further— “This death finally focuses attention on the activities of police—the often forgotten players in what is becoming a continuous game of ‘catch me if you can’. We have heard plenty from residents close to the gaol. Quite rightly, they fear for their safety every time the community alarm bell is sounded; every time another criminal jumps the wire. We have heard a veritable portfolio of comment from the Corrective Services Commission and various politicians who, to date, and despite the best of intentions, seem to have achieved little in terms of solving the problems of Etna Creek.” It continued— “But what a terrible waste of people and resources to add to the toll of growing despair and apparent confusion over how and why prisoners are finding their way out.” It went on— “No matter what the immediate outcome of the latest flurry of activities from Government agencies, elected representatives and political candidates, the overriding message is clear: fix it—we’ve had enough.” Without a doubt, this Government is quite clearly a totally reactionist Government. There is no forward planning concerning prisons in Queensland. To illustrate this point, I would like to quote from what reportedly was said in relation to Rockhampton Correctional Centre following the escape by Riley, which was only about a week earlier, when three dangerous prisoners jumped the fence. Those comments were— “Queensland Corrective Service Commission spokesman, Mr Roger Carstens, said money had been set aside to ‘harden the perimeter fence in the next financial year.’ ” Again we saw the Government reacting by bringing forward the construction of this outer half a million dollar razor-wired security fence. It effectively took the death of another police officer in Queensland for that to occur. The question is: would it have occurred without the death of Constable Lena? One must then consider the Government’s priorities in regard to prisons. I refer to a document that I have recently received from the Sir David Longland prison. This document had previously been given to the media. It is in two parts, and both parts have been signed by the general manager, Mr Kel Olsen. The first part of the document was directed to senior management of the prison, and the second part was directed to the prisoners. It is headed “Prisoners Strike”, and it states— “At the same time, we must control the prisons on our terms. We have not been doing that for some time.” In other words, it stated that the management of the Sir David Longland prison at Wacol has lost control of the prison. It is amazing that a prison can be allowed to run when, Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5571 firstly, the prisoners do what they like, and secondly, they do not work. Where is the discipline within the prisons? That is why escapes are occurring. The prisons are so busy kowtowing to the prisoners and giving them what they want rather than telling them what they should be doing. There has been a total breakdown of prison discipline. Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (11.54 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their support for this legislation. I commend the legislation to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. D. M. Wells (Murrumba—Attorney-General) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3— Mr FITZGERALD (11.56 p.m.): Clause 3 states— “Heading to Chapter 17— omit ‘RESCUES:’ ”. In the copy of the Criminal Code that I have, “17” is written in Roman numerals. Have the headings of those chapters in the Criminal Code been amended to Roman numerals? Does it make any difference? Mr WELLS: It does not make any difference because it is an amending provision. It is just a piece of machinery to get rid of it. So, it makes no difference. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr FITZGERALD (11.57 p.m.): I asked these questions during the second- reading debate today, and I ask the Attorney-General to respond. This clause deletes sections 141 to 145 and inserts a new section. Section 141, which is to be deleted, states— “Forcibly rescuing certain offenders. Any person who by force rescues or attempts to rescue from lawful custody an offender under sentence for the crime of treason or murder, or any of the crimes defined in the second paragraph of section eighty-one and in section eight-two of this Code, or a person committed to prison on a charge of any of the crimes mentioned or referred to in this section is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for life.” The amendment, which is section 142, states— “Escape by persons in lawful custody ‘142. A person who escapes from lawful custody is guilty of a crime. Maximum penalty—imprisonment for 7 years.’ ” Is the Minister reducing the penalty for a crime that at present carries a life penalty to a maximum penalty of seven years? I note that sections 81 and 82 of the Criminal Code deal with piracy. Also, section 83, which is titled “Aiding Pirates”, is rather interesting. It states— “Any person who— (1) Brings a seducing message from a pirate . . . is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment with hard labour for life.” I am glad that we are not debating that provision. I ask the Minister whether he is reducing the penalty. I put this proposition: there is a convicted murderer behind bars, and a Mafia-type, bust-out gang flies in and forces its way into the prison and takes that prisoner away. I believe that under the proposed new section 142, that crime will attract a maximum penalty of seven years. Am I correct? Mr WELLS: No. As I understand the hypothesis that the honourable member has 5572 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly put forward, a Mafia-type gang comes in from overseas armed to the teeth, breaks down doors, holds up guards and escapes in a hail of bullets. Is that the type of situation about which he is talking? Mr FITZGERALD: Yes. Mr WELLS: It would be absurd if that crime attracted a penalty of seven years. The answer is: no, it would attract a penalty of life or, indeed, more than life. That would involve such offences as going armed in public so as to cause fear. It would also involve offences such as wilful damage to property, escaping from lawful custody, conspiracy to escape from lawful custody and attempted murder. All of those offences would add up to much more than a life sentence. We are removing “forcibly rescues” for the same reason as taking out the word “rescues”. The word “rescues” is archaic. It is not appropriate to talk about prisoners being rescued, because that seems to imply that they have some right not to be in prison in the first place. We are removing that archaic offence of “forcibly rescues” and substituting it with “aiding the escape from lawful custody”. A person can get up to seven years’ imprisonment for that offence alone. If other offences such as attempted murder and going armed so as to cause fear are involved, separate counts will be brought in respect of that. So a person who engages in the behaviour that the member is anticipating would receive a greater sentence cumulatively than a life sentence individually would give that person. Mr FITZGERALD: As to “forcibly rescuing certain offenders”—I agree with the Attorney-General that the word “rescues” certainly has connotations that should not be in this Bill. However, in the case of some escapes, there has been strong suspicion and evidence that cars have been parked outside the gaol, people have thrown tools over fences and have assisted in breaching the wire. It is not inconceivable to think that force will be used when no arms—no guns—are involved; that somebody will force his way in to assist a prisoner to get through that wire. Why is this provision being removed without the insertion of a corresponding provision elsewhere? We are dealing with escaped prisoners. We are also talking about escape from lawful custody, aiding persons to escape from lawful custody, permitting persons to escape, harbouring escaped prisoners, etc. All those provisions are covered in clause 4. Why is “forcibly rescuing certain offenders” being removed? I find it rather curious that that is being removed. I would be happy if the Minister could point out the other relevant sections of the Criminal Code. I believe that it is very serious that this particular offence, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, is being removed from the Code and replaced with an offence that carries a maximum penalty of seven years. I do not imagine that harbouring escaped prisoners will be treated as a summary offence, because it carries a maximum penalty of only two years. I can quite understand the difference there. However, if this Government is getting tough on escaped prisoners, why is that provision being removed? Where in the Criminal Code is provision for the offence of using force to assist a prisoner to escape from lawful custody? Mr WELLS: If we charged an offender with just one offence, namely, the offence that is currently in the Criminal Code which covers the acts that the member described, that offender would actually be liable to a lesser penalty than he would if there were an accumulation of counts of the kind that I have just described. If we have the flexibility to charge that offender with a variety of offences rather than trying to encompass the use of force in that one provision, we would only ever be able to impose a life sentence. In those circumstances, very rarely would such an offender receive a life sentence. Research shows that penalties handed down by the courts for that offence alone have been less than seven years’ imprisonment. There is much more flexibility and the capacity to impose a much heavier sentence, where appropriate, if we rely on the accumulation of counts and identify the various offences that people are committing in the amalgam of events that the member for Lockyer described. The member spoke about the Mafia springing somebody from gaol. In that case, the Criminal Code provides for the offence of going armed so as to cause fear. There would also be a possibility of a charge of attempted murder. If violence was actually Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5573 used, a charge of grievous bodily harm would apply. If it was not grievous bodily harm, it would attract a lesser charge of assault so as to cause actual harm. Various offences of conspiracy could apply, including the conspiracy to escape from lawful custody, and so forth. An accumulation of those charges amounts to much more than a life sentence. The Criminal Code is a very flexible device. In fact, it is so flexible that to constrain the flexibility and the freedom of action of law enforcement authorities by including in the Criminal Code a provision that encourages them to bring all of these behaviours under one provision, actually leads to the consequence that the person concerned is charged with an offence that carries a lesser penalty. Mr FITZGERALD: I am interested in the accumulation of charges and sentences that have been handed down. The Attorney-General is well aware that this probably has not happened in Queensland. Since the beginning of 1991, there have been about 100 escapes. Can the Attorney-General give me one example of a case in which any one escaped prisoner has received a number of cumulative sentences? I asked the Corrective Services Minister how many escaped prisoners were charged under the Criminal Code between 1 January 1991 and 6 May 1992. I was told that there had been three in Queensland, and that one of them had appealed successfully. Of the other two, one was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, and the other to two years. This Government is trying to convince us that it throws the book at them; that it is trying to be tough and will stiffen up the penalties. History speaks for itself. Three of those offenders were charged under the Criminal Code. One of them appealed successfully. The Government has not thrown the book at any of them. The offence that carried a penalty of hard labour for life is being replaced with an offence that carries a maximum penalty of seven years, yet no-one has ever been charged with multiple counts. I believe that the Attorney-General has done nothing. I accuse this Government of putting on a charade—a farce—and not doing anything to achieve the objective. Mr CONNOR: New section 143 provides— “A person who is responsible for keeping another person in lawful custody and permits the other person to escape is guilty of a crime.” Obviously, that provision would pertain to prison officers who are given the responsibility of the security of the prison. In this area, the Government has been very critical of the prison officers, in particular the old guard. On 10 July last year, Queensland was subjected to the terror of one of the largest escapes in its history. The escape included allegations by the Minister, the Premier and others in the Government that disillusioned old guard prison officers, or screws, were behind the rash of escapes. Those allegations were continually being made, even when it was known that they were patently false. As the leaked report shows, the Minister for Police, the Minister for Corrective Services and the Premier’s office were aware even during the investigation, from interim reports, that the problems that allowed the great escape to occur were budget and management oriented and not related to prison officers. When considering a Bill of this nature—in particular, this part of the clause—that involves more than doubling the penalties for escape, we must clearly understand what motivates and allows escapes to occur. The report into the great escape details the procession of events that led up to a catastrophe of this nature. In accordance with the Act, the report of the Queensland Corrective Services Commission involved the following inspectors: Ken Morris from the Queensland Police Service, Steven Lonie from KPMG Peat Marwick, and Trevor Carlyon of the Corrective Services Commission. The report summary starts on page 2 and details the major findings of the inspectors. It states that the eight prisoners were able to escape because Morrell gained access to cutting tools. As much of this was referred to by the member for Lockyer in the second- reading debate, I will not go into it in further detail. The report also states that the Moreton Correctional Centre was not in a state of physical or operational preparedness to receive long-term, high-security prisoners. The major deficiencies included outstanding maintenance work and so on, as outlined by the member for Lockyer. In an effort to try to gain some understanding and apportion some blame, page 3 of the summary stated— 5574 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

“The Queensland Corrective Services Commission engaged in a planning process . . . resulting in a . . . process to consider the closure of a Queensland Correctional Centre. This proposal was resisted by the Director of Custodial Corrections.” The summary went on to say— “These arguments were dismissed and senior management (the Director- General) had imposed a custodial operating budget ceiling of $89 million for the 1991-92 financial year.” The summary concluded— “The total management team under the Director-General are all in some form responsible for the failure of the planning process.” But in closing, the summary of the report also made this observation— “After an escape, considerable attention always seems to be focused on the physical security of the facility.” This is very important— “However, if the findings of this inquiry and previous inspections are taken into account, the key problem area is always a breakdown in the basic procedures regarding: (1) prisoner movement control (2) prisoner searching and (3) prisoner supervision.” The summary went on to say— “The concept of dynamic security is built around people, not physical factors.” It said also— “The custodial officers must be ‘recaptured’ into the system because he or she is on the average, disillusioned and frustrated.” That is the summary that three independent inspectors came up with. What was the response of the Government to that situation? The second in charge of the Custodial Corrections section, Mr Chambers, was publicly castigated and said to have been sacked. The entire management team of the Moreton Correctional Centre received similar treatment. Why was not the Director of Custodial Corrections not dealt with similarly? On page 68 of the report, that may be partially explained. It states— “In late April, early May 1991, Mr Millican, the Director of Custodial Corrections was advised by Mr Hamburger that $89 million was his operational budget ceiling. At this point, Mr Millican considered that the whole planning process was ‘thrown out the door’. The resultant plan to close Woodford Correctional Centre and revise the roles of Sir David Longland and Moreton Correctional Centre was in his, and the opinion of Mr Chambers, Mr Gaten and Mr Reid, not an acceptable plan, but rather one that met the Director-General’s requirements.” However, Messrs Chambers, Gaten and Reid no longer have a job. Why? The inspectors under the Act spoke to all the senior management. Mr Campbell: How does this relate to the clause? Mr CONNOR: It relates to new section 143. It relates specifically to people involved in the running of the prison, which is what I am talking about. At the top of page 39, the report states— “Their collective view was that the objective was to achieve an 89 million dollar operating budget. Accordingly, all future planning and evaluations by the Custodial Corrections Directorate was driven to achieve this result.” As can be clearly seen by the report, the decision to close Woodford and the decision regarding the movement of prisoners to Moreton was all budget driven to achieve a result that would be pleasurable to the Treasury and to the Government. But it goes Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5575 further and talks about some of the decision-making by the Director-General, Mr Hamburger. Mr Millican believed that Olsen and his management team should be moved to Moreton when the high-risk prisoners and the roles were changed between Sir David Longland and Moreton Correctional Centres. He believed that Olsen was far more capable of dealing with those types of prisoners in that he was used to dealing with a high-risk, maximum-security prison. At the top of page 70, the report went on to say— “Mr Millican indicated that he was not pleased to be told by Mr Hamburger that his decision in that area was being overturned.” The report also went on to say— “Mr Gaten’s view (the General Manager of Moreton at the time) of that decision was that he was the ‘sacrificed lamb’ to placate Mr Olsen’s influence with Mr Hamburger, and that whilst accepting Mr Hamburger’s decision, had moved into a ‘I’m leaving the organisation’ mode. So as can be seen, the whole decision- making process revolved around a Government-inflicted budget constraint and that key decisions that affected the outcome were countermanded by the Director- General, Keith Hamburger.” I repeat that the section summary states— “. . . the total management team under the Director-General are all in some form responsible for the failure of the planning process.” It is quite clear that the escape was not by some disgruntled old guard screws, but was management driven and budget driven and that this Government cannot walk away from its responsibility in this area. Mr WELLS: I will respond to the questions that have just been asked of me by the member for Lockyer. He asked, first of all, whether I could recall instances of multiple charges being brought against people who have escaped from lawful custody. The answer is, “Yes.” The second question was: why has the book not been thrown at them in the past? The answer is that under the legislation, which this Government inherited from the National Party, the penalty for escaping from lawful custody was only three years. We are increasing it to seven. That will significantly increase the deterrent. Mr FitzGerald: The Corrective Services legislation is two years. Why are you charging them all under the Corrective Services legislation now? Mr WELLS: That is a matter for the prosecutorial authorities which operate entirely independently of the Government. The Government can make the penalty—the sentencing options—available to the courts, but it cannot interfere with the prosecutorial authorities’ exercise of their discretion. The member for Lockyer also asked, after talking about the Mafia team coming into spring these people: why have we not had a case like that where the book has been thrown at these people with an accumulation of offences? The answer to that question is that we have not, in the last couple of years, had a Mafia hit team coming into Australia with armoured cars and machine guns breaking down the doors of prisons, shooting at prison warders and creating the accumulation of offences. The capacity, nevertheless, is there with this piece of legislation to provide, by means of multiple counts, a stiffer penalty than is currently available for this offence of forcibly aiding escape from custody. I point out that there is a paradox or an anomaly or, indeed, a contradiction in the legislation as it presently stands whereby, for forcibly rescuing somebody, a person can get a life sentence whereas, under the present legislation which we are changing, to actually be rescued or to actually escape one can only get three years. It is rather absurd and ludicrous that the person who is assisting the other to escape could get life for that offence alone, whereas the person who escapes would get only three years. That would be a ludicrous result. The sentences need to be brought into parity. I emphasise, however, that if the person escaping or the person who is aiding the escapee commits other offences in the course of doing so—if they are carrying weapons or if they shoot at anybody, if they hit anybody and thus cause them injury—— Mr FitzGerald: Exceed the speed limit? 5576 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly

Mr WELLS: If they exceed the speed limit, if they break down the door or if they attempt to kill someone, then these are additional counts which can be brought and the end result of doing that will be that the accumulation of possible sentences will be much more than life. Mr CONNOR: In relation again to clause 4 and, in particular, the proposed new section 141 that relates to the aiding of persons who escape from lawful custody and deals with a person who aids a person in lawful custody to escape or attempt to escape—at the moment at the Sir David Longland Centre, the prisoners are setting themselves up as unions, going on strike and putting forward logs of claims. They are negotiating on security-related matters. In particular, they are trying to negotiate that the prisoners who are presently in the detention unit—that is solitary confinement—be released into the general run of the prison. At the same time, it should be remembered that all of those prisoners are in the detention unit because they have attempted to escape, and releasing them back into the general run of the prison will greatly improve their ability to escape. The Sir David Longland Centre holds the worst prisoners in the State. I add that it is the prison that has recently had the super security section built in B block, which was going to house the high and maximum security classified prisoners who had a bad record of escaping. Those are the prisoners such as McSweeney, Carter and Baston. This super prison, as it was called, had additional security measures placed around it. The document that was leaked from the Sir David Longland Centre, which was signed by Kel Olsen, the general manager, stated that “they will have to play it by ear and assess the situation as it unfolds.” The prison is being run on the basis of playing it by ear; there is obviously no forward planning. The prisoners have established themselves as a union with delegates and have lodged a log of claims related to security. Part of the document stated that the prisoners wanted the prisoners in the detention unit to be released into the mainstream prison. What else did these prisoner delegates want? They wanted— “. . . delegates discussed the rate of remuneration and asked that it be increased.” They received that increase. Mr Hamburger announced that there was going to be an increase in pay. They were successful in their strike and partially successful in their log of claims, which was in five parts. They wanted an introduction of new daily routines. Those new routines and the movement of the prisoners from the maximum security section was all about trying to allow them to escape. What was the response of the management to the log of claims? Did they reject outright the effrontery of the strike in the prisons and do a lock-down, as suggested by the member for Lockyer? No, they replied with a three-page document in response to the log of claims. They negotiated while the prisoners held a gun to the head of prison management. Fortunately, the first prisoners’ demand that people in detention or solitary—who invariably were in there, as I said earlier, because they had offended inside the prison or had tried to escape—should be released into the mainstream was rejected. If those types of negotiations had been allowed to proceed, it would certainly have totally undermined the security within the prison and led to escapes. It is also quite unbelievable that the Government would allow these sorts of negotiations to be successful because they will undermine the security of the prison. If the prisoners are given an inch, they will take a mile. They have been successful in their negotiations in relation to conditions and pay and, if they are given the chance, they will continue to negotiate in relation to security-related matters. Mr WELLS: I acknowledge the reference made by the honourable member to the clause, but many of his remarks would be more properly regarded as remarks pertaining to prison administration. I will refer them to the Honourable Minister for his consideration. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Power): Order! In clause 4, “1965” should read “1974”. This clerical error will be corrected at the table. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5577

Bill reported, without amendment.

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

PRIVILEGE

Breach of Privilege by Member for Landsborough Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I note that the member for Landsborough has not returned to the House. I intend to defer consideration of her breach of privilege until the House resumes.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Leader of the House) (12.26 a.m.): I move— “That the House, at its rising, do adjourn to a date and time to be fixed by Mr Speaker in consultation with the Government of this State.” Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 12.27 a.m. (Friday).